HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCT - DEC 1966135
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Police Department Auditorium
at eight o'clock P.M. October 3, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Ross B.
Heights Congreational Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilman Balfanz,
Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of
McGuire of College
approved as presented.
follows:
Doolin, Hosking, Park,
September 26, 1966 were
Stiern,
Adjustment was accepted, and William Jing was appointed to fill the va-
cancy on the Board, term to expire December 1, 1968.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, communication from Mr. Milton Miller re: regulated right of
free speech before the Council assembly as a constitutional right
and not a privilege, was received and ordered placed on file.
Communication from Kern County Water Agency on the subject
of reconvening of adjourned public hearing on proposed zone (s)
of benefit in San J~quin Valley Portion of Kern County to be held
on Tuesday, October 4, 1966 at 7:30 P.M. in the Agency Board
Room 422, had been sent to all members of the Council.
Hearings.
This was the time set for continued hearing of protests
by persons owning real property within territory designated as Casa
Loma #1, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, and time
when objections may be heard to intention of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield to include Casa Loma #1 within the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
resignation of H. E. Bergen as member of the Board of Zoning
136
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 2
Mr. Chester Miller of 1404 South Cottonwood Road said
he owned a little ranch for raising stock and was concerned that if he
were annexed to the City, he would not be permitted to use the ranch
for that purpose.
Councilman Stiern commented that he had been told the
Planning Commission would hold a hearing on R-S zoning of this property
on Wednesday evening, so that he would not be precluded from keeping
livestock just because he had been annexed to the City.
Mr. Al£onso Alderere who lives at 2100 Madison Street, stated
his objections to being annexed to the City and asked that his property
be excluded from the annexation.
Councilman Rucker said he was concerned about the rights of
these various individuals who own property in the area proposed to be
annexed, and felt that they should be given the right to withdraw their
property if they so desire.
Mayor Karlen said there was merit to that statement, but
the overall interests of the entire area should be considered, rather
than the rights of individuals. He then closed the public portion of -the
hearing and proceeded to council comment.
Councilman Hosking said he thinks that what Mr. Alderete and
Mr. Miller have said makes a lot of sense, and he then made a motion
that their property be excluded from this annexation. Councilman
Rucker seconded the motion which failed to carry by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Doolin, Hosking, Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Balfanz, Park, Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Resolution No. 67-66 of the Council of the City of Bakers£ield
declaring that a majority protest has not been made to the annexation
of that territory designated as Casa Loma #1, proposed to be annexed to
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 3
the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whirremote
Noes:
Absent:
None
None
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz,
seconded by Councilmart
Whittemore, Ordinance No. 1642 New Series of the City of Bakersfield
approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory to the City
of Bakersfield, California, designated as Casa Loma #1, and providing for
the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded indebtedness of said
City, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, Resolution No. 68-66 annexing certain territory designated
as Casa Loma #1 to the Greater Bakersfield,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, St iern,
Whittemore
Separation of Grade District
Noes: None
Absent: None
Council Comments.
Councilman Park said: There have been instances
since I have been on the Council when I felt conditions warranted
critical comment. There have been other cases where acts of
meritorious nature have deserved complimentary remarks. Although I
have been critical at times when I felt it necessary, it is always
distressing. On the other hand to recognize merit where credit is
due is always a pleasant experience. What I am about to say this
evening pleases me greatly.
Several months ago this Council asked Mr. Hoagland, our City
137
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 4
Attorney, for his opinion regarding the Council's legal position in
giving the voters of the City of Bakersfield the opportunity to vote
on the question of funding anti-proverty programs. About the same time
the Board of Supervisors asked Mr. Jordan, the County Counsel, for a
similar opinion regarding the County voters. Mr. Jordan returned an opinio~
that the Board could not legally submit the question to the voters.
The following week, Mr. Hoagland returned an opinion to the City Council
that the City Council did indeed have the right to submit the question
to the voters via ballot procedure.
The City Council having complete confidence in Mr. Hoagland's
opinion, set forth to have the issue placed on the November ballot. Last
week a petition was filed in Superior Court by Mr. Gabriel Solomon, an
attorney, and Mr. Belcher and Mr. Shaw, directors of anti-poverty projects,
requesting a restraining order that would prevent the measure from being
printed on the ballot, and thus voiding the people's right to vote on
this vital issue.
A hearing was called before Judge Jellerich last Friday after-
noon for a decision as to whether or not such rearraining order should
be granted. Mr. Hoagland was present to present the City's
position against what appeared to be formidable odds, for not only was
Mr. Solomon there, but also Mr. Jordan, making a strong plea for the
granting of the restraining order. As you all know, Judge Jellerich
recognized the merits of Mr. Hoagland's argument and refused to grant the
order, thus allowing the question to go to the people.
Regardless of the final outcome of this issue, Mr. Hoagland,
it gives me great pleasure to congratualte you for a job well done. You
not only have justified the Council's confidence in you, but much more
important, you have helped preserve the sacred right of the people of
Bakersfield to vote on matters of great importance to them.
Councilman Stiern said: I would like to add my congratulations
to Mr. Hoagland, and intended to do so this evening,
Mr. Park was going to. Mr. Park and I heard part of
I didn't know thai:
the proceedings last
139
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 5
Friday afternoon, we traded our lunch hours and were able to attend
a portion of the hearing, and I congratulate Mr. Hoagland for his
successful work, and I congratulate the people of Bakersfield that
they still live in a democracy where they can exercise their franchise
and their civil rights and vote. Mr. Solomon, Mr. Belcher and Mr. Shaw
saw fit to challenge the right of the people of Bakersfield to vote.
am happy that we have judges who are not so anxious to legislate as they
are to rule in favor of the people's rights, the majority of the
people's rights, and in spite of all the confusion that there has been
about this issue, it is going to be on the ballot and I'm glad that it
is.
Another thing that ! had to say, is that next Tuesday
night there will be an extremely important meeting of LAFCO, on October
11, 1966, relative to the City's position in the Greater Bakersfield
~unicipal Water District, or in the present Bakersfield ~unicipal
Water District. The Water Committee has been pursuing, of course, where we
have been trying to accomplish inexpensive good quality water, we have our
eye on some $30.00 Kern River water, we see other people suggesting
that we buy $80.00 Sacramento water, and we would like to invite those
members of the Council who are not members of the Water Committee, to
please share their opinions with us this week as to our appearance
before LAFCE. We would enjoy hearing your opinions, and if you concur
with our position, fine, and if you have suggestions that we might
make our position more clear next Tuesday night, we would appreciate
hearing them.
Councilman Doolin: I voted to allow the people of Bakersfidd
to vote on the Water District and I think that was my reason for
supporting LAFCO, or supporting the petition that went to LAFCO, and
not supporting the Council's policy on it, because the public signed
the required number of signatures to put it on the ballot. That was the
case where I felt that the people should be given the right to vote,
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 6
although that doesn't mean that I disagree with all the Council's
viewpoint. I was outvoted 6 to 1 - my reason for voting against
the Council's decision was that the public had asked for a vote
and therefore, I voted on that basis, not that I was in
complete disagreement with the Council, I think I have been in general
agreement with them, although I have asked a great many questions
which appeared that maybe I didn't have confidence in them. Of
course, it isn't true that just because I don't vote with them I'm--
Councilman Stiern: May I ask you a question, Mr. Doolin?
Are you in general agreement with the Water Committee that we are
correct in our procedure to obtain, if possible, Kern River water at
around $30 to $35 an acre foot, in preference to the Water Agency's
avowed plans to cram $80 Sacramento water down our throats?
Councilman Doolin: Mr. Stiern, I am in agreement with you
100%, because this is one of the few places that I have lived in my
lifetime that didn't get their water directly from the river.
Councilman Stiern: We on the Committee would respectfully
suggest that if you are in agreement with our plan to obtain the
cheapest possible water and the best possible water, that it might
be well to re-examine the Water Abency's grandiose schemes for the
Greater Bakersfield Municipal Water District.
Councilman Doolin: They are two different things, assuming
that not only could the City get the cheaper water, I am assuming also
that the Water District could do the same.
Councilman Stiern: They are two different things, Mr.
Doolin, if you go along with the Greater Bakersfield Municipal Water
District, you are going to get Sacramento water. If you go along
with another plan, you going to get the cheapest water.
Councilman Doolin: I am not quite sure that I see the logic to
it. Now remember, I haven't said I was for or against the Metropolitan
Water District, I merely said that I supported the right of the people
to go out and get a petition, they are two different things.
141
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 7
Now, I believe a Water District would have the same
right to make an agreement with the present water users of the Kern
River, I would assume they would have, because it was implied that
the ~istric~ could do that, I would assume, therefore, that a larger
Water District could do the same. I have never said that I'm in
favor of getting more expensive water, Dick, I --
Councilman Stiern: Mr. Doolin, did you read the Stetson
report?
Councilman Doolin: Yes, I did.
Councilman Stiern: Did you notice the part in there where
Mr. Stetson pointed out that the City of Bakersfield was going to
pay 24 times the zone of benefit tax that an agricultural district
immediately adjacent to the City of Bakersfield~was going to pay
for the same water?
Councilman Doolin: Well,
difference between the cost that the
I asked him, Mr. Stiern, the
City and the farmers, the ranchers,
and he indicated that generally speaking, the water in the City was
more expensive, however, that it was true in this case that the
cost of the water would be higher than normal in an urban area.
Councilman Stiern: In lieu of that taxing proposal that
I've just mentioned, can you think it conceivable that the Water
Agency is going to pursue a course where they get Sacramento water
for the farmers and the Kern River water for the Greater Bakersfield
area?
Councilman Doolin: I have always maintained that we should
get the cheapest water that we can, whether its the City getting it or the
Greater Water District getting it, both of them have the authority
to do such.
Councilman Stiern: Well, at this late date, I think it's
quite obvious that if the Water Agency gets it, it's going to be
Sacramento water.
i42
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 -- Page 8
Councilman Doolin: I'm talking in terms of a District
separate from the Water Agency. It's been said that the Water Agency
was the creator of this. This I don't Know. I know that the Water
Agency evidently is in favor of a Greater District.
Councilman Stiern: Well, if you had attended the LAFCO
meeting with us and seen the proponents of the Greater Bakersfield
District stand up and speak in favor of the District, they numbered
three. They were Mr. Bottorff, Mr. Curran and Mr. Mull, all employees
of the Kern County Water Agency.
Councilman Doolin: No,
And that's all the proponents there
it isn't, Dick, there were thousands
of people who signed a petition for the right to vote on that, and
whether they were there or not, they were there by the fact that they
put their names on a petition.
Councilman Stiern:
only way they could go.
Councilman Doolin:
with that.
Councilman St iern:
Councilman Doolin:
And then they were told that that's the
That I don't know, I wouldn't argue
The dry faucet and --
I'm going to assume that the people were
intelligent enough to know what they're signing on the thing. This is
your own viewpoint. I've heard to the contrary. I do respect your
viewpoint and I believe that they still- the fact that they went out and
got the signatures on there and the people put it on there, I felt that
the Council was denying these people the right to vote and not on the
basis that I want to buy more expensive water, In fact I don't think
I have ever said that.
Councilman Park: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a statement
here regarding the formation of the Greater Bakersfield Water District,
and remind Mr. Doolin that in the formation of the Greater Bakersfield
Municipal Water District, the City will furnish approximately 50% of
the assessed valuation for such a district, while at the same time
having approximately 1/3 of the representation on such a Board. I
143
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 9
think it's a rather pragmatic issue at this point. We know what
the City Council can do. We haven't the faintest idea of what a
proposed Board for a proposed District would do in this regard, with
the assessed valuation of the City o£ Bakersfield.
! was elected by the people of Bakersfield to serve this City.
! believe that, at least in my opinion, if I anything less than to protect
the tax base of this City, I would not be performing my function on the
City Council. I think the only way that I can do this, and do it to the
best of my ability, is to see that the people have a right to vote on our own
Bakersfield Nunicipal Water District which can be expanded, which can
have the entire City, plus areas outside of the City, annexed to it with no
obligation. To see that it is protected, to see that the people have
a right to vote on it and hope that they will protect it and preserve
it, thus leaving the City of Bakersfield excluded from any proposed
Greater Bakersfield District which would have the use of the Bakersfie]Ld
tax base to use as they see fit. To buy State water, to make any kind of
an exchange agreement, whatever they might do or care to do, in
regard to negotiating £or water.
We know what we can do. We know that Kern River water is
available to the City of Bakersfield. We know that we can purchase
it, and we know that we can do that, but we haven't the faintest idea
of what a proposed Greater Bakersfield Municipal Water District Board
of Directors might do.
Councilman Doolin: Nr. Mayor, may I answer that? It is very'
important, the cost, but there are things that are much more important
than money. One of the basic rights is petition, it's in the
Constitution, and what I felt
the right of petition to vote.
way I respect yours. But the
we were doing was denying individuals
I hope that you respect my right the
second thing, we may be assuming that the
people on the outside will vote for this, Mr. Park, I am not too sure
that they will. What they're doing is voting a District which certainly
would cost money. Now, I'm not sure that on the outside they would vote
144
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 30
for it. I can't question whether they are going to vote for or
against it. The only thing I can question is the right of the people
to go out and get a petition and put it on the ballot and I feel that
I couldn't deny them this right, I feel that if it was put on the
ballot, then the Council members and others would have the right to
speak out and give their viewpoints as we are doing tonight. And
that was my reason for voting against it.
Councilman Stiern: Let me ask something, Mr. Doolin. You
allude to the right of the people to vote because of the circulation
of the petition and I agree that the people do have the right to
vote, and the speech I made a little while ago about my civil rights
in relation to the initiative on the ballot, I meant. I enjoy the fact
that I can vote on things. Let me ask you this, though. Suppose the
Water Committee took a position next Tuesday night in relation to the
recommendation which has been made to LAFCO which is that the Greater
Bakersfield Municipal Water District be formed subject to the
dissolution of the Bakersfield Municipal Water District and the
Directors of the Bakersfield Municipal Water District have recommended
that that District, if it be dissolved, be dissolved by a vote of the
people in the District. Now, it is entirely possible that your Water Com-
mittee will go before LAFCO and plead that the matter of dissolution
of that existent district be subject to the vote of the people in the
District. Would it bother you greatly if that was our recommendation?
Councilman Doolin: No, you're asking ---
Councilman Stiern: Isn't that in relation to what you are
talking about, about people voting?
Councilman Coolin: You are asking me if I would have any
objection if the people vote on dissolving the District, certainly
I wouldn't.
Councilman Stiern: If we took that position, it wouldn't
offend you too much?
Councilman Doolin: No, but this wasn't the thing. You
went before LAFCO and were turned down.
Councilman Stiern: We asked for exclusion.
145
Bakersfield,
Councilman Doolin:
Councilman Stiern:
them for exclusion.
California, October 3, 1966 - Page 11
Not in the beginning you didn't.
Yes, we did. Last February we asked
Councilman Doolin: Well, the thing changed and then you
asked not to, and then there was the possibility of forming a Water
District. I think one thing you overlooked was the fact that the City
does have the right, as a City, to negotiate for the water rights on the
Kern River, that is the whole City, and I believe under the present situation,
I think the last time you went before them you would not have included
all of the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Stiern: Well, Mr. Doolin, where did the idea come
from? Have you ever heard anybody suggest that negotiations be made to.
procure water for the people of Greater Bakersfield from the Kern
River, have you ever heard such a suggestion from anyone except the
Bakersfield City Council? What group has suggested this? Suddenly the
Kern County Water Agency has discovered that there's a Kern River out
there, it's been flowing by for 50,000 years. The reason they discovered
it is because we insisted that it be used.
Councilman Doolin: Well, I think, Dick, I don't remember
whether you were on the Council, I think you were, when it was
discussed on the Council that the Council did have the right to do,
I think it was before we had our Water Agency. If you've ever lived
in an area - it is pretty well known that cities normally have the
prerogative for the use of the river, in fact most cities have obtained
that right a long time ago.
Councilman Stiern: Well then, why have they been trying to sell
us Sacramento sewer water for $80.00'an acre foot?
Councilman Doolin: I don't know what - it sounds like
somebody else I know about - you talking about "they", I assume you
mean the Water --
Councilman Stiern: I'm talking about the Kern County Water
Agency Board of Directors.
146
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 12
Councilman Doolin: Well, I don't know that. I know only
one thing, that my reasons for voting was I wanted - as long as they
had a petition with the required number, I felt that I wanted the
people to have the right to vote. It had nothing to do with the amount
water. I'll go with you a 100%, I think we ought to get the water as
cheap as possible, and the Kern River undoubtedly is it.
interrupt at this point, Mrs. Balfanz
Mayor Karlen: May we
a connnent.
Councilwoman Balfanz:
has
for the
Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to say
that I don't need to say this, the water situation is a very complex
problem and I believe that when people voted on the formation of the
Agency in the first place, they voted through fear, that was the only
thing which was presented, that you wouldn't have any water, and people
voted through fear only. There was not enough investigation, there were
not enough facts presented at the time, and I don't believe that people
had - I know that they didn't have, a complete understanding of the
situation. I want to compliment our Water Committee in bringing out
some of these facts which we should have had long ago, and I also want
to go on record of being very much in favor of getting the cheaper water.
Councilman Hosking: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council.
Last Friday night, my brother at the Bar, Tom Werdel, passed from this
world. The Kern County Bar Association, for whom I speak, and the City
of Bakersfield, are the less for it. Thomas H. Werdel was first of all
a man of principle and then a very fine lawyer. It was my good fortune, to have
been associated with him for some years, and I knew him well. He felt that it
was necessary to serve his fellow man. He did so first, by representing
his County and this Community in the State Legislature, and
then the State, in the Congress of the United States. Tom served the
City in many capacities, the most recent being a Member of our
Inter-Group Relations Board. I say that he was a man taking all in all,
that I shall not look upon his like again. I hope that he rests in peace.
147
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 13
Councilman Doolin: I intended to bring something up
tonight. I got into a debate on the water, I guess it was not a debate,
it was a discussion. This is one thing which I think has concerned
the Council for a long time. I don't know the answer to it, but it's
on annexation. I'm very happy that the Chamber of Commerce has a
special committee studying it. I don't want anyone who is involved
in annexation procedures, the members of the staff, the others, the young
lady who has been working on this very diligently - but the thing that
concerns me and has for a long time, is what type of a selling job are
we doing other than just direct contact with an area which we do when
working on one special annexation.
If you go back for ten years, there have been very few
inhabited are~ which have been annexed. We have had two along between
"H" and "A" Street, one precinct to the north and one to the south,
and then we have this one on Pierce Road, which as far as the number
of people coming in is quite small. Most of our annexations have
been in the uninhabited area, and I am very happy to see that, in
other words, we were not able to do that a few years ago. It's been a
selling job to the subdividers, and most of the time when a subdivider
gets ready to build and he is adjacent to the City, he almost invari~bly
wants to come into the City, I think you have done a fine job there.
But I'm wondering what kind of a selling job we're doing outside of
our efforts to sell one given area. Recently, I think it was about llO0
registered voters in that area, a pretty big one, in fact it was the
largest attempted for over ten years, and the result was a petition of
51 or 52% who didn't want to annex to the City.
Now, I'm not critical of anyone, only throw out the possibility
of instead of trying to sell one area as we try to annex it, I think
we've got to sell the City every day rather than wait for one area.
I am sure that every Council member here, members of the administrative
staff and the Mayor, constantly have been asked about the question of
annexation and how much more taxes it would cost, and every time you l~ell
people it would be cheaper, they either think you are an idiot or an
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 Page 14
awful big liar.
you just can't
to bring facts
Some people you can convince on it, and others,
convince them. What I'm getting across is one way
directly, I appreciate Mr. Bergen's discussion to an
organization, but I think we've got to do more of this, this selling
job. I think Mr. Bergen knows what I am trying to get across, and I
hope the Council does, it isn't a criticism, because I'm real happy
with what we are doing. But I think we are going to have to do a
bigger selling job, or if you want to call it public relations, or
whatever you want to call it. Now these are comments, they are not
criticisms, and I am sure that all Council members have had the same
thing facing them. We are doing a fine job on certain aspects of our
annexation program, but I'm wondering if we can't do a selling job every
day in the whole area rather than one concentrated area.
Mayor Karlen: I think basically this is what the Chamber
of Commerce Committee is designed to do, Mr. Doolin.
Councilman Stiern: I think that Committee will go a long
way, your Honor, and I think that the Stanford Research survey will
go a long way toward demonstrating that the residents of the incorperated
cities of Kern County are paying far more than their fair share of
taxation and that some people aren't carrying quite enough of their
share of taxation, and when that inequity is corrected, and the City
resident pays his fair share, I think it will be a much simpler process
to annex people to cities. They don't have to pay twice.
Councilman Park: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment briefly on
this. I feel that this Chamber of Commerce Committee is a step in the
right direction, towards the goals that Mr. Doolin has mentioned. I
believe that the most important thing that we can do is to create a~
image for the City of Bakersfield whereby the people in the outlying'
areas will want to annex. There are many prejudices and fears that
people have outside the City of Bakersfield. Now, I think this year
we have taken a step by cutting the tax rate by 17%, that probably
is one of the most important factors in creating an image of responsibility,
of economy in government, and those things that are necessary for the
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 Page 15
people outside the City of Bakersfield to have confidence in us. I
believe that if we persist in the types of programs and the goals that
we have set forth to do and to be very careful in those items which are
going to throw our tax rate completely out of line, completely out of
balance, those large items that will completely unbalance our system
to the extent that it will make it unprofitable for people to come into
our city. I think we must be constantly alert on these things. I believe
that this Council can do a great deal in creating that image that is
necessary for the people to have confidence in the City of Bakersfield
and some of those things are working together, trying to eliminate
as much of the argument that sometimes is not too important, and to create
a general image of responsible government, so that the people will look
up to the City of Bakersfield and realize the accomplishments that we
are making.
Mayor Karlen: I would like to just correct just one thing,
however. It wasn't 17%, it was 6%, or 17~. That would be fine, I wish
it were.
Councilman Rucker: When they were speaking about the idea
of interested people in the County coming into the City, I was very happy
to hear that because this was a remarkable piece of work that was done
by some of our citizens who might have had some differences or grievances
with the City of Bakersfield. They took it through the proper channels,
and of course, the City Attorney was fortunate in being able to defeat
them. And I think that this sort of thing gives each individual who
might not live in the City and who is interested in an increase in taxes,
to know that the City is being fair and honest to all of its citizens,
and I think will encourage other citizens to come into this City.
Councilman Hosking: Mr.
his invocation, used a phrase that
mentioned "creative listening." I
that
also.
Mayor, the Reverend Mr. McGuire in
I thought was stunning when he
think if we did a little more of
on the Council and proceeded with our business, it might be well,
Councilman Whittemore: I would second that.
i,50
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 16
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilmall
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 1061 to 1144 inclusive, in amount of $66,882.52,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Approval of State Employees' Retirement
System quadrennial actuarial valuation
Contract with the firm of Coates, Herfurth
and England.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, the State Employees' Retirement System quadrennial actuarial
valuation Contract with the firm of Coates, Herfurth and England,
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on appeal of James E. Smith to decision
of the Board of Zoning Adjustment denying
his application for a variance to permit
the construction of a 24 unit apartment
building on that certain property designated
as 701 to 715 "A" Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, date of October 31, 1966 was set for hearing before the
Council on an appeal of James E. Smith to decision of the Board of
Zoning Adjustment denying his application for a variance of an R-2
(Two-Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction, operation and[
maintenance of a 24 unit apartment building on that certain property'
designated as 701 to 715 "A" Street.
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Completion
of Contract No. 74-66 for Construction of
Portland Cement Concrete Median Island Curbs
on Panorama Drive and on Columbus Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the Work was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Notice of Completion of Contract No. 74-66 for Construction of
Portland Cement Concrete Median Island Curbs on Panorama Drive and on
Columbus Street.
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 17
Approval of Agreement with Pacific Gas
& Electric Company for Service Riser Pipe
for electrical energy to Jefferson Park.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Agreement with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company covering
Service Riser Pipe connection for electrical energy to Jefferson Park,
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Street Lighting Plan
for Tract 2942.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Street Lighting Plan for Tract 2942, located south of Ming
Avenue and west of Stine Canal, was approved.
Construction of Freeway Ramps
near Union Avenue.
A communication from the Division of Highways indicates that
if the Council wishes to relocate ramps for Freeway 178, a resolution
requesting such change must be adopted without delay. Traffic projects
indicate that the alternate location would result in traffic congeslion
at Union Avenue and it is recommended that no change be requested in.
the construction plans.
Mayor Karlen said the only comment he has heard is the
fact that there were many who wished it had never been located there
in the first place. This recommendation comes from the City staff as well
as the State Division of Highways.
Councilman Stiern: This action is probably the last action
that we will take relative to the Freeway. I'm not going to oppose
the recommendation of the staff, which would be rather foolhardy.
But, as I said before, I think that freeway was constructed in the
wrong place, dozens of people were uprooted unnecessarily, much
property was destroyed unnecessarily, much business is going to be
lost along the route of the freeway because of the ineptness in choosing
the site. I think four members of the City Council made a very poor
judgment when they voted to approve that route, I think time will
show that the businesses in that area are going to reap the benefit
of that poor judgment.
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 18
Councilwoman Balfanz; This happens to be in my Ward and I
want to offer a comment. It is well known that I was very much against
the location of this freeway in the beginning and my vote will show
that. Since it has gone that way, a 4 to 3 vote, and I did all that
I could to try to stop it at that location and was unsuccessful,
and I'm not an engineer I haven't the slightest idea of traffic counts,
I think I will have to adhere to the recommendation of the staff and
the Division of Highway engineers.
City Manager: I have one comment I would like to make.
The primary discussion is in regards to the adverse effect that this
could have on some businesses and residences adjacent to where these
ramps are constructed, and I think there is some merit in this type of
discussion regarding the traffic. I would suggest that the Council
perhaps pass a resolution which would request the State Highway Comlaission
to advance the construction of the continuation of this 178 Freeway
in the vicinity of Mt. Vernon and Columbus, because you can see the
problem that we're having here is the location of the ramps to serve
the majority of traffic that is going to be on Niles and Monterey.
Once this freeway is connected to the 178 Highway and Alfred Harrell
Highway several miles east of the City of Bakersfield, at that time then
the freeway ramps could be reversed, and you would have the freeway
traffic there, and certainly if the Council is going to support the
recommendation of the Division of Highways on the basis of traffic here,
something perhaps to speed up the time schedule would not be in vair~, or
at least it wouldn't hurt anything.
Councilwoman Balfanz asked Mr. Bergen if he thought
that would help any, at least if the Council passed a resolution to that
effect.
Mr. Bergen: I don't believe it would hurt and at least
it would help. I know that we have talked to the Division of Highways
on several occasions and this was the problem, and I know Mr. Deffebach has
indicated that he was going to try to request funds and get this other
1.53
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 19
phase completed. I certainly think the City of Bakersfield is one
of the prime recipients of this freeway and it would make this freeway
much more usable, because the freeway w~11 really be a local street
from Alta Vista to Mr. Vernon. This would accomplish the thing the adjacent
property owners would like to see and that is the reversing
of these ramps to allow for free movement for certain areas.
Councilwoman Balfanz said she would like to move that the
staff proceed with this recommendation and have it ready for the
Council's consideration at the next meeting. Councilman Whittemore
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilman Whirremote said apparently there is no interchange
planned for Mt. Vernon and the freeway, there is an overpass over the
railroad tracks comming onto Mt. Vernon, which makes it the most
readily accessible street in the system, but the interchange has been
moved over to Haley Street. He said he thinks now is the time to have
a re-evaluation of it as they are still in the rough stages of
construction, and it should be rectified, if it is necessary to put
in two interchanges.
Councilman Rucker said it doesn't matter where the freeway
is constructed, there will be some people who are not happy with the
location. He stated that the administrative staff perhaps should have
made a thorough study with the State Division of Highways relative to
the location of the ramps,etc., so that they would ~ave been placed in
the proper location in the beginning, and such discussions as they have
had tonight would not have been necessary.
Councilwoman Balfanz said Mr. Rucker was not on the Council
at the time the freeway was considered, but the Planning Staff did
present three different proposals which they thought were much better,
but the State Division of Highways would not even consider them.
After further discussion, the Council went on record as
accepting the recommendation of the administrative staff and the
State Division o£ Highways that no change be requested in the construction
plans for the 178 Freeway.
154
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 20
Councilman Park: Before we leave this subject, I would like
to explore Mr. Whittemore's comments regarding a ramp at Mr. Vernon,
I certainly agree with Mr. Whittemore. I can visualize tremendous traffic
jams at Haley and Columbus interchange. This is a mistake in the making,
and before we discuss the extension of the freeway as suggested by
Mr. Bergen, and I agree with that, I think we should take a look and
see what can be done at this point to request an interchange at Mr. Vernon,
as this is going to be a large business district in the future. Council-
man Park then made a motion, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, that the
staff evaluate the matter of off and on ramps being located at Mr. Vernon
Avenue.
Acceptance of Deed of Easement from
Kern County Joint Union High School
District for A to F Connection.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Stiern,
seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, Deed of Easement from the Kern
County Joint Union High School District, was accepted.
Acceptance of Right of Way Deed from
Mildred MacDonald and Alvin E. Horton
for 20 foot alley in Block 4, Laguna
Square.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by
Councilman Park, right of Way Deed from Mildred MacDonald and Alvin
E. Horton for 20 foot alley in Block 4, Laguna Square, was accepted.
Approval of Letter of Agreement to improve
20 foot alley in Block 4, Laguna Square and
accompanying $5,000.00 contract bond.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park and seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, letter of Agreement from Mildred MacDonald and Alvin E.
Horton for the improvement of 20 foot alley in Block 4, Laguna Square,
and accompanying $5,000.00 Contract Bond was approved, and ordered
placed on file.
155
Bakersfield, California, October 3, 1966 - Page 21
Councilman Stiern extended an invitation to the entire
Council to attend the meeting at LAFCO next Tuesday Night, October ll,
1966, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, as it is an
extremely important meeting. The decision that comes out of that
meeting and is recommended to the Board of Supervisors, and in turn
the decision of the Board of Supervisors, is extremely important to
the City of Bakersfield, so he urged the entire Council to attend the
meeting.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Rucke]?,
the meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
ATTEST:
c o-t '
·
C! i erk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
157
Bakersfield, California~ October 10, 1966
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Police Auditorium at
eight o'clock P. M. October 10, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Gerald Deaton,
Minister of Education of the First Christian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker,
Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: Councilman Park
Minutes of the regular meeting of October 3, 1966
were approved as submitted.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Jim Mason addressed the Council relative to the majority
of outside workers employed by the City of Bakersfield Waste Disposal
Department having joined Local Union 458, American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, and that said Local Union 458 is the
collective bargaining agent for the group of employees named. The
City Manager was requested to evaluate the situation and report back
to the Council.
Correspondence.
A communication was received from the Association of Kern
County Cities requesting the Council to submit a representative to
serve on the Community Action Program Committee to fill the vacancy
due to the resignation of Councilman William H. Park. Upon a motion
by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Whirremote, the name
of Councilman Don Doolin was submitted to the Association of Kern
County Cities as a representative to serve on the CAP Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, communication from R. E. Deffebach, District Engineer,
relative to the City of Bakersfield Federal-Aid Urban Extension
Construction Program for the Improvement of South "H" Street between
Ming Avenue and White Lane, was referred to the City Manager.
158
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 2
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, communication from the Junior League of Bakersfield stating
that this group wished to go on record as supporting the development
of a Master Plan for the future use of the land in Central Park, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Statements.
Councilman Hosking stated that he was asked by Justice
Conley, presiding Justice of the Fifth District Court of Appeals,
to address that Bench upon the swearing in of Judge Roy Gargano,
which occured on October 10, 1966 at 10:00 A.M. in Fresno. No one
has ever been appointed to an Appellate Bench before from Kern County,
and this is a first for the County. He stated that he wanted to
congratulate Justice Gargano and wish him well in his new position.
Councilman Doolin invited the Mayor and the members of the
Council to participate in the Veterans Day Parade by riding in the
parade.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, chairman of the Special Committee on
Business License Tax and Procedure, reported that the Committee's
work is nearing completion and they expect to finalize its work
and distribute a rather extensive report to the Council within the next
30 days. He asked that any suggestions or recommendations be made to
the Committee at this time. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin,
seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, the report was received and placed
on file.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Vouchers Nos. 1145 to 1246 inclusive, in amount of $37,974.1.7,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 3
Acceptance of Bid of Griffith Co.
for Columbus Street Improvement between
Mt. Vernon Avenue and 400 feet west of
Auburn Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, low unit prices bid by Griffith Co. were accepted, all other bids
were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Appointment of Mr. Donald S. Hopkins
as Member of the Board of Charity
Appeals and Solicitations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by
Councilman Doolin, Mr. Donald S. Hopkins of 24 Cypress Street, was
appointed as a Member of the Board of Charity Appeals and Solicitations
to fill the vacancy on the Board due to the resignation of Mr. Richard
S. Bruce, term to expire October 1, 1967.
Approval of Agreement with East
Bakersfield Progressive Club for
Holiday decorations.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Agreement with the East Bakersfield Progressive Club for
Holiday decorations was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
Approval of Agreement with the
Downtown Business Association for
Holiday decorations.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Agreement with the Downtown Business Association for Holiday
decorations was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 69-66 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield that
no change be requested in the construction
of the ramps in the vicinity of Union
Avenue for the 178 Freeway; and formally
requesting the Division of Highways to
expedite as quickly as possible the
extension of this Freeway so as to connect
with Highway 178 and the Alfred Hartell
Highway.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution No. 69-66 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
that no change be requested in the construction of the ramps in the
160
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 4
vicinity of Union Avenue for the 178 Freeway; and formally requesting
the Division of Highways to expedite as quickly as possible the extension
of this Freeway so as to connect with Highway 178 and the Alfred
Hattell Highway, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Park
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.786 to the Municipal
Code (Speed Limit on Bernard Street between
Mount Vernon Avenue and Oswell Street).
First reading was given to An Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.786 to the Municipal Code (Speed
Limit on Bernard Street between Mount Vernon Avenue and Oswell Sireel;).
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.753 to the Municipal
Code (Speed Limit on Oswell Street between
Bernard Street and Columbus Street).
First reading was given to An Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.753 to the Municipal Code
on Oswell Street between Bernard Street and Columbus
(Speed Limit
Street).
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Seclion 7.34.070 of Chapter 7.34 (Cards and
Cardrooms) of the Municipal Code of the City
of Bakersfield.
First reading was given An Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield amending Section 7.34.070 of Chapter 7.34 (Cards
and Cardrooms) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.
Claim for damages from Linda Marie
White referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, claim for damages from Linda Marie White was referred to
City Attorney.
Appointment of Councilman William H.
Park as Member of the Council's Industrial
Development Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 5
Doolin, Councilman William H. Park, was appointed as the third member
of the Council's Industrial Development Committee.
Reception of communication from American
Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Local Union No. 458
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, communication from the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, Local Union No. 458, indicating
that the majority of outside workers employed by Bakersfield Waste
Disposal Department had joined Local
ordered placed on file, and referred
Committee for study.
Union No. 458, was received and
to the Governmental Efficiency
Petition from Downtown Business Men to
implement Revitalization Plan for Downtown
Bakersfield referred to the Industrial
Development Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, petition submitted by the Downtown Business Men requesting the
City Council to proceed with the formation and implementation of
certain proposals contained in the revitalization plan for the
Downtown area was received and referred to the Industrial Development
Committee.
Administrative Staff instructed to take
necessary action to re-evaluate the 178
Freeway Agreement to provide for
Construction of a Grade Separation at
Wenatchee Avenue.
In accordance with recommendation of the Planning Commission,
upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Rucker,
the Administrative Staff was instructed to take the necessary action
to re-evaluate the 178 Freeway Agreement with the Division of Highways,
with particular reference to the need of a Grade Separation at
Wenatchee Avenue.
Date set for hearing before the Council
for zoning upon annexation to an R-S
(Residential Suburban), or more restrictive,
Zone, for that certain property in the County
of Kern located on the northeast corner of
the intersection of Watts Drive and Cottonwood
Road (Casa Loma #1 Annexation).
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
162
Bakersfield,
California,
October 10, 1966 - Page 6
Doolin, date of October 31, 1966 was set for hearing before the Council
for zoning upon annexation to an R-S (Residential Suburban) or more
restriclive, Zone, for that certain property in the County of Kern
located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Watts Drive
and Cottonwood Road (Casa Loma #1 Annexation).
Date set for hearing before the Council
to amend the Zoning Boundaries from an
R-S (Residential Suburban) Zone to a
C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive Zone, for those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 2420 to 2650 Ming Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, date of November 7, 1966 was set for hearing before the Council
on recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the zoning boundaries
from an R-S (Residential Suburban) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial -
Architectural Design) Zone, for those certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield commonly known as 2420 to 2650 Ming Avenue.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on recommendation of the Planning Commission
to amend the zoning boundaries for those
certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
bounded on the south by Planz Road, on the
west by Tract 1878, and on the north and east
by the Kern Island Canal (Planz Park #9
Annexation).
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, date of November 7, 1966 was set for hearing before the
Council on recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3
(Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, zone, for those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield bounded on the south by Planz
Road, on the west by Tract 1878 and on the north and east by the Kern
Island Canal (Planz Park #9 Annexation).
J6;
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 7
Acceptance of Grant Deed from Howard
C. Mobus, et al, for property required
for the widening of South "H" Street
between Brundage Lane and Ming Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Grant Deed from Howard C. Mobus, et al, for property required
for widening of South "H" Street right-of-way to its ultimate of ll0
feet between Brundage Lane and Ming Avenue was accepted.
Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed from the
A. T. & S. F. Railway Company for
property along the northerly side of
California Avenue between Oak Street
and "A" Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Quitclaim Deed from the A. T. & S. F. Railway Company for
a 7.5 foot-wide strip of property along the northerly side of
California Avenue between Oak Street and "A" Street was accepted.
Encroachment Permit granted Bultman,
Bianchi and Kelly, Attorneys.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, Encroachment Permit was granted Bultman, Bianchi & Kelly,
Attorneys, for encroachment of office building at 1613 - 16th Street.
Hearings.
This was the time set for hearing on intention of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield to order the vacation of a portion of
property return N. E. corner Ming Avenue and Castro Lane in the City
of Bakersfield, and the City Clerk reported that this hearing was duly
posted and no written protests were received in her office. No one
being present to offer any objections, the Mayor declared the
public hearing closed. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
seconded by Councilman Hosking, Resolution No. 70-66 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of a portion of
property return N. E. Corner Ming Avenue & Castro Lane in the City
of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Park
164
Bakersfield~ California, October
lO, 1966 - Page 8
This being the time set for hearing objections to the
intention of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to grant gas
and electric franchises to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company pursua~1t
to the Charter of the City of Bakersfield and the Franchise Act of 1937,.
the City Clerk reported that the hearing had been duly advertised
and no written objections had been received in her office.
Mr. Ray Sirman, District Manager for Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, read a prepared statement which he said he hoped would answer
any questions the Council might have, stating that the present franchise
is a term franchise, but the one the Council is considering this
evening is an indeterminate franchise, otherwise the wording is exactly
the same as the franchise which they now have with the City of Bakersfield.
He stated that the indeterminate franchise permits cheaper
financing in Public Utility Bonds, which is reflected in reduced rates.
In order to qualify such Bonds for purchase by Savings Banks, etc.
the Utility must possess throughout the major portion of the service
area, franchises that are either indeterminate or have an assured term
of five years beyond the life of such Bonds. This means that if a
franchise is not indeterminate, but is for say, fifty year terms,
such as they now have with the City of Bakersfield, the new Bonds
are issued for 40 years, then the fifty year franchise will only serve
to qualify bonds issued for a period of five years after the effective
date of the franchise. An indeterminate franchise eliminates the
higher rates which would otherwise be required to amortize the cost
of plant within the franchise territory during the life of a fixed
term franchise. It assures greater financial and plant stability
and more readily attracts capital, these circumstances in turn,
assure better service to the public. Replacement and improvements
can then be made without the threat of renewal of existing or
expiring franchises.
On the other hand, the City is in no way prejudiced by the
grant of the indeterminate franchise. A street use franchise is
merely a secondary easement in public streets granted for a public
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 9
utility company to install and operate facilities in such streets,
in order to distribute utility service to the public. The franchise
is always subordinate to the superior demands and growing needs of
the public's primary easement for travel and pedestrian use. This
secondary easement for street use franchise is always non-exclusive.
It places no restrictions on competition or public ownership, nor
does it affect any rights which the City has to condemn the properties
of the public utility. It is subject to all the police powers of tlhe
state and of a city to regulate and exercise of such franchise in tlhe
interests of public safety and welfare.
The Pacific Gas & Electric Company now has indeterminate
franchises under the Franchise Act of 1937 in 203 of the 206 incorporated
cities in which it serves.
It was brought out that there are some areas within the
City at this time which are served by the Southern California Gas
Company, and Mr. Sirman stated that they are not the sole supplier of
gas within the City of Bakersfield and the boundaries are established
and certificated by the Public Utilities Commission.
Councilman Doolin stated that rather than make a determination
tonight, he would prefer to study the matter further and continue tile
hearing for two weeks.
Councilman Hosking stated he would like to hear City Manager
Bergen's point of view. Councilman Stiern stated that he too, would
like to hear any comments that Mr. Bergen might have, particularly in
reference to the monetary return to the City.
City Manager Bergen stated it was his understanding that
there would be no change in the monetary return to the City, and
Mr. Sirman said it would be exactly the same.
Mr. Bergen stated that as far as he is concerned the City
of Bakersfield does not intend to go into the gas or electric business
and that the City enjoys an excellent relationship with the P. G. & E.
He stated that he has attempted to evaluate this matter in order to
Bakersfield,
California,
October 10,
1966 - Page 10
make a recommendation to the Council. Currently, the City of Bakersfield
does not grant any other utilities an indeterminate franchise. From
an administrative point of view, he would recommend that they not
award an indeterminate franchise because they cannot foresee what
circumstances can lie ahead which would place the City at a
disadvantage in the future. They see no advantage to granting an
indeterminate franchise, and a disadvantage in that the City will lose
some flexibility with its utilities. The City is already pre-empted
by the California Utility Commission in the regulation of this type
of utility.
P. G.
and this would
& E. has currently been granted a fifty year franchise
further eliminate what little control the City retains.
At least with a fixed period, the City and P. G. & E. know that within
a definite period negotiations will take place for the then existing
conditions. P. G. & E. claims that if they are awarded an indeterminate
franchise by the cities which they serve, it would make it easier fo:~
them to float bond issues. However, on a state-wide basis, the opera-
tion in Bakersfield would be ~nsidered a very small portion and would
probably have very little effect on the overall bond sales. From a
practical point of view, we find it is difficult to foresee all possible
contingencies for a period of fifty years, let alone for an indefinite
period, therefore, we would recommend that the City not award an indefinite
franchise to P. G. & E. at this time.
After further discussion, th~ hearing was continued for
two weeks, and this was considered first reading of the ordinances
granting franchises to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company for transmitting
Gas and Electricity within the City of Bakersfield.
167
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 11
This being the time set for hearing on motion by the Planning
Commission to zone upon annexation to the City of Bakersfield in a C-2-D
(Commercial - Architectural Design) Zone, an M-1-D (Light Manufacturing -
Architectural Design) Zone; an M-1-T-D (Light Manufacturing Trailer
Park - Architectural Design) Zone; an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone;
and a "P" -(Parking) Zone, that certain property in the County of Kern
located east of Freeway 99, west of Kern River, north of California
Avenue and south of Business 99 (Pierce #1 Annexation), the City Clerk
reported that this hearing has been duly advertised and posted, with
notices sent to all property owners, and no written protests were
received in her office.
No protests or objections being received, the Mayor declared
the public hearing closed~ and after Council discussion, upon a motion
by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance
No. 1645 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 Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Park
This being the time set for hearing on a motion by the
Planning Commission to amend Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning from a C-1
(Limited Commercial) Zone to a C-2 (Commercial) Zone, for that certaJLn
property in the City of Bakersfield located on Chester Avenue between
California Avenue and Brundage Lane, the City C~ rk reported that
this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and notices were
sent to all property owners required by the ordinance, and no written
Bakersfield, California, October 10, 1966 - Page 12
protests were received in the City Clerk's office. Findings of
the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of September 7,
1966, were read. No one present offering any objections, the
Mayor declared the public hearing closed, and after Council
discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by
Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1644 New Series amending Title
Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the land use zoning of this property was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Park
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
MAYOR ~ the City of Bakersfield~-.C~.
ATTEST:
x ~lerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966
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. October 24, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Julius B. Brooks;
of Cain M. A. Methodist Episcopal Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Present:
Absent:
None
Minutes of the
approved as presented.
regular meeting of October 10,
1966 were
Scheduled Public Statements.
Charles Monk, president of the Bakersfield City Employees
introduced Mr. Buck Herron, president of the Kern County
Mr.
Association,
Employees Association, and Mr. Howard Dallimore, General Manager of the
Kern County Employees Association, who has just contracted with the
Bakersfield City Employees Association to represent them as Acting
General Manager. Mr. Dallimore stated he would be appearing before
the Council at a later date to review any problems of the Bakersfield
City Employees Association.
Mr. Paul Arvidson of 2413 Blade Avenue, stated he was unable
to be present for the hearing to be held later in the evening on the
proposed rezoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
located east of and adjacent to Mr. Vernon Avenue and south of and
adjacent to Columbus Street, and he wanted to express his objections
to the proposed rezoning to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural. Design) Zone, at this time.
Mr. Bill O'Rear, Organizing Director of American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 458, appeared before
the Council stating that a majority of the employees in the Sanitation
Department have signed application cards engaging this Union to act
as the collective bargaining agent for this group. He commented on
170
Bakersfield~ California, October 24, 1966 - Page 2
Administrative Directive No. 77, which was sent out to all employees
on October 12, 1966, stating that as the organizing director for this
Union, he challenged certain statements made in this Directire. He presented
t he Council with eleven requests of the outside workers of the Refuse and
Sanitation Departments. After discussion, Councilman Whittemore,
chairman of the Governmental
would arrange a date with Mr.
and discuss this matter.
Efficiency Committee, stated that he
O'Rear to meet with the Committee
Mr. James Mason said he had a statement to make as a private
citizen, thai he has gone through administrative channels and
has not received satisfaction. He asked that something be done
to stop the Police Department from revealing his past record to
prospective employers and from entering into conferences held by
the Local Union acting as bargaining agent for the Sanitation
employees.
Council Statements.
Councilman Stiern said he had a short statement which would
take the form of a question or two. He commented on the Argument for
Ballot Measure B signed by C. E. Harless, President of the Firefighler's
Assocation, stating that he had read it over, thought about it for a
number of days, and he sincerely feels that it is difficult to find a
statement in it that is entirely factual. He is particularly bothered
by the statement which says" We have been assured by members of the
City Council that this measure need not raise the tax rate." This
statement implicates the whole Council, and he would like to know, arid
the people have the right to know, which Councilman has told the
£iremen that Measure B need not raise the tax rate.
Councilman Doolin said the statement has been made that it
would raise the tax rate~ however, he believes Mr. Harless has the
right to make this statement~ because he had told Mr. Harless thai
in his opinion it would not raise the tax rate. Councilman Rucker
said he had also informed Mr. Hatless thai it would not raise the
tax rate, because he felt that if the Measure was successful, the
taxes would not be increased, that the Council would be able to raise
funds to avoid a tax increase.
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 3
Councilwoman Balfanz said she has complete confidence in
the staff, and they have assured her that it will raise the tax rate.
Councilman Stiern then asked if any Councilman favored a
charter change like this which would built in stipulations for
the use of cost of living increases as a means of arriving at salary
increases. Councilman Rucker said it was forced on the men to take
this method.
Councilman Whittemore said he
from the Council floor which he doesn't
He said Mr. Harless was in the audience
discussion on this, he should be granted equal time to discuss it
also.
Councilman Stiern when a ballot measure argument of
this kind is put out, it should be as factual as possible. He said
he was not campaigning against the firemen, he had no reason to do
so, that there are 130 firemen and about 600 city employees, who
by and large are excellent employees. There are about 65,000 citizens
in the City, and he thinks his first responsibility is to them, and
they should have the truth pointed out to them.
Councilman Doolin said they could have equalized the pay
raise for the firemen this year and still have had a tax reduction.
City Manager Bergen qualified his previous statements by
pointing out that he had estimated it would cost approximately
$410,000.00, and this was equivalent to 41~ on the tax rate. However,
to hold the rate rate, it would depend upon whether the Capital
Improvement program was reduced, and whether other types of services;
were curtailed.
Councilman Hosking said he was asked whether he was in favor
of a Charter amendment, and he said he was not, because this is
"Taxation without Representation." He stated that the City of
Bakersfield still has about the highest tax rate of any City in the
County in spite of several tax cuts, and he feels that the tax rate
should still be reduced in order to attract industry.
thinks the issue is being tried
think is the right place to do it.
and if there was any further
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 4
Councilman Park said a little over two years ago the
firemen were given a cut in hours which to the City means an increase
in ~ay to the extent of about 5%, last year they were granted a 23%
increase, and this year another 5% effective January first. So this
is not a matter of the firemen not having received increases. He
asked Mr. Doolin how the City was going to raise $410,000.00 without
cutting out necessary services or raising the tax rate.
Councilman Doolin said they are throwing figures around
without getting to the real source of the matter, actually in the last
five years the total income has increased about 1s million dollars.
Councilman Rucker said he had no intention of getting into
any argument on the proposition, that he was quite sure the matter
had been thoroughly aired for the citizens, and they would go to the
polls on election day and make the right decision.
Councilman Stiern said it was going to be very difficult
to explain the argument against the ballot measure. A great deal
of money is going to be spent by the firemen to persuade the public
that they should vote for it. He said he did not know where any
money would be coming from to educate the public to the dangers of
the measure, and yet everyone he has talked to and explained the
measure to, is shocked by the ballot measure, as most of the public
assumes that the firemen haven't received a raise in the last ten years,
and when they find out what the Council has granted to the firemen, they
are beginning to wonder what fhis is all about.
He said he had asked a couple of questions tonight which
were resented in some quarters, in order to bring out the pitfalls
of the measure. He said City employees are going to be fairly treated,
but the people of the City should understand the issue.
Councilman Doolin stated that merely because a couple of the
Councilmen did not agree with this reasoning did not mean they were
not looking out for the interests of the people of Bakersfield.
J73
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 5
Mayor Karlen said he wrote the argument against Ballot
Measure B because after he read it, he realized it was contrary to what
the firemen had originally presented to the Council, and he felt that
it was proper for him as Mayor to do so, because he does not feel that
the salaries of this City's employees should be tied to the salaries
of employees in distant metropolitan areas.
Reports.
Councilman Whirremote, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
Committee, reported that the Committee has reviewed plans for
modification and better utilization of existing office space in City
Hall, which would entail remodeling and enlarging the Caucus Room and
modification of the Mayor's and City Clerk's offices. These plans are
not yet finalized and the Committee will issue a supplemental report to
the Council when final agreement is reached.
The Committee has also reviewed plans for the modification
of the Chief Building Inspector's office, for physical rearrangement of
the now vacant Recreation space and its utilization as a conference
room and personnel office, and has also examined plans for the
modification of the City Manager's office. The Committee recommends
approval o£ these modifications, as sufficient funds are available to
execute all improvements and modifications as recommended. Upon a
motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Park, the
report was received and ordered placed on file.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, VouchersNos. 1247 to 1451 inclusive, in amount of $102,020.87,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Rejection of bids for construction
of a Storm Drain in Lakeview Avenue
between Tenth Street and Potomac
Avenue.
In accordance with recommendation of the Cirector of Public
Works, upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, bids for construction of a Storm Drain in Lakeview Avenue
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 Page 6
between Tenth Street
and the Staff was authorized to readvertise this
street resurfacing to be done by City forces and
pipe to be used as
and Potomac Avenue were rejected as excessive,
project with
asbestos cement
an alternate.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1646 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.786 to the Municipal
Code (Speed Limit on Bernard Street
between Mount Vernon Avenue and Oswell
Street.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Ordinance No. 1646 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.786 to the Municipal Code (Speed
Limit on Bernard Street between Mount Vernon Avenue and Oswell
Street), was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern
Whirremote
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1647 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.753 to the Municipal
Code (Speed Limit on Oswell Street
between Bernard Street and Columbus Avenue.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Ordinance No. 1647 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.753 to the Municipal Code (Speed
Limit on Oswell Street between Bernard Street and Columbus Avenue),
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 7
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1648 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 7.34.070 of Chapter 7.34
(Cards and Cardrooms) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Ordinance No. 1648 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 7.34.070 of Chapter 7.34 (Cards and
Cardrooms) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was
adopted by the following vote:'
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 71-66 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 "Benton Park No. 8", and an Affidavit
of Publication thereof, and approving the
circulation of the petition.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwolnan
Balfanz, Resolution No. 71-66 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 "Benton Park
No. 8", and an Affidavit of Publication thereof, and approving the
circulation of the petition, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 72-66 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
consenting to the commencement of
annexation proceedings for the annexation
to the City of Bakersfield of certain
inhabited and unincorporated territory in
the County of Kern, State of California,
contiguous to the City of Bakersfield,
designated as "Benton Park No. 8."
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Resolution No. 72-66 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
consenting to the commencement of annexation proceedings for the
Bakersfield,
California,
October 24,
1966 - Page 8
annexation to the City of Bakersfield of certain inhabited and
unincorporated territory in the County of Kern, State of California,
contiguous to the City of Bakersfield, designated as "Benton Park
No. 8", was adopted by the following vote:
Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Balfanz, Doolin,
Whittemore
Ayes: Councilmen
Noes: None
Absent: None
Balfanz,
calling
to A556,
Adoption of Resolution No. 73-66 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield calling
for the redemption of Series A Off-Street
Revenue Bonds Nos. A560 to A556, inclusive,
and Nos. A555 to A548, inclusive; for
publication of Notice of Redemption of said
Bonds, and authorizing the Fiscal Agent to
redeem said Bonds.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilwoman
Resolution No. 73-66 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
for the redemption of Series A Off-Street Revenue Bonds Nos. A560
inclusive, and Nos. A555 to A548, inclusive; for publication
of Notice of Redemption of said Bonds, and authorizing the Fiscal Agent
to redeem said Bonds, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Stiern,
Adoption of Resolution of Intention No.
818 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
California, declaring its intention to
order the vacation of a Sewer Easement in
"B" Street between 16th Street and Truxtun
Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield.
Balfanz,
of Bakersfield, California, declaring its
vacation of a Sewer Easement in "B" Street
Truxtun Avenue in the City of Bakersfield,
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman
Resolution of Intention No. 818 of the Council of the City
intention to order the
between 16th Street and
and setting eight o'clock
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
P.M. November 14, 1966, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as
the time and place for hearing on the matter before the Council, was
adopted by the following vote:
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 9
Adoption of Resolution of. Intention No.
817 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, declaring its intention to order
abandonment of the dedication of Right
of Vehicular Access to Elm Street from Lot 1,
Tract No. 2815, City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Counc i]nan Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Resolution of Intention No. 817 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the abandonment
of the dedication of Right of Vehicular Access to Elm Street from
Lot 1, Tract No. 2815, City of Bakersfield, and setting eight o'clock
P.M. November 14, 1966, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall
as the time and place for hearing on the matter before the Council,
was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whirremote
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of request from Mr. & Mrs. R.
Dearderff to connect to City sewer
subject to suburban sewer rental agreement.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, request from Mr. & Mrs. R. Dearderff to connect home under
construction at 3501 Mesa Grande to the City Sewer was approved,
subject to entering into a suburban sewer rental agreement.
Request from Dr. Keith D. and Dan T.
Williams for annexation of apartment
property located at 124 North Real
Road to the City of Bakersfield referred
to the Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, request from Dr. Keith D. Williams and Dr. Dan T. Williams
for annexation of 14 unit apartment property located at 124 North
Real Road to the City of Bakersfield at the earliest possible date,
was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Claim for damages from Marlene
Thomas referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Park, claim for damages from Marlene Thomas was referred to the
City Attorney.
178
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966
Page 10
Whittemore,
November 1,
Approval of Step Salary Increases
effective November l, 1966.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
the following step salary increases were approved,
1966:
effective
R. D. Barget Firefighter E to F
R. D. Bellman Asst. Planner C to D
J. C. BrazeIron Motor Patrolman E to F
Jackie Campbell Secretary E to F
M. M. Coday Motor Patrolman E to F
A. Cole San. Crewman I C to D
R. H. Floyd Patrolman C to D
E. L. Harlander Patrolman E to F
E. Holladay Motor Coach Operator D to E
E. R. Johnson Sanitation Crewman I C to D
W. G. Hutchison Clerk Steno I C to D
J. D. Minton Firefighter E to F
David H. Peterson Patrolman C to D
M. E. Stoffel Patrolman C to D
Daniel C. Wright Janitor D to E
P. W. Yeargan Patrolman C to D
B. W. Gault Auditorium Stage Mgr. E to F
L. G. Roach Janitor D to E
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 801 of the City Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Resolution of Intention No. 801 of the City Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order
certain acquisitions and improvements within the incorporated territory
of said City and within the unincorporated territory of the County of
Kern, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913; describing
the District to be benefited by said acquisitions and improvements
and to be assessed to pay the cost and expense thereof; determining
and declaring that Bonds shall be issued under the Improvement Act of
1911 to represent unpaid assessments; ordering a portion of the cost
and expense of said acquisitions and improvements to be paid by said
City and said County; providing for the use of any surplus amount
in the improvement fund after completion of the improvement and
referring the proposed acquisition and improvement to the City
Engineer to make and file a written report,
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking,
Whittemore
None
None
remaining
was adopted by the following
Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Noes:
Absent:
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966
Page 11
Acceptance of Street Right of Way
Deed from Pacific Telephone & Telegraph
Company for widening of South "H"
Street in the northwest corner of the
Planz Road intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Street Right of Way Deed from Pacific Telephone & Telegraph
Company for widening of South "H" Street in the northwest corner of
Planz Road intersection was accepted.
Encroachment Permit granted William
J. Gerrie to construct retaining wall
on Columbus Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Encroachment Permit was granted William J. Gerrie to construct
retaining wall at the alley between Berger Street and Dartmouth
Street on the north side of Columbus Street.
Approval of Plans and Specifications for
the construction of Reinforced Concrete
Box Culvert at Williams Street and Eastside
Canal.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, plans and specifications for construction of Reinforced
Concrete Box Culvert at Williams Street and Eastside Canal, were
approved, and the staff was authorized to advertise for bids.
Hearing on application by Pacific Gas
and Electric Company for granting of Gas
and Electric Franchises continued until
November 14, 1966.
As requested by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, upon a
motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman Doolin, hearing'
on application by this Company for the granting of Gas and Electric
Franchises pursuant to the Charter of the City of Bakersfield and
the Franchise Act of 1937, was continued until meeting of November
14,1966.
Hearing dropped on appeal by Mrs.
Betty L. Mish to the decision of
the City Manager denying her application
to operate an ambulance service in the
City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Park, hearing scheduled for this time on appeal by Mrs. Betty L. Mish
to the decision of the City Manager denying her application to operate
an ambulance service in the City of Bakersfield, was dropped, upon
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 12
request of her attorney, Mr. Walter H. Condley. Councilman Hosking
requested that the ordinance regulating the operation of ambulance
service be referred to a committee for study and possible revision
or repeal. Mayor Karlen appointed Councilman Doolin, chairman, and
Councilmen Hosking and Stiern to serve on this special Council
City Attorney instructed to prepare
Ordinance for consideration at next
Council meeting, amending Title 17
of the Bakersfield Municipal Code
to fezone those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield located
east of and adjacent to Mr. Vernon
Avenue and south of and adjacent
to Columbus Street.
Committee.
This being the time set for hearing on amending
the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) ormore
restrictive, Zone, and to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, Zone, for those certain properties in the City
of Bakersfield located east of and adjacent to Mr. Vernon Avenue and
south of and adjacent to Columbus Street (Oswell #5 Annexation),
written protests were read from the
following:
Mr. & Mrs. W. S. Harris
Mrs. Joyce Martin
Mrs. Mary Ann Hebert
Mr. & Mrs. C. T. Pyle
Mr. & Mrs. Clair Ghylin
Mr. & Mrs. John Campbell
Mr. & Mrs. B. J. Vecera
Mr. & Mrs. B. J. Winter
Mr. & Mrs. Bud Armistead
Mr. & Mrs. Trinidad Valdez
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mrs.
Ward F. Fulcher
& Mrs. Claude W. Pierce
& Mrs. Bud Carmichael
& Mrs. M. K. Scribner
Carl Bahlen
& Mrs. Bill Jacobs
& Mrs. Irving M. Pridha
Mary Ann Buechler
Ruth McBride
All of the above property owners objected to the proposed
R-3-D zoning of those properties south of and adjacent to Columbus
Street between the JLJ Apartment complex and Pasadena Street, and
requested that if anything was built in this area, that the height
be restricted to one story.
Mr. William M. McClure of 2703 Pasadena Street and Mr.
David Cross, architect representing Mr. Benton who owns property
on the southeast corner of Freeway 178 and Mr. Vernon Avenue, spoke
in favor of the rezoning.
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966
Page 13
The following persons addressed the Council expressing
opposition to the rezoning to anR-3-D Zone:
Leonard P. Tannen
Fritz N. Pusch
Harry Porter
Bruce Resseguie
Trinidad Valdez
Mary Ann Hebert
Joe Zak
2700 Driller Avenue
2719 Clemson Court
2901 Staunton Court
2912 Mt. Vernon Avenue
3017 Roanoke Court
3013 Roanoek Court
2819 Loyola Street
Mr. Zak requested information regarding the development o£
the south side of Columbus Street. Councilman Park said he understands
~at the south side of Columbus Street will not be improved until
such time as development has occurred all along the street, as the
developer will be committed to contribute for a certain portion of
the work. This is one reason that development along Columbus Street
should not be undly retarded, in order to have the street improved
as soon as possible.
Both sides were given time to make a summation of their
arguments, after which time the Mayor declared the public portion
of the hearing closed.
man
Council/-~ern stated that he fails to see why it is
imperative to do anything at this time, as he understands there is
no proposed development for zoning this area R-3-D. When a developer
presents his plans to the Council, then this area could be rezoned.
Councilman Park made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare am ordinance
for consideration of the Council at the next meeting, to accept the
Planning Staff's recommendation, as per the map on file, with the
exception of thatportion south of and adjacent to Columbus Street
and 178 Freeway between the JLJ apartment complex and Pasadena Street,
which is to be zoned R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone. This motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Park said he sees no reason for rezoning this
property at the present time, however, he would not be fair to the
people in his ward if he let them leave the Council Chambers feeling
182
Bakersfield, California, October 24, 1966 - Page 14
that the R-1 zoning would be a permanent thing. If and when, a
reasonable and acceptable R-3-D development is proposed, he said he is
very likely to go along with that type of development rather than
see the property be indefinitely undeveloped, and the south side
of Columbus Street not being improved.
Executive Session.
The Council recessed at 10:55 P.M.
session in the Caucus Room.
Adjournment.
The Council reconvened following
and upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
Stiern, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25
to hold an executive
the Executive Session,
seconded by Councilman
Po Mo
MAY~)kXof the City of Bakersfield, Cali~:
ATTEST:
CITY CLE~R ~a~-~f~lc~o~~he Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966
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. October 31, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and the Invocation by the Reverend Henry Berg
of University Avenue Christian Church.
Present:
Absent:
The City Clerk called the roll as
Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz,
Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote
None
Minutes of
follows:
Doolin, Hosking, Park,
the regular meeting of October 24, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public
Fire Chief Charles Linnell
scheduled statement:
Statements.
submitted the
following
Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Balfanz and Gentlemen:
Many people have asked me how I stand on City Ballot
Measure "B" which attempts to "lock-in" salaries of my Department
with those of nine other departments in the state. In order to make
my position clear, I am taking this way - a statement to the City
Council - to answer.
For many years the Bakersfield City Council has supported
the programs of the Fire Department, reflecting, I believe, great
faith in the management and staff of the Department. We have the
equipment, the plants, the training program, and the manpower to
number our Fire Department among the best in the country. I repeat
it has been with both the support of the City Council and firemen
which has brought us to this enviable position.
With this realization, I can't help but believe that the
Council will continue to support its Fire Department,%hether we're
talking about equipment or salary. And in the belief that you
gentlemen - and Mrs. Balfanz - should be able to judge the
needs and wants of this Department, rather than a City Council several
184
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 2
hundreds of miles away, I feel strongly that the Council's
responsibility in determining rates of pay will be re-assessed and
corrected at the next Budget Session.
Don't misunderstand me, I am a strong supporter of my
men and believe firmly that my firemen have been instrumental in
making the Department among the best in the country. I furlher
recognize their right, under the law, to organize a union, (though
I find some conflict between union membership and civil service
protection.) But, as the Chief of the Department, I do not support
the aims of the union in this matter.
And on another facet of the current problem, I don't
want my department compared with any other City's department for
purposes of salary. Each City's department is unique and has
distinctive problems. Let each stand on its own merils.
Again, let me repeat that, as Chief of the Bakersfield
Fire Department, I am confident that this Council will deal with my
Department fairly in the malter of salaries. We do compete with
other nearby fire departments for manpower, and where other departments
have the advantage in pay, including other benefits, we are bound to
come out second best when it comes to recruitment. Department
morale suffers when there is a disparagement in pay between our men
and their colleagues in other cities. Where this is the case,
it is my job to point it out to you and the Administrative Staff.
Working together, we can and must, at the local level, solve these
problems as they arise.
Both Mayor Karlen and Councilman Park thanked Chief Linnell
for appearing before the Council and making this statement.
Councilman Doolin asked Chief Linnell if he had been
encouraged in any way to make this statement, and Chief Linnell
answered thai he had not been.
185
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 3
Correspondence.
A notice from the Public Utilities Commission advising
of a hearing to be held in the Police Auditorium on December 6, 1966
on an application of the California Water Service Company for an
order authorizing it to increase rates charged for water
service in its Bakersfield District, exclusive of the area formerly
served by the Crest Water Company, was read.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, request from the City of Delano that the City Council adopt
a resolution requesting the repeal of the "Matching Funds" section of
the Collier-Unruh Act on street improvement was referred to the City
Attorney for study and report back to the Council.
Council Statements.
Councilman Doolin asked if the Administrative Staff was
making any type of study on the proposal of the California Water
Service Company to increase water rates. City Manager Bergen said
they had not attempted to make any detailed study on it, they have tried
to evaluate the changes, etc., but they will furnish the Council with
information in an A~ministrative Report.
Councilwoman Balfanz said at the risk of repeating some of
the things already stated by Chief Linnell - she was unaware that he
intended to make a statement - she wished to make the following
statement:
Mr. Nayor and Gentlemen:
I would like to take this opportunity to express myself
publicly on the forthcoming issue to be decided at our General Election
on November 8th. I feel that this issue is of overriding concern to
all the people of Bakersfield. Unfortunately, in the maze of the
state-wide campaign, with the many constitutional amendments
appearing on the ballot, I am afraid that a one-sided presentation of
the issue has developed. I refer to the Ballot Proposition B on the
question of salary raise for our Fire Department. This measure has very,
very serious implications for our City and those implications must be
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 4
brought to light if the people are going to have an opportunity to vote
intelligently on this question. I think the facts in lhe matter
speak for themselves.
What this measure will do will be in effect to take away
the sovereignty of our City to an overwhelming degree. The truth
of the matter is that this ballot proposition seeks to force the
City to pay the wage rate of the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas.
Of course, if this measure were successful, the City could hardly be
expected to treat the Fire Department differently from other
departments of the City. And why should we? It certainly cannot be
argued that any Department of the City is more valuable than another.
We need the Fire Department as we need the Police Department and our
Sanitation Department, or our Street maintenance people, all of the
City's personnel do essential work and we simply cannot give one
department preferential treatment over another department. Therefore,
we should anticipate increasing the wages of all our employees in
line with the salary rate received by the Fire Department if Measure B
carried.
May I speak as a member of the Governmental Efficiency
Committee, the Committee which has the responsibility for studying
and recommending salary rates. In the printed argument for Measure B
il has been stated that due lo an omission in the Charter of the
City of Bakersfield, no guide lines or standards exisl for use in
establishing compensation for members of the Bakersfield City Fire
Deparlment or other city employees.. This is tofally false. The Fire
Department, as well as all other departments of the City of Bakersfield,
knows that guide lines do exist and have been clearly expressed to all
employees. They simply need only refer to the Governmental Efficiency
Committee's report of this June as an example of our guide lines. We
attempt to pay all our employees a fair rate based upon the type of
work they do and in accordance with the supply and demand of our local
labor market. We also yearly take a salary survey to be sure lhal
our salary rates are not out of line with the salary rates paid by
other comparable cities in the State.
1 S7
Bakersfield, ¢al±forn±a, OctoDer 31, 1966 - Page 5
What the Firemen's Union has sought to do with the Measure
is to tie us into 22 jurisdictions, mostly settled around the San
Francisco Bay area and the Los Angeles basin, where these adjoining
cities are extremely competitive in hiring fire personnel and where
the cost of living is higher than here in Bakersfield. Certainly,
no citizens in business for himself, would wish to pay
artificial salary rates dictated from another part of the State. At
this moment, I wonder how many people are aware of what the average
~re fighter's salary is? Presently, the average fire fighter receives
$545.00 per month, and in January, he will be receiving $604.00 per
month. Above and beyond this, he receives the liberal fringe benefits
of vacation and health and accident insurance, and we might add that
with the Firemen's retirement plan, and I want this to be emphasized,
with the Firemen's retirement plan, he receives more from the City
than any other employee by almost 2~%.
As was illustrated in the report prepared by the staff, our
salary comparisons with these 22 jurisdictions, we have about six
classifications of our Fire Department that are actually receiving higher
salaries in comparison with these other cities. It should be understood
very clearly that if this Measure is successful, it will impose a very
heavy financial burden on the City of Bakersfield and will increase our
property taxes substantially. The people should understand this,
they will be voting to increase their property taxes perhaps as much
as 40~ or 45~ or possibly higher, when they vote November 8th, and they
can expect to be forced to increase their tax rate any time there is a
change among the majority of these 22 jurisdictions. As has been
pointed out in the information supplied by the staff, salaries and
fringe benefits represent 70% of the operating budget, and the
people and the Council will lose effective control of 70~ of their
budget.
I would like to add here again, as a member of the Governmental
Efficiency Committee, we have met often and spent long hours in trying
Bakersfield,
California,
Octoher 31,
1966 - Page
to establish equitable salary rates for all our employees. We have
met with various employee groups, studied salary surveys and other
information before making these decisions. And in all that time during
the long months of budget preparation, never once has the Firemen's
union approached the Governmental Efficiency Committee to present their
views on salary rates. It is not my purpose to argue tonight what the
rate of salary compensation for our Fire personnel should be, but
rather to indicate the very harmful effects this measure will produce..
The Firemen's salaries are always subject to review by the Council and
any time there is agreement among four members of the Council, salary
rates for any employee may be changed. But this measure will bind
the City by charter amendment to pay Firemen's salaries. To the people
of Bakersfield it means that no longer can their elected representatives,
the Councilmen, speak for them on this subject. I do not think the
people of Bakersfield want to give up control over their local affairs
because the Firemen's Union believes that Firemen should be paid more,
money.
The other implications of this measure are perhaps more
subtle, but nevertheless, just as real and meaningful to our City.
Should this measure prove successful and force our tax rate up, as I
feel it will, what will this effect be? Well, the immediate effect
will be to undo all the hard work and diligence this Council has put
in to get our tax rate down to a tolerable level. We have been success-
ful in the past several years in maintaining a stablized tax rate.
This was not an easy task and we accomplished this without sacrificing
a high level of service provided to the people of this City. All of
this will go out the window, I feel, If this measure is successful.
The other effects cannot be measured as quickly as an increase in your
tax bill, but it can be taken for granted that industry, and that
means city growth and new jobs for our people, will be discouraged
because of our increased cost of government and the demonstration
that the people of Bakersfield no longer have the responsibility for
running their own affairs but must follow the lead of 21 other cities
with different, different characteristics, different needs, different
tax bases and resources.
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 7
It is for the reasons that I have mentioned and other fears
which I have not mentioned, I would appeal to all of our people in
Bakersfield to study Ballot Proposition B very carefully before cast-
ing their vote one week from tomorrow. I am convinced that if the
people have an opportunity to hear both sides of the question, they
will not be lured into voting for bad government by emotional appeals,
and if they study this measure carefully, keeping in mind that we are
not discussing what a Firemen's salary should be, but rather how the
City will be dictated to in setting salaries, I am convinced that if
the people hear both sides, they will, as always in the past, act
with responsibility and vote "NO" on Proposition B and keep control
over their City government. Thank you for your attention.
The Council and the Mayor then engaged in a discussion
regarding fire personnel salaries and the co~t to the taxpayers if
Ballot Measure B should prove successful.
Mayor Karlen said that he had a statement. I would like
to take this opportunity to read an Appraisal and Selection of
Industries for Industrial Development which I had given to you
earlier. First of all, the seminar was a success in many ways, and
I have made this statement and can bear it out that there is an in-
dustry that is currently anticipating locating in our area and we
have a letter to the effect that we are now number one on the list.
In fact, i have already met with the representatives here about
location in this area, and the representative is talking to various
people in this area for his corporation.
The Mayor then read the proposal submitted by Mr. John R.
Sargent of the Firm of eresap, McCormick and Paget, Management Con-
sultants of New York City. He said thereason for reading it was
not for action at this time, but he wanted the Council to know that
he had asked for it, they did not volunteer it, and it is not
necessarily something that he is asking the Council to consider at
this time. This is an indication of what a company of this type
thinks are the best steps the City should take for industrial develop-
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 8
ment and it falls in line with what Mr. Whittemore has suggested in
his previous report to the Council of his study up north. The Mayor
stated that he was very pleased with the seminar from the standpoint
that results can be anticipated in the future and that all the parti-
cipants felt that it was a very worthwhile experience.
Councilman Whittemore said he appreciated the proposal, he
thinks all the Council does, but perhaps this firm was not aware that
in 1957 the Stanford Research Institute made basically the same survey
and appraisal for the Greater Bakersfield area. The Mayor said they
were not aware of it because he did not tell them at the time.
Councilman Whittemore said the basic information that they
are offering here is available in this report, it is quite comprehen-
sive, and he did refer to it in his report of September 26, 1966.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Council-
man Park, the proposal was received and ordered placed on file and
referred to the Council Industrial Committee.
Reports.
Some weeks ago the Council instructed the staff to pursue,
with the State Division of Highways, the possibility of obtaining a
full interchange at Mr. Vernon Avenue and 178 Freeway. They are
presenting at this time an interim report of this meeting and will
proceed with the necessary studies and discussions with the County
of Kern and the Division of Highways with the idea of actually getting
this full interchange constructed at this location. Mr. Jing,
Director of Public Works, reviewed the interim report with the
Council and Mr. Bergen said they would keep the Council informed of
progress made by the administrative staff.
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Industrial Develop-
ment Committee, read the following report:
This past Friday, October 28, 1966, I had an opportunity
to represent the City of Bakersfield for the Council's Industrial
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 9
Development Committee at a California State Chamber of Commerce
meeting on Industrial Development in the San Joaquin Valley. I
would. like to compliment the State Chamber and our Bakersfield Cha~ber
Manager, Mr. George Barton, for bringing about this excellent confer-
ence with a list of distinguished experts in their field. Several
items emerged from this conference which have a direct relationship.
to our industrial effort here in Bakersfield and I would like to
mention these to the Council for their information.
First, and probably most important, it was stated that for
a community to prepare for industrial development, it must be able
to assure the potential industrial developer that land prices will be
firm and fair. A new industry looking for a location may take six to
nine months or longer, to make its final decision. If in this inter-
vening period of time the price of the land increases substantially,
it may, of course, be reason enough for the community to lose a new
business. As mentioned in our report of September 26, 1966, we hope
that a Local Development Corporation could overcome the obstacle by
purchasing the land and assuring that the price of the land will re.-
main firm and fair. Fresno is able to do this through an Industrial
Sites Foundation.
It was also discussed at this conference, that Bakersfield
is in a very good position to attract consumer-oriented industry
particularly those that would serve Los Angeles and other Southern
California areas; and our community effort should be directed toward
this type of industry.
Another factor mentioned by the panelists, which consisted
of people ill industry themselves, was that many communities have lost
a potential industry b.eoaase of lack of sites and confusion of the
inability to supply a potentialindustry with basic information. These
panelists emphasized that what any industry needs is a one-stop service
to get the basic information. Therefore, our community must insure
that we have a system developed, or a central clearing house, that
can answer all questions for a new business and is capable of supply-
ing all the information that new business would need or require.
Bake rsf ie ld,
California,
October 31,
1966 - Page 10 ~'
Another item of interest that emerged from this conference
was that industry is interested in stable government and will normally
have an acceptance of the current tax rate if they can be relatively
sure that the local government's attitude towards industry is positive.
As was pointed out at this conference, a lower tax rate
can often times be misleading. They want to know what the tax rate
will provide the industry by way of services. The industry wants to
know what its tax dollars buy and consideres the business climate as
being defined as what the community's feeling is towards industrial
growth and what steps they have taken to develop that growth, Our
tax rate has been stable or reduced while at the same time we have
good schools, recreation areas, churches, etc.
All-in-all this conference indicated to me that we here
in the City of Bakersfield are on the proper course and the full
Industrial Development Committee will be reporting to the Council
very shortly on our recommendations to continue and make further
progress in our industrial promotion effort.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the report was received and ordered placed on file.
Approval of Contract with Greater
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Hosking, full contract in amount of $29,500.00, was approved with
the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, and the City Attorney
was requested to draw same.
At this time, Councilman Doolin requested that Mr. Chuck
Thomas, member of the Firefighters Association Executive Board, be
granted time to speak to the Council. Mr. Thomas told the Council
that other cities had had experience with the type of Charter
provision proposed by Ballot Measure B, one of which is Fresno.
He read letters from two Fresno Council members supporting their
Charter amendment and stating that the plan had worked for the
benefit of the city and the employees.
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 11
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 1452 to 1522 inclusive, in amount of $29,339.35,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Acceptance of low bid of American
Rubber Company to furnish Fire Hose.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, low bid of American Rubber Company in amount of $10,309.05,
to furnish Fire Hose, was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1629 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 east of
Mount Vernon Avenue and south of Columbus
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Ordinance No. 1649 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
east of Mount Vernon Avenue and south of Columbus Street, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Request from B. S. Dallimore, General
Manager of Bakersfield Employees Association,
re payroll deductions, referred to the
Governmental Efficiency Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, request from B. S. Dallimore, General Manager of Bakersfield
Employees Association, that miscellaneous employees of the City of
Bakersfield be granted payroll deductions for Association dues, was
referred to the Governmental Efficiency Committee for study and
recommendation .
194
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 12
Claim for damages from Mrs. Harvel E.
Pollard, referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Park, claim for damages from Mrs. HarYel E. Pollard was referred to
the City Attorney.
Balfanz,
Attorney.
Claim for damages from Ben O. Millar
referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman
claim for damages from Ben O. Millar was referred to the City
Date set for hearing before the Council
on appeal by Charlotte Bumgarner to decision
of the Board of Zoning Adjustment denying
her application for a variance.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Park, date of November 21, 1966 was set for hearing before the Council
on appeal by Charlotte Bumgarner to decision of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment denying her application for a variance of an R-1 (Single-
Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction of an additional unit
on property with an existing triplex on that certain property in the
City of Bakersfield commonly known as 2550 Eggers Street.
Encroachment Permit granted Doris Hunter
to construct chain link fence at 2730
Parkway.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Encroachment Permit was granted to Doris Hunter to construct
a four foot chain link fence at 2730 Parkway.
Extension of time granted Francis E.
Jacobs Construction Company for completion
of Contract for the paving and improving of
Columbus Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Whirremote, ~ive day extension of time to November 9, 1966, was granted
Francis E. Jacobs Construction Company for completion of Contract for
paving and improving of Columbus Street. Councilman Park voted in tlhe
negative on this motion.
95
Bakersfield, California~ October 31, 1966 - Page 13
Adoption of Zoning Resolution No. 198
denying variance of the Land Use Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield
affecting that certain property as
hereinafter described and zoned as an
R-2 (Two-Family Dwelling) Zone to permit
the construction, operation and
maintenance of a 24 unit apartment building
on that certain property commonly known as
701 to 715 "A" Street.
This being the time set for hearing on an appeal of James
E. Smith to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment denying
application requesting a variance of the land use zoning ordinance
of the City of Bakersfield affecting that certain property zoned R-2
(T%vo-Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction, operation and
maintenance of 24 apartment uni~s~ on that property commonly known as
701 through 715 "A" Street, the City Clerk reported that this hearing
had been duly advertised and posted and notices sent out as required
by the zoning ordinance. Findings of Fact of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment were read. Communications received from property owners
and neighbors in favor of the application of James E. Smith were re;~d
as follows:
Petition signed by 68 persons in the neighborhood
Letters from the following:
Walter Lyde 639 "A" Street
E. H. "Toby Sears
Don F. Clark 402 "A" Street
Anthony Karelsen 712 Pine Street
C. F. Rensel 7-11 Market 2331 Chester Lane
Mrs. Garland R. Ferrell 603 "A" Street
Judy Lackey
Mr. Tony Karelsen, Mr. Don Clark~ Mr. Brian Lackey, Mr.
Dave Cross, Mr. C. E. Rensel of the 7-11 Market, Mr. Warren Fike,
contractor for the construction of the apartments, and Mr. James
Smith~ the applicant, all spoke in favor of the application and urged the
Council to grant the variance.
Communications opposing the application were read as follows:
Petition containing the signatures of 48 persons
either residing or owning property in the neighborhood
Letters from:
Alta Murray 2411 Chester Lane
Emma B. Wisham 2426 Chester Lane
Mildred B. Percie 2500 Chester Lane
Lloyd & Eva Scroggins 2423 and 2425 Chester Lane
Martha C. and Guy E. Banister 2400 Chester Lane
Geroge C. and Stella M.
Diffenbaugh 419 Pacific Street
Bakersfield, California, October 31, 1966 - Page 14
Stella B. Harper
George O. Slusher
Lowell Sayre
Ludwina Banducci
2607 and 2609 Chester Lane
624 Pine Street
610, 612 and 614 Pine Street
616 Pine Street
Mr. Don Doll, Mr. Thayne Hacking, Mr. Lowell A. Folks
and Mrs. Lesh Forrest addressed the Council in protest to the
granting of the variance pointing out the already overcrowded condition
the traffic hazards and the lack of parking space in this area,
without the construction of 24 additional apartments.
Both the proponents and opponents were given an opportunity
to offer a rebuttal to the arguments presented, after which time the
Mayor declared the public portion of the hearing closed.
The Council engaged in a very through discussion of the
application for the variance and upon a motion by the Councilman Stiern,
seconded by Councilman Hosking, the decision of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment was upheld and Zoning Resolution Na 198 denying the
variance was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1650 New Series
amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter
17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield.
This being the time set for hearing on motion by the Planning
Commission to zone upon annexation to the City of Bakersfield to an
R-S (Residential Suburban) or more restrictive, Zone, that certain
property in the County of Kern located on the northeast corner of
the intersection of Watts Drive and Cottonwood Road (Casa Loma #1
Annexation), the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly
advertised and notices sent to all property owners, and no written
protests had been received in her office. No one being present to
offer any objections to the proposed rezoning, the Mayor declared
the public hearing closed, and upon a motion by Councilman Hosking,
seconded by Councilman Stiern, Ordinance No. 1650 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 Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
City Attorney instructed to prepare
Resolution 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.
This being the time set for hearing on Phase II of the 1966
Weed Abatement Program of the City, the Director of Public Works
submitted the following report:
30 Vacant Lots were posted with "Notice to Destroy
Weeds" between August 29, 1966 and September 2, 1966
Cards were mailed to the owners of the posted lots on
September 13, 1966
Second inspection was made on September 26, 1966 and
there were 11 non-compliances
On September 29, 1966, registered letters were sent
to the owners of the 11 parcels plus 4 additional
parcels where complaints had been received
Third inspection was made on October 31, 1966, and there
were 6 non-compliances
No one present offering any objections to the program,
upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, 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 destoroy
said weeds, and any other papers for awarding a contract to destroy
the weeds.
Bakersfield,
California,
October 31, 1966
Page 16
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before this Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Hosking,
the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, ~al~f.
ATTEST:
CITY CLER~ and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966
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. November 7, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Daniel McDowell
of Pleasant View Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of October 31, 1966 were
approved as corrected.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, communication from Mr. Reno D. Zanotto, in connection with
the construction of two malls in the downtown area, was received
and referred to the Council Industrial
Council Statements.
Councilman Whirremote stated
Development Committee.
that the owner of a downtown
business had brought to his attention that
had informed him in a letter that the cost
service in his business would be $4,101.98,
the Bakersfield Cable TV, Inc.
of installing Cable TV
as in accordance with the
city franchise, installation charges for all commercial outlets are
based on actual costs. Also, two other business houses in the downtown
area had advised him that their installation charges would be
$3,900.00 and $4,600.00.
Councilman Whittemore said at the time the franchise was
granted to this company, it was agreed that the entire city of Bakersfield
would be served, but he does not think the installation costs for
commercial outlets should include the cost of the transmission lines.
He said he doesn't know anything about cable television costs, but
he does know it doesn't cost $4,101.98 for a service drop from a
post into an establishment. This is not in keeping with the spirit
which the franchise was granted, and he said he would like to have
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966 - Page 2
the letter referred
back to the Council, and if
would like to have an order
exorbitant.
to the City Manager for investigation and report
it seems necessary at a future date, he
to show cause why these charges are so
Councilman Doolin said it was his understanding when the
franchise was granted that the commercial service would be similar
to the residential service.
Councilman Whittemore said that was correct, the only
difference is the cost of the installation itself, which certainly
should not include the cost of the transmission lines from the
transmitter to the receiver.
Councilman Stiern said he would like to make an additional
comment to Councilman Whittemore's. The owner of a 21 unit motel in
the City complained to him about the installation fee which was quoted
to him, stating that he thought it was excessive. He asked that in
the referral to the City Manager multiple installations for motels
also be investigated.
Councilman Hosking agreed with both Councilmen Whirremote
and Stiern, stating that most of the downtown businesses are in his
ward and he has been approached on it too. He said no one anticipated
receiving a $4,000.00 bill to hook up their business to the cable. He
said if the City was bound by a franchise agreement which permits this,
he would suggest that the franchise either be amended or revoked.
Councilman Whittemore said he would accept Councilman Stiern's
amendment, and Councilman Stiern seconded the motion to refer the matter
to the City Manager for future report back to
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin,
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 1523 to 1625 inclusive,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee,
the Council.
seconded by Councilman
in amount of $91,488.39,
were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966
2O3
Page 3
Approval of Budget Transfers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, the following budget transfers were approved:
1. Transfer $3,690.00 from Fund 25-616-9992 to 25-520-7100
In accordance with plans submitted to the City Council
for furnishings, etc. in the City Manager's office,
personnel section and conference room
2. Transfer $2,080.00 from Fund 25-616-9992 to 25-510-7100
In accordance with plans submitted to the City Council
for drapes and furnishings in the Council Chambers
3. Transfer $900.00 from Fund 25-616-9992 to 25-616-9200
In accordance with plans submitted to the City Council
for partitions and lighting in the Building Department
and the Personnel Office Conference Room
4. Transfer $4,269.46 from Fund 25-640-9200 to 27-590-9400
Cover deficit in Bond issue of $125,000.00 for
construction of new Fire Station #7
Approval of Contracts with the Greater
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce for
advertising the City and promoting the
Industrial Development of the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, contracts with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce for
the service of advertising the City and promoting the Industrial
development of the City were approved, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
Approval of Amendment #1 to Agreement
No. 24-65 with the Bakersfield Community
House.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 24-65 between the City of
Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Community House was approved, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 64-66 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 Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Park, Resolution No. 74-66 finding that certain Weeds growing on
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966 - Page 4
property
and directing the Superintendent of Streets
was adopted by the following vote:
in the City of Bakersfield constitute a Public Nuisance
to destroy said Weeds,
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First
Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
First reading of an Ordinance Altering
the Boundaries of the First, Second, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Wards of
the City of Bakersfield, California.
reading was given an Ordinance altering the boundaries
of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Wards
of the City of Bakersfield.
Contract Agreement for Refuse Collection
of Unincorporated Areas when annexed,
referred to the Governmental Efficiency
Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Contract Agreement for Refuse Collection of the unincorporated
areas when annexed, was referred to the Governmental Efficiency
Committee with request that action be taken on the agreement as soon
as possible.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on amending the Text of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish an R-S-1A (Residential
Suburban One Acre Minimum Lot Size) Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, date of November 28, 1966 was set for hearing before lhe Council
on recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Text of the
Zoning Ordinance to establish an R-S-1A (Residential Suburban One
Acre Minimum Lot Size) Zone.
Date set for hearing before the Council on
amending the zoning boundaries of that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield
located at the northeast corner of
Vernon Avenue andColumbus Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, date of November 28, 1966 was set for hearing before the
Council on recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the
Bakersfield, California, November 7,1966 - Page 5
zoning boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to a
C-1-D (Limited Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive,
Zone; to a C-O-D (Professional Office - Architectural Design) or
more restrictive, Zone; and to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family D~elling -
Architectural Design) or more restrictive Zone, for that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield located at the northeast corner
of Mr. Vernon Avenue and Columbus Street.
Acceptance of Deed from Waldo M.
and Loretta A. Harvey.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Deed from Waldo M. and Loretta A. Harvey for property north
of Terrace Way on the west side of the existing South "H" Street right
of way, was accepted.
Acceptance of City Engineer's Report
under the Municipal Improvement Act of
1913 on proposed acquisitions and improvements
for ]Public Improvement District No. 801
(White Lane and Hughes Lane.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the City Engineer's report under the Municipal Improvement
Act of 1913, on proposed acquisitions and improvements for Public
Improvement District No. 801 (White Lane and Hughes Lane) was accepted
and ordered placed on file.
Approval of Change Order #1 -
Remodeling of Council Chambers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Park, Change Order #1 to T. E. Brooks for the Remodeling of the
Council Chambers in amount of $119.34, was approved.
Mayor authorized to execute Notice of
Completion for Remodeling of Lobby and
Council Area in the Council Chambers.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Notice of Completion for Remodeling of Lobby and Council Area in
the Council Chambers.
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966 - Page 6
Hearings.
This being the time set for hearing on a motion by the
Planning Commission to amend Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning from an R-1 (Single
Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield bounded on the south by Planz
Road, on the west by Tract 1878, and on the north and east by Kern
Island Canal (Planz Park #9 Annexation), the City Clerk reported
that this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and notices sent
to all property owners. No written protests have been received in her
office. Planning Director Sceales read the staff report on request
of Councilman Stiern.
No on present offering any objections, the Mayor declared
the public portion of the hearing closed. Upon a motion by Councilman
Whirremote, seconded by Councilman Hosking, Ordinance No. 1651 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 bounded on the south by Planz Road, on the
west by Tract 1878, and on the north and east by Kern Island Canal,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern~
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This being the time set for hearing on an application by
Joseph H. Uhler to amend Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code by changing the zoning boundaries from an R-S (Residential Suburban)
Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive
Zone, of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield commonly
known as 2420 to 2650 Ming Avenue, the City Clerk reported that the
hearing had been duly advertised and posted and notices sent to all
property owners as required by the zoning ordinance. No written protests
2O?
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966 - Page 7
have been received in her office.
At its regular meeting of October 5, 1966, the Planning
Commission recommended that this property be zoned C-2-D, and that
the following recommendations be met prior to the finalization of
commercial zoning:
The south 25 feet adjacent to Ming Avenue and
the east 45 feet of subject property be dedicated
and improved or dedicated and a bond submitted to
the City for the improvement
o
A 30 foot commercial alley along the north and west
boundary be dedicated and improved or dedicated and
a bond submitted to the City for the improvement of
Communications were read from the following:
Union Oil Company of California, who agreed to dedicate
the necessary property as required for street purposes
along the north side of Ming Road in front of 2420 Ming
Road, said dedication to be the southerly 25 feet, plus
a radius at the proposed intersection of Ming Road and
Hughes Lane. This company also agreed to improve the
righi-of-way with sidewalks, curbs and gutters and its
portion of street paving on Ming Road in front of their
property and the two lots being purchased, and also that
portion of Hughes Lane abutting the above properties
Lewis H. Creber, who agreed to dedicate lhe 25-foot
strip of land at the front of the property, and requested
that the easement at the rear be reduced to 25 feet
W. E. Bryant, who stated that he would be favorable toward
the certain conditions set out by the Planning Commission,
mainly, thai C-2 zoning be granted with a 25 foot easement
for a proposed alley or drive on the north end of the
property and a 20 foot easement on the west side of the
property to be used as a means of access to the rear.
Any increase of land requirement by the Planning Commission
for alleys and drives would deem the property too small
for his requirements to erect a suitable building with
adequate parking and allow for future growth
Mr. Dave Cross stated that he was here an an architect
representing a portion of the property owners. In general
the property owners are in agreement with the Planning Commission's and
the staff's recommendation~ however, the question comes up on the alley
in the rear, as the 30 feet in the rear and on the west side of the
property isn't compatible with several of the owners' planning, and
they feel that it could be reduced to 25 feet on the north side and
20 feet on the west side, and changed from an alley to an easement
which would serve the City's needs for access to the rear.
208'
Bakersfield, Cal{fornia, November 7, 1966 - Page 8
Mr. Cross also questioned the requirement of
the improvement of Ming Avenue by the property owners.
all property owners are in agreement on the dedication,
a bond for
In general,
but they feel
that improvement of street should be in conjunction with the
improvement of the property, which would be in accordance with the
normal city requirements. Each piece of property will not be improved
at the same time, and it will work a hardship on some individual
property owners to improve their street prior to the improvement of
the property, and this will reflect on some of the property owners'
decision whether or not to dedicate Ming Avenue.
Councilman Hosking stated that Mr. Jing has indicated that
a 25 foot easement is satisfactory on the north s~e and the 20 feet
on the west, with a small portion for a turn. He asked if that would be
satisfactory to the owners and Mr. Cross said it seemed to be.
Councilman Hosking said that all deeds for the dedication
have not been received by the City, and the Council probably could
not finish the hearing tonight for this reason, that it had been
suggested by Mr. Hoagland that they have a first reading tonight and
continue the hearing until the deeds are received. The only problem
remaining is the bond requirement.
Mr. Cross said if they could have a decision on the bonding
issue, he feels that the remainder of the property owners could have
a clearer picture and could make a final decision.
City Manager Bergen said the City would have no objections
whatsoever for the dedication and bonds for the improvements, these
bonds would normally run a year, however, if the property owner
hadn't developed within a year and he wanted to wait another year,
the City has always renewed theme bonds, in fact they have been
renewed for three or four years in some instances, depending on
the development. If the majority of the people were going to develop
in oneyear, then the City would insist that the rest of the street
go in that particular year.
Mr. Hank Acquistapace, ~al estate representative for
Union Oil Company of California, reiterated the statements made in
2O9
Bakersfield, California, November 7, 1966 Page 9
the letter from that Company, which had been read previously,
stating the 45 feet on the easterly side would be dedicated, however,
they would prefer not to be required to improve 45 feet at this time
or at the time of construction, but they would file a bond to improve
it when the City opens Hughes Lane through.
Mr. Steve Haberfelde, Mr. Dean Gay and Mr. Jack Armstrong
also addressed the Council relative to the improvement of this
property and the conditions which had been set up by the Planning
Commission for the rezoning.
After Council discussion, it was moved by Councilman
Stiern, seconded by Councilman Park, that the hearing be continued
for two weeks to obtain additional information and to secure the
necessary deeds for the required dedications.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
MAYO~ the Cxty of Bakersflel(~,"~Jall~f.
ATTEST:
CITY an 1 the Counc ~1
of the City of Bakersfield, California
210
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, heldin the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M. November 14, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend A. L. Greenwalt of Trinity
Baptist Church.
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of November 7, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Bill Scott addressed the Council stating that he wished
to acknowledge and receive, on behalf of the cast "Up With People"
the Proclamation issued by Mayor Karlen whereby Thursday, November 17,
1966, had been declared "Up With People" Day in Bakersfield. This
group will appear at the Civic Auditorium at 8:15 P.M. Thursday,
November 17, 1966, in a musical production. This is a dedicated group
from the high schools and colleges who have gained world renown
with their presentation of this show. He also issued an invitation
to attend a reception for the cast of this show, to be held at the
Bakersfield Women's Club on Wednesday~ November 16, 1966, from
3:30 to 4:30 P.M., to each member of the Council and each of the
student counterparts of the Mayor and Council, City Manager and
department heads.
Mayor Karlen said he hoped as many as possible could attend
this reception, as he intended to be there at least part of the time.
Be then introduced the student counterparts of the Council and
the Mayor who will act during Teenage Government Day on November
16, 1966.
Correspondence.
The Mayor announced that the next meeting of the South
Sa~ Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities will be held
in Visalia at the Elks Club on Friday, November 18, 1966.
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 - Page 2
Council Statements.
Councilman Hosking said he would like
question.
much about
newspaper,
to ask a rhetorical
What is the League of Women Voters that he has heard so
lately? This organization, from all reports in the
is certainly opposed to the City's position on water, and
he doesn't understand why, or for what reason. He has been told that
this is a non-partisan organization, therefore, he doesn't understand
what it is doing in the water picture. It seems to him they should
come to the Council, so that the Council can explain its position.
If the League has studied this problem, as they have stated many times,
it has been done without obtaining any information from the Council
regarding the City's position on the problem, and he
be wise if the League would study the City's side of
Mayor Karlen said they haven't consulted with
feels it would
the problem.
him in his
office and he is sure they haven't consulted with the Water Committee.
It would appear that the conclusions, drawn without such consultation
with the water Committee, who is so well informed on the City's water
problems, would be inappropriate. He agrees that the Council should
have at least been consulted regarding any stand that the League took.
There has been some question in many people's mind whether this happens
to be Mrs. Gelman's stand or truly is that of the League of Women Voters.
Councilman Stiern said, as they would recall, one evening at
a Council meeting he asked Mrs. Gelman if her opinion was her own
viewpoint, or represented the organization which she represented. She
told him that it represented the opinion of the Board of her organization.
This organization and Mrs. Gelman, are entitled to any opinion they wish
to reach and free to work in any'manner they wish, but it seems rather
strange that they invariably form opinions based on information which
someone other than the City has given to them, someone who is usually
quite belligerent towards the City's position.
Councilman Doolin said he believes this is a national
organization and as such, they have a right to express their viewpoints.
They have taken a position on the water problem, and he does not
criticize them for differing with the Council's position.
2'12
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 - Page 3
Councilman Stiern said he thinks they do a terrific job
at election time in discussing ballot measures, introducing candidates
to the people, and this is a real service to the public, as it seems
to be in line with whtat they were organized to do, but when they
jump into partisan issues, such as the discussion between the City and
the Kern County Water Agency, without seeking out all the information
that is available, he thinks they jeopardize the future of their
organization.
Councilman Doolin said he thinks that normally this organization
does stick with the issues and he doesn'l know how well informed they
are about the water problem, it seems to his that they are at least
one of the better informed organizations and they do take an interest
in these matters.
Councilman Hosking said he doesn't have anything against
any group saying what they wish, but whether this is Mrs. Gelman's
theory or that of the whole organization, he is not prepared to say.
He wondered when the Council is going to get a chance to answer the
questions which were submitted to the Board of Supervisors at a recent
meeting. This is the reason he brought the matter up.
Councilman Park said as far as he knows, neither Mrs. Gelman
nor any member of the League of Women Voters has ever appeared before
the Water Committee or the City Council with the purpose of finding
out the City's point of view on the water problem. They have continued
for several months to support the Water Agency's point of view and
they continue to do this without appearing before the Council and
obtaining some facts in the matter. He said he would welcome them
at any time to come before the Council or the Council Water Committee
to hear the City's side of the story.
Councilman Rucker said possibly they were prejudging this
organization, that the news media carries much information on this
water problem, and possibly that is where she obtained some of her
ideas.
213
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 - Page 4
Councilman Hosking said that on the contrary, he thinks she
has prejudged the members of the Council, as she has never bothered
to ask what their thinking is on the matter, although he knows
the Council has received many reports in the last year and a half
which would have brought out many points of interest to the League.
It is pretty difficult to study something that has two sides by
only studying one of the sides.
Councilman Sitern said when he mentioned partisanship
he didn't mean it from a party point of view, but from an organization
taking one side or the other on a question. The news release in
the newspaper from the League of Women Voters consisted of this
organization taking a position with certain members of the Water
Agency and clobbering the position of the City and urging the Board
of Supervisors to take action which would clobber the people of the
City of Bakersfield. Mrs. Gelman enumerated the reasons why people
should write letters to the Board of Supervisors to substantiate this
position. The reasons she listed in some cases were distortions.
They were not factual. There is an obligation, when you presume to
inform the public about an issue, to really inform them, in the
characteristic manner in which the League usually does this. Set out
the pros and cons of the issue and let the public make up its own
mind. Just don't say these are the things you should say to the
Board of Supervisors, if these things are not correct.
Councilman Park said he would be interested to know
who paid the postage, or if the League of Women Voters paid the bill,
for the mail-out which he recently received from the League.
Councilman Hosking said it doesn't sound like the League
of Women Voters, it sounds more like a pressure group at this point.
them.
Councilman Doolin said the
Mayor Karlen said he would
thing to do is simply to ask
like to invite them to appear
before the Council, but they don't really have much time,~ as the
Board of Supervisors will be making a decision on the Bakersfield Municipal
Water District on Tuesday, November 15. However, he will be very
happy to issue an invitation to this organization.
214
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 - Page 5
Councilman Park said he would like to make a comment
regarding the "Up With People" show. They have endeavroed for
some time to get this tremendous cast of American youth to Bakersfield.
these young people have traveled around the world showing what true
Americanism is. There are three Bakersfield youths in this cast
who will be on the stage when the show is performed and he hopes
everyone will attend.
Councilman Park said he would like to comment on a policy
of the City which he feels should be reviewed, with the idea of making
some changes. The City's present policy is to contract out advertising
space on the city buses without regard to partisan elections. The
space is rented to campaign organizations who in turn place political
advertising on the buses, a practice which is not understood by the
general public. He therefore made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, that the City Attorney be directed to prepare a modified
contract with the advertising agency revising the present policy
by eliminating political advertising and certain other types of
advertising on city buses and all city equipment. This motion was
adopted unanimously by a roll call vote.
Councilman Park said he wanted to welcome Mike Marchbanks
as his stand-in for Councilman and also acknowledge the presence of
former Councilman and Mrs. Marchbanks at the meeting.
Mayor Karlen said he would like to urge everyone to attend
the "Up Wit~ People" show as he knows from experience they will enjoy
it very much.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 1626 to 1692 inclusive, as audited by the
Finance Approval Committee were allowed, and authorization~s granted
for payment of same.
2i5
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 Page 6
Rejection of all bids for 25 Cubic
Yard Refuse Packer Trucks.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Park, all bids for 25 cubic yard refuse packer trucks were rejected,
and authorization was granted fo readvertise, using revised specifications
as suggested.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1652 New Series
Altering the Boundaries of the First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh
Wards of the City of Bakersfield, California.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Ordinance No. 1652 New Series altering the boundaries of the
First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Wards of the
City of Bakersfield, California, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.775 of the Municipal
Code and adding Sections 11.04.774 and
11.04.776 to the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield.
First reading was given to an Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.04.775 of the Municipal
Code and adding Sections 11.04.774 and 11.04.776 to the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield.
First reading of an Ordinance amending
Section 11.04.650 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield establishing
truck routes in said City.
First reading was given to an Ordinance amending Section
11.04.650 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield establislhing
truck routes in said City.
Approval of refund of 1965 Weed Abatement
Assessment for Joseph Martin.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, refund of 1965 Weed Abatement Assessment for Joseph Martin
was approved, and the Auditor-Controller was authorized to issue
check covering same.
216
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 - Page 7
Hearings.
As requested by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz,
hearing on application for franchises for transmitting and distributing
Gas and Electricity within the City of Bakersfield, was continued
until December 12, 1966.
This being the time set for hearing on intention of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, to order the vacation
of a sewer easement in "B" Street between 16th Street and Truxtun
Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield, the City Clerk reported that this
hearing had been duly published and posted. No one present offering
any opposition to the vacation, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed, and upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Resolution No. 75-66 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, ordering the vacation of a sewer easement in "B" Street
between 16th Street and Truxtun Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield,
California, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This being the time set for hearing on intention of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, to order the
abandonment of the dedication of right of Vehicular Access to Elm
Street from Lot l, Tract No. 2815, City of Bakersfield, the City
Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly posted. No one
present offering any opposition, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed, and upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by
Councilman Park, Resolution No. 76-66 of the Council of the City of
217
Bakersfield, California, November 14, 1966 - Page 8
Bakersfield ordering the abandonment of the dedication of right
of Vehicular Access to Elm Street from Lot l, Tract No. 2815,
City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Adjournment.
There being no
Council~
Stiern,
further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilmarl
the meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
MAYOR of the C' y o' akersfield, ~alif~ni~
ATTEST:
c the Counc xl
the City of Bakersfield, California
of
Bakersfield,
California,
November 21, 1966
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. November 21, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by Richard S. Wayne, Pastor of the
United Presbyterian Church of the Master.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whirremote
Minutes of the regular meeting of November 14, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Communication from Countryside Homes, Inc.
requesting sewer rental agreement pending
annexation for property at 2801 South "H"
Street referred to the City Attorney and
City Engineer for recommendation and report
back to the Council.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Stiern, communication from Countryside Homes, Inc. requesting a
sewer rental agreement for a proposed 60 unit apartment development
on 2801 South "H" Street pending annexation to the City of Bakersfield,
was referred to the City Attorney and City Engineer for recommendation
and report back to the Council.
Council Statements.
Councilman Stiern commented that he desired to report on a
meeting that was held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers last Tuesday,
November 15, 1966. He stated as follows:
I think the meeting of the Board of Supervisors should be
televised so that all of you and the people of Bakersfield could see
for themselves the absence of concern these gentlemen have for the City
of Bakersfield. A case in point is last Tuesday's arbitrary decision
for the Board to eliminate our Water District without a vote of the
people. No one wanted the District dissolved except the Directors of
the Water Agency and the League of Women Voters. Certainly, not the
people who live within the District. But 11,092 voters have been
Bakersfield, California, November 21, 1966 Page 2
robbed of this opportunity to express themselves of hour they felt
by the arbitrary action of the Board. It started last month at the
LAFCO meeting when Supervisor John Holt abstained when the vote to
recommend action to the Board was taken. He had no conflict of
interest, which I think is grounds for abstention, he just chose not
to make a decision for us.
We didn't know it at the time, but that was the beginning
of the actions of these four people. Last Tuesday's decision started
when Supervisor Webb uttered the lone word "Motion." He made no
comment or recommendation, just "Motion." The Board Chairman had t;o
ask him what he meant, he was actually making a motion that continued
existence of the District was not in the best interests of us folks
who live in the District, of all things. The final vote was a
clincher, 4 to 1, Supervisor Fairbairn, who had voted last month,
of all things, as a LAFCO member to recommend to the Supervisors
that an election be held, voted last Tuesday to abolish the District
without an election. Incidentally, he resents any criticism of L~CO
and seems to feel that the actions of LAFCO are above reproach. The
fourth member, Supervisor Jackson, supplied the clincher, with a
motion to abolish the District without a vote of the people. And
that was the action of last Tuesday.
Just once, while I'm on the Council, I would like to see
the City get a fair shake from the Board of Supervisors. The law
of averages, or simple justice, should require an occasional vote
in our favor. Obviously, the only justification for their arbitrary
action of last Tuesday, is that they didn't dare let the people express
themselves, because they would have voted intelligently, and for a
good water supply. But there will be no vote. I think Tuesday's
action was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of water
profiteers and against the people of the County. The only surprising
and reassuring thing about it is that there are a good many people
in the area who understand and know what's going on. Thank you.
22O
Bakersfield,
California,
November 21,
1966 - Page 3 ~
Adoption of Report from Chief Building
Inspector on letter from Housing Advisory
and Appeals Board.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, report from the Chief Building Inspector on a letter from the
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board was received and ordered placed
on file, and the recommendations contained therein adopted. The
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board is to be advised that an Advisory
Committee be appointed when necessary, in accordance with the Ordi-
nance No. 1613 New Series, without compensation.
Reception of Report of the Governmental
Efficiency Committee relative to
implementing modifications in existing
telephone communication network.
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Effi-
ciency Committee, reported that the Committee has been presented with
the final recommendations of the administrative staff relative to im-
plementing modifications in the existing telephone communication net-
work. These modifications were presented to the GEC by Tel Plan, Inc.
who conducted a survey of the City's communication facilities. All
recommendations have been discussed and fully agreed to with the de-.
partments concerned, the City Manager's office and Pacific Telephone,
Company. Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Park, the report was received and ordered placed on file.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 1693 to 1823, inclusive, in amount of $63,193.86,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Acceptance of bid of William H. Schallock,
Inc. for construction of a storm drain
Lakeview Avenue between Tenth Street and
Potomac Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, low unit prices bid by William H. Schallock, Inc. for con-
struction of a storm drain in Lakeview Avenue between Tenth Street
and Potomac Avenue were accepted, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, November 21, 1966 - Page4
Action on construction of a reinforced
concrete box culvert at Williams Street
and Eastside Canal deferred for one
week.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, action on the construction of a reinforced concrete box culvert
at Williams Street and Eastside Canal was deferred for one week.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1653 New Series
of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
11.04.775 of the Municipal Code and adding
Sections 11.04.774 and 11.04.776 to the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Ordinance No. 1653 New Series of the City of Bakersfield amend-
ing Section 11.04.775 of the Municipal Code and adding Sections 11.04.
774 and 11.04.776 to the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Proposed Ordinance amending Section
11.04.650 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield establishing
Truck Routes in said City, referred to
the Governmental Efficiency Committee
for study and recommendation.
After discussion, proposed Ordinance amending Section 11..04.
650 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield establishing Truck
Routes in said City, was referred to the Governmental Efficiency Committee
for study and recommendation.
Adoption of Resolution No. 77-66 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield directing
the Fiscal Agent to withdraw funds from the
City of Bakersfield Off-Street Parking Surplus
Revenue Fund and to pay said funds to the
City Treasurer.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Resolution No. 77-66 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
directing the Fiscal Agent to withdraw funds from the City of Bakersfield
222
Bakersfield,
California,
November 21,
1966 - Page
Off-Street Parking Surplus Revenue Fund and to pay said funds to
the City Treasurer, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Construction Change Order No.
1 to the Bakersfield Electric Company
for New Stage Lighting Control System at
Bakersfield Civic Auditorium.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Council-
man Doolin, Construction Change Order No. 1 to the Bakersfield Electric
Company, in amount of $2118.00, for New Stage Lighting Control System
at Bakersfield Civic Auditorium was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same. The Auditor-Controller was authorized to
transfer this amount to Account No. 25-715-8300 from the Council's
Contingency Fund.
Claim against the City of Bakersfield
from M. C. Gaumer, Jr. referred to the
City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz,
man Park, claim against the City of Bakersfield
was referred to the City Attorney.
seconded by Council-
from M. C. Gaumer, Jr.
Approval of Step Salary Advancements
effective December 1, 1966.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, the following employees are recommended to receive
salary step advancements, effective December 1, 1966:
E. J. Abrams Sanitation Crewman II C to D
D. E. Clay Motor Patrolman D to E
G. A. Ferris Utility Man C to D
R. R. Hacker Firefighter D to E
A. L. Kimble Detective E to F
Christie Knick Account Clerk I C to D
R. R. Lackey Motor Patrolman C to D
H. Lostaunau, Jr. Maintenance Man II C to D
L. M. McBride Asst. Planner C to D
O. McCarthy, Jr. Firefighter D to E
K. S. Middleton Motor Patrolman C to D
B. M. Rudder Detective E to F
A.A. Sosa, Jr. Firefighter C to D
J. L. Turner Sanitation Crewman II D to E
223
Bakersfield, California, November 21, 1966 - Page 6
Proposal to grant right of way to the
Arvin-Edison Water Storage District over
a strip of property along the easterly
boundary of the City sewer farm referred
to the City Attorney for study and
recommendation.
At this time the Council discussed the proposal to grant
right of way to the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District over a 43
foot wide strip of property along the easterly boundary of the City
sewer farm in the vicinity of the District's canal for the purpose of
ingress and egress to the canal facility. Councilman Park made a
motion, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, that the grant of right of
way be approved. Councilman Whittemore said he was in favor of the
motion with the stipulation that it be a revocable easement. After
discussion, substitute motion was made by Councilman Doolin, seconded
by Councilman Mosking, that the matter be referred to the City Attorney
for study and recommendation, and report back to the Council in one
week. Councilman Mosking suggested that the matter also be discussed
with the attorneys for the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District.
Encroachment Permit granted Pacific
Telephone & TelegraphCompany for
footings encroachment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, Encroachment Permit was granted the Pacific Telephone &
Telegraph Company for footings at development bounded by 22nd Street,
L Street, M Street and China Alley.
Approval of Plans and Specifications for
the construction of a Multi-purpose Game
Slab at Siemon Park and at California
Avenue Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Plans and Specifications for the construction of a multi-
purpose game slab at Siemon Park and at California Avenue Park was
approved.
Approval of Plans and Specifications for
the construction of an Automatic Sprinkler
System in Jefferson Park.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Council-
man Rucker, Plans and Specifications for the construction of
matic sprinkler system in Jefferson Park were approved.
an auto-
Bakers£ield, California, November 21, 1966 Page
property, so he would insist
give up at least 30 feet for
street. He stated that
that the property owners on Ming Avenue
the easement, to be used later for a
Authorization granted to enter into
a standard suburban sewer rental
agreement with Countryside Homes, Inc.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Park, authorization was granted to enter into a standard sewer
rental agreement with Countryside Homes, Inc. for proposed to unit
apartment development on 2801 South "H" Street.
Hearings.
This being the time set for continued hearing on an appli-
cation by Joseph H. Uhler to amend Title 17 of the Bakersfield Muni-
cipal Code by changing the zoning boundaries from an R-2 (Residential
Suburban) Zone to a C-2-D (Commercial -- Architectural Design) or more
restrictive, Zone, of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 2420 to 2650 Ming Avenue, Mayor Karlen stated they
would allow the proponents and opponents thirty minute period to speak.
Mr. Dave Cross, architect representing the owners in the matter, stated
that since they had engaged in a lengthy discussion at the hearing ,on
November 7, 1966, he did not feel that it was necessary to speak
further at this time, but would like to reserve time for rebuttal, if
necessary.
Opponents were then given an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. George Osborn, who lives at 2509 Talisman Drive, stated that his
property adjoins the proposed service station on the north, and that
he was opposing the proposed rezoning, as he and his neighbors feel
their privacy will be invaded, their tranquility will be usurped, and
in the long run, they do not see how this rezoning will possibly
benefit the residential property to the north.
Dro. Howard Grove and his wife, who reside at 2525 Talisman
Drive, stated they were very much opposed to this rezoning and that
they had been assured if this was taken in as business property, that
provision would be made so there would be a street at any time the
property owners to the north wished to dedicate 30 feet of their
Bakersfield, California, November 21, 1966 Page 8
until such time as they wanted to develop the rear of their property,
they should be entitled to privacy, and the owners of the property to
the south should be required to construct an eight food block wall fence.
Mrs. Dave Cross stated that in rebuttal he felt there was
nothing too critical to be brought out, but he was under the impression
that the reason the meeting was held over was to review the 25 foot
easement to the north in connection with the best interests of the people
to the north, and it has been determined, in a discussion in Director
of Public Works Jing's office after the fiXst hearing that a 25 foot
easement would take care of the problems being considered.
Mr. Jack Armstrong stated he would like to point out one
thing that might possibly have been overlooked. The lots to the north
are 350 feet deep, while those on the south side are 250 foot depth
lots. These people are giving 25 feet off the front and 25 feet off
the back, which means they are losing 50 feet already, and it would seem
fair to him, for the property owners with the 350 feet depth lots
to give 35 feet, if it is necessary to construct a street.
Mr. Hank Acquistapace, stated he represented Union Oil
Company of California, and this company is contemplating using the
property to the south of Mr. George Osborn, opponent to the rezoning,
for a service station. They do not anticipate utilizing the total
depth of this parcel for service station usage, however. There will
be approximately a 90 foot buffer which will be put to other uses,
dividing the service station site and Mr. Osborn's property.
Mr. Duke Bloom of 2407 Ming Avenue, appeared before the
Council objecting to certain statements made by Mr. Dean Gay, who
explained that evidently information had been given to him in error.
Mr. Bloom stated that he was opposed to any service station being built
across from his residence, and that some member of a former Council
had promised him there would be no strip zoning after the Sears Complex
was rezoned.
Bakersfield, California, November 21, 1966 Page 9
Mr. William V. Matheny of 2413 Ming Road, stated that he
objected to the rezoning and to the proposal to construct a service
station across from his residence.
Councilman Park said he was not on the Council when the
Sears rezoning was considered. He made one committment when he
asked for this matter to be brought back for consideration several
months ago. He told the people then that he would not consent
personally to the building of a service station diagonally across
the street from their homes, and he meant it when he said it, and
he intends to stand by it.
Mr. Joseph Uhler, who had made the application for the
rezoning, stated that he owned the only vacant lot there. He said
he would have to do something with the lot, as he cannot build a
house on it. He has a buyer for this lot who wants to put in a
toy store, and he hopes it is zoned commercial, because he can't
build anything else on this lot. He also informed the Council thai;
his tax bill last year was $84.47 and this year it has increased to
$343.87, so evidently the assessor has appraised it as a commercial
lot.
Councilman Hosking said he worried about all the promises
which theoretically the Council made to Mr. Bloom and others, he doesn't
recall making any promises to anyone, and he is a little resentful
of the point of view expressed in this connection. Since he has been
on the Council, he does not recall making any promises to the
people in this area. When this came up before, this entire area
was sought to be C-1 zone, and he recalls voting against this
particular parcel before the Council tonight, to be zoned C-l,
because at that time there apparently were no plans for its
development.
Councilman Stiern said he thought it was a mistake not
to solve the problem of the access road to the north of the subject
property at this time. He said he was quite sympathetic to Mr. Uhler,
he couldn'i see why he should pay taxes on a piece of property and
227
Bakersfield, California, November 21, 1966 Page 10
not get the use out of it. He said he thinks it could be
developed without injuring the fine homes that are east of Hughes
Lane, that thought should be given to developing it with C-1 zoning
and C-0 on the corner. With something like that in mind, he would be
in favor of referring it back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
Councilman Park said he had nothing against service stations
but he has opposed placing service stations on corners across the
street from good residential property, and that he would second
Mr. Stiern's motion, because he thinks the Planning Commission should
make a teevaluation of this.
Councilman Rucker said he was not aware of the Council
collectively making any promises to anyone regarding the rezoning .of
this property.
Councilman Whittemore said he was not a member of the Council
when the Sears Complex was zoned, but no one Council can bind anotiAer
Council's future actions. He stated that the properties on
Ming Road are a problem, the City is going to require the widening of
Ming on the north, and if 25 feet is taken off the properties, the
highway is going to be right in the front yards of these people.
Unfortunately, it is going to affect the people on the south side
of the street. The heavy zoning is not getting too much favor, bu't
Councilman Whittemore said he thinks it should be something besides
R-S, which it is at the present time.
Councilman Stiern said he was a member of the Council
and would take his share of the responsibility for the zoning of
the Valley Plaza, and if it had not been annexed and zoned by the
City, it would still be there and part of the County. A year ago
the Council decided there was no necessity for zoning this strip because
there was no development. Apparently, there is development now.
He said he thinks C-2 is too heavy. He then made a motion, that the
consideration to fezone to a C-2 zone be referred back to the Planning
Commission for further study and recommendation to the Council, as
2'28
Bakersfield,
California,
November 21, 1966
Page 11 [~
as soon as possible, as this gives the people to the north
nity to still resolve a street problem, if they want to do
an opportu-
it.
Councilman Park said he would second the motion, and would
like to emphasize what was said regarding the property to the north.
He hopes that the Planning Department will work in cooperation with
the people to the north to see that access can be worked out so that
there is not a strip of ground, whether it is in the City or the County,
which is vacant and isolated, so that no access is available to it.
Councilman Doolin said he agreed with Councilman Stiern that
the Council really didn't have any choice, they were told pointblank
by the Sears Company that they would either be in the City or the County,
but in that location.
The Council and the staff engaged in discussion. Counci]woman
Balfanz said she had been very quiet, but she thinks they have dealt in
personalities too much tonight. This Council tries sincerely and
honestly to the best of its ability, to do what is best for the City
as a whole and not individuals, and she thinks this has gone on long
enough. She has made no promises to anyone, and she has sincerely
tried to do her very best for the overall City. They have listened
to this, they are holding up developers, and there is no use in post-
poning it any longer. Therefore, she made a substitute motion that
they accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone the
property C-2-D. Councilman Rucker seconded the motion. After some
discussion, the Mayor called for a roll call, and the motion was tied
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Rucker, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Doolin, Park, Stiern
Abstaining: Councilman Hosking
Absent: None
Pursuant to Section 14 of the Charter which decl&res that
the Mayor shall have the right to vote on all matters when the vote
of the Council results in a tie, Mayor Karlen cast a negative vote,
and the motion failed to carry.
229
Bakersfield, California~ November 21, 1966 Page 12
After discussion, a vote was taken on the original motion
which failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Doolin, Park~ Stiern
Noes: Councilmen Balfanz, Hosking, Rucker, Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Whirremote said he thinks this matter should be
resolved tonight, and he hopes he can make the proper motion which
will accomplish that. Personally he thinks it should be zoned C-2,
but to prevent the complete stoppage of the development of this
piece of property~ he then made a motion, which was seconded by
Councilman Hosking, that Ordinance No. 1654 New Series be adopted,
zoning the entire property C-l-D, or more restrictive zone, with the
proper dedication of the easements, etc., as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Councilman Park stated that since this would still permit
the construction of a service station on the corner, he would have to
vote "no".
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Hosking, Rucker~ Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Doolin, Park, Stiern
Absent: None
Councilman Park said before the Council adjourned, he
wanted to report that the GEC had held a very important meeting
last Tuesday with Mr. O'Rear and a committee of men from the Re£use
Department. They were advised of a number of things that they had
not heard before. They now had a better understanding of the
grievances and complaints of these employees, and the GEC will be
considering these problems until the next budget session, at which
time undoubtedly they will make certain recommendations for this
department.
Bakersfield,
California,
November 21, 1966
Page 13
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by
Councilman Rucker, the meeting adjourned at 11:48 P.M.
Y aKersfield, C~li.f.-
ATTEST:
~ ~ ' ~ the
0~~n~ ~.x-O~oZ~ o~ 0oun~
of the City of Bakersfield, California
231
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966
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. November 28, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Kenneth Adams of
the First Methodist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of November 21, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
At this time, Mayor Karlen presented a Proclamation to
members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Organization, designating the
week of December 7th as "Remember Pearl Harbor Week."
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Whirremote, communication from the League of Women Voters of Bakersfield
setting out the purposes and procedures of this organization, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Council Stiern stated he would like to comment on the letter
recieved from the League of Women Voters. Two or three weeks ago when
some of the Council took exception to certain activities of the League,
he tried to make it clear at that time that he thought the League
fulfilled a very useful and helpful purpose to the voters, but he
felt that they could be very partisan and very hasty in some of the
conclusions they reached. Evidently, they have taken exception to
some of the comments that were made that night.
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 Page
He does not propose to argue with these ladies publicly,
but he has seen instances where the League has taken a very partisan
stand and he questions the wisdom of doing so. Very recently,
Mrs. Gelman, the president of the League, stood before the microphone
at a Council meeting, and told the Council that she thought it was
most undemocratic to put the Anti-Poverty measure on the ballot, and
when closely questioned, she admitted that the stand taken was with
the officers of the organization, and not with the general membership.
In years past, he remembers a Civil Service issue which was
on the ballot, on which the League took very hasty action without
exploring both sides of the issue, or the reason why certain councilmen
felt as they did. More recently, on the issue of the proposed Greater
Bakersfield Water District. The Council Water Committee would welcome
the participation of the League of Women Voters in its meetings,
they have never been there and have never made an attempt to understand
the position of the City. He is not certain that they have obtained
available copies of certain information, like the Stetson Report, on
which the Water Committee has based many of its conclusions. He does
not think you can say that the League understands, or has attempted to
understand, the position of the City.
In calling the League to task, in a sense, the Council has
been told that the League is not partisan, and that they never take a
position of party, activity. He thinks the ladies should consult
their dictionary, because he has consulted his and the word "Partisan"
means an adherence or supporter of a person, party or cause, and he
thinks they are most certainly partisan when it comes to a cause, in
this instance, the cause of the Kern County Water Agency.
That is the reason, if the Council Water Committee can help
the League members in any way, it would be very happy to. A suggestion
for a League study in the
be a guest for a low-cost,
Bakersfield area.
future, if they would like, perhaps would
high quality water supply for the Greater
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 Pag,~ 3
Councilman Hosking said he would like to make a short comment.
He cannot conceive~ in his experience, of being non-partisan on one
hand~ and partisan on the other. In the meetings that he has attended
at LAFCO and various other places, where the Council Water Committee
has presented its arguments, when a call was made for proponents of
the proposed Water District, someone from the League of Women Voters
stood up and described the necessity and all the benefits that would
accrue from the formation of this District. If that ~mounts to being
impartial, as to whether or not people should vote for the District,
then his experience has betrayed him, because he does not consider
that to be impartial.
Councilman Stiern said he wonders when the time comes to
vote on this issue, if as they suggest in their letter, the League will
prepare background information and pros and cons. After the repeated
public positions which they have taken in favor of the formation of
this District, it is going to be rather difficult for them to assume a
neutral role again. He can visualize, perhaps a television panel,
presented by the League of Women Voters, with a moderator presenting
the pros and cons and active participation from the League as proponents
of the Water District.
Councilman Doolin said he feels the League of Women Voters
is a fine organization, said he could not remember, but he was under
the impression, that the League stated they wanted the issue to come
to a vote, not that they were in favor of it as an organization~ and
this is two different things. If some organization disagrees with tile
Council, and the Council criticizes them for that reason, he thinks
they are taking the wrong approach. He said he feels they have a
right to disagree with the Council and it is difficult for an
organization not to express opinions. He feels that the League will
offer pros and cons on the issue.
Councilman Stiern said Councilman Doolin missed his point.
He said if the Council or the Council Water Committee can help
them with documents or information or by inviting them to attend meetings
'234'
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 Page. 4
of the Water Committee, he thinks it would be possible for them to
arrive at a better and more unbiased opinion of the total water picture.
Councilman Doolin said just because an organization doesn't
agree with the Council's position, doesn't mean they are biased, that
he is sure everyone doesn't agree with the Council on the water picture.
Councilman Stiern said he wasn't saying that they were biased,
he was sure that they don't understand the City's position at all. He
doesn't know how they could understand this position.
Councilman Doolin said he thought it would be proper, for
Councilman Stiern, as the chairman of the Council Water Committee, to
invite this group to attend its meetings. He said he feels that both
the Council and the League of Women Voters are looking out for the
betterment of the community, perhaps they are looking at it for the
Metropolitan area, while the Council is confining it to the City only,
and this is where the difference of opinion arises.
Mayor Karlen said he gains the impression from Councilmen
Stiern's and Hosking's comments, that they object to certain aspects
of the letter and also the position of the League of Women Voters,
insofar as the Water Committee was never consulted in any official
capacity, there were never any in depth studies held. The objection
of these Councilmen isn't to the fact that the League took a position:.
which they can well do, but they shouldn't take a position without
consulting with the Water Committee, which has studied this matter at
great length.
Mayor Karlen said he probably should object to what has been
said by the League because of being chairman of the LAFCO and having
been one of the 'four who voted in favor of putting the dissolution of
the Bakersfield Municipal Water District on the ballot. They were, in
effect, by the League of Women Voters thought to be acting improperly
in office, because the very first sentence in a letter addressed to the
Board of Supervisors states that the Board was being asked to take an
action which would involve wasting public funds, failing to comply with
the law and permitting a minority to win an election. If he were a
party to that, it is certainly accusing the Mayor of being indiscrete
with his vote as a member of LAFCO. The Board of Supervisors at this
meeting did dissolve the Bakersfield Municipal Water District. A
235.
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 - Page 5
committee of five was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to study
and recommend five divisions of the proposed Greater Bakersfield Water
District and the Mayor believes that the City should have someone
sitting in on any meetings held by this committee, so that they
will be aware of how this district is going to be divided, in order
to protect the City and express the City's desires on the division.
If this goes through, and an election is held for directors
for the five districts, and it is divided up in such a manner that
the City would never have a representative, the City would not be
in a very good position. The Board has appointed the committee who
are all County personnel and County orientated.
Mayor Karlen said in trying to be objective, as the League
of Women Voters has done, that possibly the City should try to help
this organization by giving them more information which the City has
available, if they are willing to accept it, and he is sure they will
be.
Councilman Doolin stated that he wanted to notify the public
that on December 6, 1966, the Public Utilities Commission will hol.d
a hearing in the Police Auditorium on an application of the California
Water Service Company for an increase in water rates. He said he
hoped the administration has studied this matter and would arrange
to have representatives attend this hearing on behalf of the City.
Councilman Stiern said the Council Water Committee was very
much aware of the hearing and for the benefit of the city taxpayers
would be following the evidence which will be presented at the hearing.
The California Water Service Company is going to have to substantiate
its position for this increase before the PUC. If they don't justify
the increase, the Council will voice its opposition.
Councilman Park said he wanted to bring out that the proposed
rate change would not apply to the portion of the Bakersfield district
formerly served by the Crest Water Company, and the
rate relief is in no way caused by or attributed to
acquisition by the California Water Service Company
of the Crest Water Company.
application for
the recent
of the propertly
236.
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 - Page 6
Mayor Karlen repeated his request to the Council that the
City Manager have one of his administrative aides sit in on meetings
of the committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors to study the
division of the Greater Bakersfield Municipal Water District into
five districts. City Manager Bergen stated he would attempt to
have someone present at the meetings.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Vouchers Nos. 1824 to 1919, conclusive, in amount of $35,190.02
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Acceptance of low bid of Richard L.
Williams for abatement of weeds.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, low bid of Richard L. Williams for abatement of weeds
growing on three properties in the City of Bakersfield, in amount of
$50.91, was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Acceptance of low bid of Three-Way
Chevrolet Company for five - ½ Ton
Pickup Trucks.
Upon a motion By Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Park, low bid of Three-Way Chevrolet Company in amount of $7,766.15,
to furnish five - ½ ton Pickup Trucks, was accepted and all other bids
were rejected.
Acceptance of low bid of Southwest
Flexible Company for Bucket Machine
and Loader.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Stiern, low bid of Southwest Flexible Company in amount of $3,7915.52,
to furnish Bucket Machine Loader was accepted, and all other bids
were rejected.
Acceptance of bid of Three-Way
Chevrolet Company for 23,000 lb.
GVW Cab and Chassis - two speed
rear axle.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, bid of Three-Way Chevrolet Company in amount of $4,305.57,
was accepted, this being the only bid received.
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 Page 7
Acceptance of Bid of Three-Way
Chevrolet Company for 23,000 lb. GVW
Cab and Chassis, single reduction rear
axle.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Councilman
Park, a bid of Three-Way Chevrolet Company to furnish 23,000# GVW Cab
and Chassis, Single Reduction Rear Axle, for a net price of $3,973.11
was accepted, this being the only bid received.
Acceptance of Bid of Crook Company
for Diesel Motor Grader.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, bid of Crook Company to furnish Diesel Motor Grader for a
net price of $17,200.00 was accepted and all other bids were rejected.
Acceptance of Bid of Three-Way
Chevrolet Company to furnish 24,000 lb.
19 Ft. Flat Bed Dump Truck.
GVW
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, bid of Three-Way Chevrolet Company to furnish 24,000 lb. GVW
19 foot Flat Bed Dump Truck was accepted, and all other bids were
rejected.
Rejection of bid for 25,000 lb GVW
Cab and Chassis.
Due to the fact that equipment bid did not meet specifications,
upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Whittemore,
bid received for 25,000 lb. GVW Cab and Chassis was rejected, and
authorization was granted to readvertise for this equipment using
revised specifications.
Acceptance of Bid of Joe C. Brown,
Inc. for construction of a reinforced
concrete box culvert at Williams Street
and Eastside Canal.
Upon motion by Councilman Park, seconded by
Councilwoman Balfanz, unit prices bid by Joe C. Brown, Inc. for construction
of a reinforced concrete box culvert at Williams Street and Eastside
Canal were accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield,
California,
November 28, 1966 Page 8
Right of way granted to the Arvin-Edison
Water Storage District along the easterly
boundary of the City sewer farm.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, right of way was granted to the Arvin-Edison Water Storage
District over a 43-foot strip of property along the easterly boundary
of the City sewer farm in the vicinity of the District's canal for
purpose of ingress and egress to the canal facility.
Approval of request from Anthony Homes
to connect 20 unit apartment building
to the City sewer line.
Upon motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Park, request from Anthony Homes to connect 20 unit apartment building
at 25 Williamson Way to the City sewer line was approved, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Submit a plan for review and approval
2. Work to be done to City specifications
3. Enter into Suburban Sewer Agreement
Request granted to reimburse Mr. Robert
Kipper, Head of Opportunities Industrialization
Center in Los Angeles, for personal expenses
incurred in attending Inter-Group Relations
Board meeting in Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, request of Mrs. Helen Lee, chairman of the Inter-Group Relations
Board, for sum of $30.00 to reimburse Mr. Robert Kipper, head of the
Opportunity Industrialization Center in Los Angeles, for personal
expenses incurred to attend meeting of the Inter-Group Relations Board
to be held on December 1, 1966, in the Council Chambers, was granted
and the Auditor-Controller was authorized to issue a check in this
amount. Mr. Kipper will explain the job training programs offered
in Los Angeles and how they can be adapted in Bakersfield.
Date set for hearing before the Council on
appeal by Mrs. Burnett Love to decision
of the Board of Zoning Adjustment denying
her application for a Conditional Use
Permit to permit the operation..and
maintenance of a Boarding House on that
property commonly known as 331 - 10th Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, date of December 19, 1966 was set for hearing before the Council
2'39
Bakersfield~ California, November 28, 1966 Page 9
on appeal by Mrs. Burnett Love to decision of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment denying her application for a Conditional Use Permit
of an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the operation and
maintenance of Boarding House for five to six persons on that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 331 -
10th Street.
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for construction of Wilson Park Tennis
Courts.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, plans and specifications for construction of Wilson Park Tennis
Courts were approved.
Hearings.
This being the time set for hearing on recommendation of
the Planning Commision to amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to
establish an R-S-1A (Residential Suburban One Acre Minimum Lot Size)
Zone, the City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly advertised
and no written protests had been received in her office.
No one present offering any objections to the proposed change,
the Mayor declared the public hearing closed, and upon a motion by
Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman Doolin, Ordinance No.
1655 New Series amending Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code to
establish an R-S-1A (Residential Suburban One Acre Minimum Lot Size)
Zone was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This being the time set for hearing on an application by
W. F. Whitaker to amend Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code by changing the Land Use Zoning from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling)
Zone to a C-I-D (Limited Commercial - Architectural Design) or more
restrictive zone; to a C-O-D (Professional Office- Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, Zone; and to an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family
4O
Bakersfield,
California
November 28, 1966 Page
Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, of that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield located at the northeast
corner of Mr. Vernon Avenue and Columbus Street, the City'Clerk reported
that this hearing had been duly advertised and posted and notices
had been sent to all persons as required by the zoning ordinance, and no
written protests had been received in her office. Findings of the
Planning Commission at its public hearing on the application held
November 2, 1966, were read by the Mayor.
Mr. Whitaker, proponent of the rezoning, stated that he had
employed an architect to draw up plans, they have consulted with the
Planning Department in an attempt to arrive at a plan which would be
compatible to the neighborhood, they think they now have a plan which
would be agreeable to everyone concerned, and he asked that it be
approved by the Council.
Councilman Park inquired from Mr. Whitaker regarding his
expectations for this development, whether he planned to commence
the work immediately or to wait for a few years.
Mr. Whitaker said they were planning to go ahead, they had
plans at the present time for apartments in the R-3 zoning, and
they are negotiating with some people on the C-1 property. They are
planning to go ahead with the building program, providing they can
get financing, etc. to do so.
Councilman Park asked if they planned to develop the northern
portion not covered in this application for rezoning as R-l, and Mr.
Whitaker said they are not doing anything with it at the present
time, as they have a possible buyer for it as R-1.
Mayor Karlen asked for any opponents to the rezoning to
address the Council and Mr. Takvor Takvorian of 2816 Mt. Vernon
Avenue stated that he was not actually there in the role of opponent
but would like to have some questions answered. The property has been
up for rezoning three times and twice before the Council and the
Bakersfield~ California,
November 28, 1966 Page
this
One
ll
Planning Commission have turned down any commercial zoning of
property, as they felt it was R-1 and should remain that way.
of the Council members at the last hearing stated that the line should
be drawn on Columbus, that there was a lot of room for commercial south
of Columbus, and this property should be kept R-1.
The people that he represents, he does not have any official
group, but they are people who live on Mr. Vernon and one or two on
the other side, he has no written petition, feel that possibly this
would set a precedent if this piece of property were zoned commercial.'
They have no objection to the proposed R-3, but they are worried about
the commercial property. This is going to be the first development,
and he asked what is to prevent the property owner from coming back
to the Council within a certain length of time, and saying since
the precedent has been set for zoning the property commercial, how about
zoning the rest of the property commercial. Commercial was requested
for the Shell Service station on the corner of Mr. Vernon and Columbus
and the property owners felt they should not oppose that. The first
argument used the very next time a request was made for rezoning this
property was that a precedent had been set, there is already commercial
zoning on this property, why can't it be changed to commercial. So
it could be a piecemeal thing. If they zone it commercial tonight,
why not again zone it commercial at a later time.
Mr. Takvorian stated he honestly could not object to the
construction of nice apartments across the street from his property.
But he and his neighbors are afraid that the property will be gradually
zoned commercial, because a precedent has already been set.
Councilman Stiern said he would like to reply to the
question. He recalls the last hearing that was held on this property,
as he was on the Council at that time, and the proposal that was
presented that night was vastly different from what is being proposed
tonight. At that time, north of the service station and fronting on
Mr. Vernon, there was a large commercial establishment planned, a
Bakersfield,
California,
November 28, 1966 Page
drive-in arrangement, which would have been unpleasant as far as the
people across the street on Mt. Vernon were concerned. This proposal
being considered tonight looks to him like the answer to the fears
of the people in the neighborhood regarding development across the
street from them. When a proposal comes along which solves the
problem involving property adjacent to them, he feels it would be
wise to be in favor of it..
Mr. Whitaker's proposal for R-3 development across the street
is very different from the last proposal. It completely surrounds the
proposed commercial on Columbus Street, and he thinks it is a good
proposal, one that the neighbors could live with very easily. Mr.
~hitaker is asking for a total consideration which involves the area
to the north as well. He has known Mr. Whitaker for some time, and
has no reason to believe that he would represent something to the
Council and agree to certain stipulations and in two or three years
come back to the Council and request that a change be made. If this
plan is agreeable to him and his family, Councilman Stiern believes
that he will honor any agreement that he makes tonight.
Mr. Takvorian said it does indeed look like a solution to
their problem, and Mr. Whitaker may actually believe now that he will
go ahead with the development as requested tonight, but Mr. Whitaker
may not own this property in a couple of years. He then asked if
zoning this property C-1 will set a precedent for someone else, if
Mr. Whitaker should dispose of the property. They know that the R-3
is not going in immediately, the first thing that is going in is the,
commercial development. Apparently, Mr. Whitaker is primarily interested
in the C-1 developmenf. He stated that he has no argument with the
R-3 development, but he asked if the C-1 and C-O zoning could move up.
He knows that the Council can't give him a guarantee, there may be a
change in the Council. So what is the next Council going to do. This
may set a precedent and will result in the whole property being zoned
commercial eventually.
2'13
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 Page 13
Councilman Stiern asked Mr. Takvorian what he would suggest
instead of this proposal. He replied that he can't see anything wrong
with the R-3, but the amount of space to be used for the commercial
development at the present time represents a small portion of the whole
property.
Councilman Hosking said if he understands what Mr. Takvorian
is saying, the R-3 zone is being put in to make the C-1 and C-O zoning
more palatable, that there may not be any intention whatsoever to
proceed with the R-3 construction in the future. That once the commercial
is in, then the developer will come back to the Council and request
the whole property.be zoned commercial, because the R-3 did not go through.
He told Mr. Takvorian, you are wondering what the Council would do under
those circumstances. You right in that none o£ the Council can
guarantee what will be done in the future, but on the other hand, these
applications should be taken in good faith. The Council can't assume
that the applicant is doing thus with the present intention of defrauding
the Council. If that is the situation, the Council does not want to see
that any more than you do, but I am not inclined to think that this is
the case. I don't think the Planning Commission, which has more
continuity than the Council, would consider letting the matter get
this far.
Planning Director Sceales said he didn't like to talk for
the Planning Commission~ but he could talk from his experience with them.
He said he would like to talk on his behalf, as the Director, and he
would not recommend commercial zoning on Mr. Vernon. He said Mr. Whitaker
would back him on that. They have been talking about this for almost
a year, and the plan before the Council tonight is basically a plan
which he thought would be compatible and which he had told Mr. Whitaker
he would recommend, but he would not recommend additional commercial to
strip up Mr. Vernon. Mr. Sceales said he really believes that the
Commission goes along with that thinking.
Councilman Stiern said they couldn't predict what was going
to happen in the future, but they could certainly recall what has
happened in the past and any attempt to commercialize the frontage on
244
Bakersfield~ California~ November 28, 1966
Page 14 ~
Mr. Vernon has been turned down by the Council, and tonight they
are considering a proposal to'establish R-3 which the people there
seem to think is very compatible.
Mr. Takvorian said the only thing that the group he
represents is afraid of, is the commercialization of the entire area.
They can talk all night about the
say that a precedent had been set,
property commercial.
future~ but another Council could
and fezone the balance of the
Councilman Park said as he understands it~ the plan as
presented is not objectionable. A precedent was already set with
the establishment of the Shell Service Station. The greatest
protection that they have is a realistic zoning of the property
at the present time. They all must agree that the R-1 is not a
realistic zoning~ it is presently all zoned R-1 except for the
Shell Service Station. There was an attempt to zone it all commercial
three or four years ago. The greatest protection in the development
of this property is to see that it is zoned realistically now and then
hold to it. Councilman Park said he certainly couldn't guarantee that
it will be developed that way, no one here can, but the only thing
they have to rely on is the good judgment of this Council and future
Councils, to see that the policy as set forth by Mr. Sceales and
the Planning Commission iS adhered to in the development of this
property. He said~ frankly, he hopes that it is developed this way
and he believes it will be, he is accepting it in good faith. Any
future changes, as long as he is on the Council, will meet with a
great deal of opposition on his part.
Mr. Takvorian asked if it would go down in the record
that the Council is reluctant to see it rezoned commercial. Is
there something that would be of record to rely on, so that if a
request should ever again be made to fezone the property commercial~
it can be pointed out that this Council agreed not to do it.
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966 Page 15
Councilman Stiern said the conversation is tape recorded
and will be on record. Councilman Hosking said he was sure
that it would be transcribed into the minutes.
Mr. Takvorian said:he came down tonight to present the
feelings of the people he represents, they didn't want to bring down
a large group~te harangue the Council, they just wanted to make it
clear that they did not want a precedent established, so that the
whole parcel would eventually wind up commercial. He wanted it to be
of record so that if it should ever come up in the future,'there would
be a record of the Council's action and conversation tonight.
Councilman Stiern said he thinks the suggested development is
a good one. It was stated that it has been held in abeyance for eight
years. It has been held in abeyance a lot longer than that, it is
bare ground with foxtails on it, that has been waiting to be developed
for a hundred years. No owner wants to continue to pay taxes on
undeveloped ground like that. It represents a very sensible proposal
for development, far better than the last time it came before the
Planning Commission and the Council. Insofar as Mr. Takvorian is
concerned, it represents the beginning of the solving of the problem
he is so concerned with. If it gets under way tonight, and Mr. Whitaker
culminates the project, the people there aren't going to have any further
concern. It is an excellent solution to a long standing problem.
Councilman Park said he hasn't had one call or protest against
this proposal. He said he thinks the people who will be the most
disappointed to see this property developed will be the ones who run
for office every two years, because they will lose a spot for putting
up political signs. He said he believes this is a realistic plan, this
is the way he would like to see the property developed, it fulfills all
the criteria that he has thought of regarding the property. He believes
that the proDerty that is being rezoned for commercial'property is
ideal for that purpose. It is far too valuable property to be utilized
for single or multiple dwellings. He appreciates the fact that Mr.
Whitaker has considered the surrounding neighborhood to the extent that
he has put a good buffer all the way around the proposed commercial
Bakersfield, California, November 28, 1966
Page 16 ~--~
property, and with the D-Overlay, they will get some commercial
development there that will be representative of the neighborhood.
He just doesn't see how they cohld wish for a better development of
the property. It has been sitting there too long, the City forces
have been called out too often to clean out the gutters around the
property. He therefore moved to adopt Ordinance No. 1656 New Series
amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing the Land Use
Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located at
the northeast corner of Mr. Vernon Avenue and Columbus Street. Council-
man Stiern seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking,
Whirremote
Park, Rucker Stiern,
None
None
Councilman Stiern asked the City Clerk to record the
pertinent portions of the hearing in the minutes and that a copy of
the minutes be furnished Mr. Takvorian for his files.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before this Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Rucker,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
MAYOR~ ~he City of Bakersfield, Ca lJ~.
ATTEST:
~=~.~3 -'f of the Council
CITY C%ERK and
of the City of Bakersfield, California
2'47
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966
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. December 5, 1966.
Due to the absence of Mayor Karlen, Vice-Mayor Stiern acted
as presiding officer.
The Mayor called the meeting to order, followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman William Park.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whirremote
Absent: Mayor Karlen
Minutes of the regular meeting of November 28, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Reception of request from the City
of Tulare that the City of Bakersfield
adopt a Resolution requesting the repeal
of the "matching funds" section of the
Collier-Unruh Act.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Hosking,
seconded by Councilman Doolin, communication from the City of Tulare
requesting the City of Bakersfield to adopt a resolution urging the
repeal of the "matching funds" section of the Collier-Unruh Act, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Communication from League of Women Voters
requesting information regarding the
City's proposed plan to acquire supplemental
water for Greater Bakersfield referred to
the Council Water Committee for study and
appropriate answer.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, a communication from the League of Women Voters of Bakersfield
requesting answers to fourteen questions concerning the City's proposed
plan to acquire supplemental water for Greater Bakersfield, was referred to
the Council Water Committee for study and appropriate answer.
Councilman Stiern stated that as chairman of the Water Committee, he
wished to say that he welcomed the communication, the questions
and the interest of the League. The questions they are asking in this
letter are the type of questions the Water Committee has been asking
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966
the Kern County Water Agency for the past five years. He went
say that the Water Committee will be delighted to answer their
questions~ will be delighted to have them attend any of their Water
Committee meetings and will help them in any way possible.
Councilman Hosking said he would like to add to Councilman
Stiern's comment. He thinks many of these qnestions are rather
complicated and can be answered by the Stetson Report. If the
League of Women Voters has not already received a copy of this
report, he requested that one be forwarded to them.
Councilman Stiern said he had the same reaction when he
read some of the questions, that many of them can be answered by
the Stetson Report and he, too, feels that it would be appropriate
to send them a copy. City Manager Bergen said if the League of
Women Voters has not already received one~ he will make sure that
one goes forward to them immediately.
Council Statements.
Councilman Hosking said he has noticed that many people
fail to use their turn signals when they plan to turn, stop or park.
He said he wondered if the Police Departmenf was enforcing the
use of signals or blinkers by the motoring public.
He also suggested that someone instruct the Purchasing
Agent to buy some ash trays for the Council members who smoke.
City Manager Bergen stated that the order has gone in for ashtrays and
fhey will arrive before Christmas.
Councilman Doolin said he
informed that as far as the City is
thought the public should be
concerned the crossing guards
Page 2
on to
will remain on duty at the schools in the City. He said he understood
the Board of Supervisors was considering setting up a district to
pay for these guards and questioned whether it would be to the
advantage of the City taxpayers to be included in this District.
2'49
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 Page 3
City Manager Bergen said he did not think they they should
even consider removing the crossing guards~ and he did not believe it
would be to the City's advantage to be included in any proposed
crossing guard district.
Approval and Adoption of Report of
the Governmental Efficiency Committee
Re: Outside Audit.
Councilman Whirremote, chairman of the Governmental Effi-
ciency Committee, reported on a meeting of that Committee held on
Tuesday, November 29~ 1966, to receive and discuss the independent
auditor's report on the City's financial statement for fiscal year
1965-66, discussing the recommendations at length. The GEC has been
assured by the administrative staff that the recommendations contained
in the report are feasible and will be implemented as soon as possible.
The GEC will be meeting in the near future to discuss recommendations
relative to fixed assets and accounting for the firemens' Disability
and Retirement Fund~ at which time
Council with an evaluation.
The Committee would also
program has resulted in lower fees
they will report back to the
like to indicate that the auditing
for the outside auditing services.
Speer~ Chavez, Ruggenberg and Wright have stated that the City has
achieved stabilization in its auditing program and will be able to
look forward to a relatively constant charge for its outside auditing
program. The Committee regards this as a major accomplishment in
reducing the substantially higher charges paid in recent years, and
would like to commend City Manager H. E. Bergen and Auditor-Controller
D. L. Haynes, as well as the thorough and competent work by the outside
auditing firm.
Councilman Park called attention to the recommendation in
the report that accounting control over fixed assets should be
maintained. These records are incomplete, and he is in favor of action
being taken to assure early completion of these records as recommended.
All members of the Council agreed with Councilman Park~ and after
250
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 Page 4
discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by
Councilman Park, the report was approved and adopted.
Acceptance and Adoption of Report from
Water and City Growth Committee Re:
Consulting Water Attorney.
Councilman Stiern, chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, read a report, stating that the Committee has been working
closely with the City's Consulting Engineer, Mr. Thomas M. Stetson,
attempting to find solutions to the water problems and determine the
means and methods by which the City may obtain a dependable and
economical source of supplemental water for the City of Bakersfield.
The City's attorney on water matters has been Mr. John K. Bennett,
who has completed his phase of the work involved and will no longer
be needed. The Committee has been well pleased with his work.
After consultation with Mr. Stetson, the Water Committee
is recommending that the City enter into a contract with Mr. Ralph
Helm of Helm and Budinger, attorneys, of Studio City, for continuing
legal counsel and representation on the questions of water law.
Mr. Helm is eminently qualified~ and the Committee expects him to be
of great service to the City of Bakersfield. He has worked closely
with Mr. Stetson on water matters in the past. The Committee feels
that the employment of Mr. Helm as counsel for the City will be
particularly advantageous at this time and convenient as well, since
both Mr. Stetson and Mr. Helm maintain offices in the Los Angeles area.
This will entail no new expenditure by the City since the appropriation
for legal counsel was set during June budget hearings and the terms
of the contract are identical to the contract authorized for Mr.
Bennett. The Water Committee recommends favorable consideration on
this matter.
Councilman Doolin, made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, that the report be accepted and adopted, subject to the
stipulation that cost of Mr. Helms' services are identical with
the amount paid to Mr. Bennett. The motion carried unanimously.
251
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 P~ge 5
Approval of Agreement with law firm of
Helm and Budinger, and Ralph B. Helm
individually, for legal services as
special water counsel.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, agreement with the law firm of Helm and Budinger, and
Ralph B. Helm individually, for legal services as special counsel fer
the purpose of assisting in the acquisition of a supplemental source
of water for the City of Bakersfield was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 1920 to 2033, inclusive, in amount of $53,749.59,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed, and
authorization was granted for payment of same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 78-66 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing
a time and place for hearing protests by
persons owning real property within
territory designated as "Union Cemetery No.2",
proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, Resolution No. 78-66 of the Council of the City of Bakers£ield
fixing a time and place for hearing protests by persons owning real
property within territory designated as "Union Cemetery No. 2",
proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Minute Order authorizing the
City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant
City Attorney and Director of Water
Resources to register as Legislative
Advocates for the forthcoming general
session of the Legislature.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Park, the Council adopted a Minute Order authorizing the City Manager,
City, Attorney, Assistant City Attorney and Director of Water Resources
to register as Legislative Advocates for the forthcoming general
session of the Legislature.
252
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 Page 6
First reading of an Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 3.64.020 and 3.64.030 of Chapter
3.64 (Vacation and Sick Leave.)
At this time first reading was given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 3.64.020 and
3.64.030 of Chapter 3.64 (Vacation and Sick Leave.) This amendment
reduces the time element from 10 years to five years for eligibility
to earn three weeks vacation, and will be accumulated during the
fifth year and taken in the sixth year. This ordinance is retroactive
to July 1st in accordance with prior Council Action.
Approval of payment of City of Bakersfield's
share of Cost-Benefit Study conducted by
the Stanford Research Institute.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfartz, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, payment for the City of Bakersfield's proportionate share
of the Cost-Benefit Study conducted by the Stanford Research Institute,
in amount of $5,189.50, was approved, and the Auditor-Controller was
authorized to issue check for this payment. Mr. Valliere, Stanford
Research Institute liaison for the Association of Kern CountyCities,
advised the members of the Council that this report should be in
their hands by the end of December.
Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized to
Sign Notice of Completion of Contract No.
68-66 for Construction of Portland Cement
Concrete Median Island Curbs on various
Major City Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, the Work was completed and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the Notice of Completion for recordation for the construction
of Portland Cement Concrete Median Island Curbs on various Major
City Streets.
Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized
to Sign Notice of Completion for Paving and
Improving Columbus Street from 0.08 miles
East of River Boulevard to Haley Street.
Councilman Park said he has received comments that the
surface of the north lane of Columbus from 0.08 miles East of River
Boulevard to Haley Street was rough, and asked if the City was
satisfied with the work done by the contractor. Public Works Director
Jing stated that continuous inspections had been made, but they
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 Page 7
would review this construction. Councilman Park commented that some
of the retaining walls replaced at City expense, but not a part of
this contract, look unfinished. He wanted it made clear that this
contract does not include the retaining walls and the clean-up work
along Columbus Street, particularly along the north side. Mr. Jing
stated that some of the landscaping will be done by City forces and
is not part of the contract.
Councilman Stiern said he agreed with Councilman Park, he
has seen the retaining walls and the stepped-off appearance does not
look as good as it could.
Mr. Jing said part of that was due to a big differential
in grade, but they,would review it, and if additional brick work is
required, it will be done by the City. He told Councilman Park that
he was satisfied that the contractor who did the work at City expense,
has met specifications.
City Manager Bergen said the plans and specifications called
for the retaining wall and the construction as has been done by the
contractor. This work has been completed satisfactorily, but the City
will go in and add the bricks which would make the work look better
from an aesthetic viewpoint, however, it isn't faulty workmanship or
the fault of the construction.
Councilman Stiern said he wasn't commenting about the quality
of workmanship, he has seen it, and thinks it is very good. But he is
talking about the design and the stepping down at grade, etc., which
he thinks should be looked into.
City Manager Bergen said the decisions are made by the
resident engineer in the field and sometimes the addition of a dozen
bricks would make
owner's viewpoint.
the earth, but if
the eye,
a big difference when looking at it from a property
The contractor built the retaining wall to retain
it is necessary to make it a little more pleasing to
it will have to be done by City forces.
254
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 Page 8
Councilman Park said a large portion of a hedge had been
cut. down on one property, more hedge than was required to put in
the curbs and gutters. He asked if approving this work tonight
would affect restoration of property which had been destroyed
unnecessarily. City Manager Bergen said if the City had removed
hedge which shouldn't have been removed, they would replant it. He
said they would also look at the retaining walls, and if it is
necessary to make any additions to finish the wall to satisfy the
property owner, they will do so.
Councilman Park stated that with the understanding that tile
contractor has met the City's specifications for the work in the contract
and that the City will, without delay, proceed with clean-up work
and the finish work that is necessary to complete the job, he would
move to accept the Work and authorize the Mayor to execute the
Notice of Completion for recordation. Councilman Hosking said if tile
specifications have not been met by the contractor, he will not vote
in favor of the motion. Mr. Jing said the contractor had met the
specifications~ but if there Were certain modifications needed to
dress up the job, it would be done by City forces.
After further discussion~ the motion was seconded by
Councilman Rucker and carried unanimously.
Councilman Park asked for a clarification regarding the
lighting situation on Columbus Street. He said he understands the
street lighting does not have anything to do with this contract.
City Manager Bergen siad this is correct. The street lights have
been ordered from Pacific Gas & Electric Company for installation on
the wood poles. They were not in a position to install them until
after the construction was complete and he does not have a time ele-.
ment on it, however, he will get the information for the Council. He
said there will be several street lights installed on double standards.
2,55
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1966 Page 9
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for construction of a Restroom-Storage
Building at Lowell Park in the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Stiern, seconded by Councilman Whittemore,
plans and specifications for the construction of a Restroom Storage
Building at Lowell Park were approved, and the Auditor-Controller
was authorized to advertise for bids.
Petitions for Formation of a Public
Improvement District referred to the
City Engineer to check the signatures.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, petition for the formation of a Public Improvement District
in an area bounded by Wilson Road on the north, "M" Street on the
east, Rosalie Drive on the south, and "L" Street on the west, were
received and referred to the City Engineer to check the signatures.
Re-appointment of Justus A. Olsson
as Member of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Park, Justus A. Olsson was re-appointed as a member of the Board of
Zoning Adjustment for a three year term expiring December 1, 1969.
Acceptance of Street Right of Way Deed
from Bernice E. Croft for the widening of
South "H" Street at Terrace Way,
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz,
Rucker, Street Right of Way Deed from Bernice E.
of South "H" Street at Terrace Way was accepted.
Adjournment.
seconded by Councilman
Croft for the widening
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman Par~ the
meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield~ California
256
Bakersfield,
California, December 12, 1966
Page 1 ~
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. December 12, 1966.
The M~yor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Richard Stiern.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker,
Stiern, Whittemore
Councilman Park
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 5,
approved as presented.
1966 were
Reception of communication from Mr. and
Mrs. Jean Kitchak, regarding notice from
the City Engineer's office terminating sewer
rental agreement as of January, 1967.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, communication from Mr. and Mrs. Jean Kitchak, 2600 Greenleaf
Court, regarding a notice from the City Engineer's office terminating
sewer rental agreement as of January, 1967, was received and ordered
placed on file, sewer rental agreement with the City is to be conti-
nued, and as requested in the communication, the name of Mr. and Mrs.
Kitchak is to be removed from petition opposing annexation of that
area designated as "Sunset No. 4", to the City of Bakersfield. The
City Engineer was instructed to notify them of the action of the Council.
Reception of Resolution from membership
of County Engineers Association of
California.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, resolution from membership of the County Engineers Association
of California expressing its appreciation to the Council and the City
of Bakersfield for warm hospitality during the recent 51st Annual
Meeting of the Association was received and ordered placed on file.
257
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966 Page 2
Reception of communication from County
Supervisors Association of California
expressing appreciation for cooperation
received from Civic Auditorium Staff.
Upon motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, communication from County Supervisors Association of California
expressing appreciation for cooperation received from Civic Auditorium
staff during its recent meeting in Bakersfield, was received and
ordered placed on file.
Reception of communication from R. A.
Sirman, Kern District Manager, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, withdrawing
applications to change gas and electric
franchises.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Counc~kl-
man Doolin, communication from R. A. Sirman, Kern District Manager:,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, withdrawing applications to change the
existing gas and electric franchises from fifty years to indeterminate
status, scheduled for continued hearing at this meeting, was received
and ordered placed on file, and hearing was terminated.
Reception of communication from League of
Women Voters of Bakersfield requesting
Council indication as to when they may
expect answers to questions concerning
the City's plan to acquire supplemental
water.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, communication from League of Women Voters of Bakersfield
requesting Council indication as to when they may have answers to their
fourteen questions concerning the City's plan to acquire supplemental
water, was received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Stiern said he felt compelled, on behalf of the
Water Committee, to explain to the rest of the Council that they did
not realize there was a time limit placed on answering the League's
letter. This was not a letter to be turned over to the administrative
staff to answer, as all members of the Water Committee were involved.
The letter has been answered to the best of the Committee's ability:,
and for the information of the Council, the letter has been sent to
Mrs. Gelman this afternoon
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966
Council Statements.
Councilman Doolin commented on an article in the bulletin
issued by the Better Business Bureau regarding payment of Kern County
residents to Londen Publishing Company to have their biographies
printed in a publication of Kern County History~ who have been
notified of bankruptcy proceedings in connection with this publish-
ing company. This report was discussed by other members of the
Council and Councilman Hosking stated that he understands there may
be sufficient funds to pay for the publication of the history which
has already been written.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Council-
man Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2034 to 2110 inclusive, in amount of
$37,063.12, as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were
allowed, and authorization was granted for payment of same.
Acceptance of bid of Ray Gaskin Service
for 25 yard Refuse Packer Trucks.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, bid of Ray Gaskin Service in the amount of $41,888.00~
was accepted for 25 yard Refuse Packer Trucks, and all other bids
Page 3~
were rejected.
corrected,
Rejection of bid of Bituminous
Distributor Truck and authorization
granted to readvertise using revised
specifications.
In accordance with recommendation of Public Works Depart-
ment, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council-
man Rucker, one bid received to furnish Bituminous Distributor Truck
was rejected and authorization was granted to readvertise for bids
using revised specifications.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1657 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sections 3.64.020 and 3.64.030 of
Chapter 3.64 (Vacation and Sick Leave.)
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin,
seconded by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1657 New Series of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 3.64.020 and
3.64.030 of Chapter 3.64 (Vacation and Sick Leave) was adopted as
by
259
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966 Page 4
the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Whirremote
Councilman Stiern
Absent: Councilman Park
Councilman Stiern requested that the record show he voted
in the negative on this ordinance because he thinks it is too generous
and inconsistent with private enterprise and as such he does not think
it is fair to the taxpayers.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1658 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 3.68.110 (Employee
Classification) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield to reflect certain
salary changes approved by the City Council
in September for newly created positions
in the Police Department and to separate
the Rank of Detective into Detective Grade I
and Detective Grade II, setting the salary at
Range 33 for Detective Grade I and Range 35
for Detective Grade II~
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Whirremote, Ordinance No. 1658 New Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Section 3.68.110 (Employee Classification)
of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield to reflect certain
salary changes approved by the City Council in September for newly
created positions in the Police Department and to separate the
rank of Detective into Detective Grade I and Detective Grade II,
setting the salary at Range 33 for Detective Grade I and Range 35
for Detective Grade II, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilman Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Park
Reception of Certificate of Election and
Statement of Votes cast by City Precincts for
Propositions 1 (A) and 2 (B) in the City of
Bakersfield at General Election of
November 8, 1966.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Certificate of Election and Statement of Votes cast by City
Precincts for Propositions 1 (A) and 2 (B) in the City of Bakersfield
26O
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966
Page 5~
Precinct No.
1 42 85 68 73
2 20 41 27 37
3 30 53 42 51
4 45 99 77 81
5 31 68 37 69
6 33 88 49 79
7 37 95 37 102
8 38 64 56 64
9 11 20 12 18
10 23 45 37 33
ll 23 20 37 15
12 87 32 71 53
13 96 29 86 47
14 52 11 44 16
15 50 20 51 24
16 75 l0 74 18
17 85 5 70 18
18 67 51 68 60
19 16 43 28 46
20 49 43 55 42
21 36 84 39 96
22 40 108 65 92
23 36 113 50 ll0
24 36 118 60 116
25 28 119 36 112
26 33 93 59 75
27 19 80 58 52
28 33 81 48 77
29 34 41 47 34
30 40 52 46 58
31 44 103 56 100
32 41 43 49 38
33 50 32 37 43
34 72 28 63 35
35 87 78 87 78
36 59 43 49 55
37 78 50 79 62
38 88 41 93 42
39 29 106 36 112
40 33 108 54 90
41 15 45 33 31
42 54 97 56 ill
43 23 108 42 95
44 21 116 28 122
45 56 206 44 230
46 27 155 30 162
47 30 109 33 111
48 25 76 47 59
49 26 98 41 85
50 30 61 45 69
51 28 32 29 37
52 36 30 22 27
53 27 56 38 47
54 32 86 36 88
55 30 105 54 91
56 43 80 45 84
57 31 94 46 89
58 20 92 31 90
59 30 87 39 88
60 27 62 38 77
Measure
Yes No Yes No
Measure B
at General Election of November 8, 1966, were received and ordered
placed on file, and the City Clerk was instructed to spread the
results in full on the Minutes.
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966 Page 6
Precinct
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
9O
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105.
106
107
108
109
110
NO.
Measure A Measure B
Yes No Yes No
39 76 40 78
36 59 45 59
38 69 52 61
34 66 42 65
20 69 34 65
55 124 64 125
51 114 75 103
48 84 68 74
23 137 59
27 127 66 103
74 40 66 50
61 35 56 41
74 25 65 50
80 35 83 41
87 59 100 60
33 71 52 64
26 84 37 76
26 98 44 87
26 69 30 71
26 103 40 105
44 110 40 121
35 126 49 121
25 137 64 106
25 89 50 70
35 89 70 62
42 116 65 112
38 130 55 121
80 15 66 22
48 16 42 26
74 9 70 16
52 7 44 16
102 14 94 25
44 8 44 12
62 14 59 27
63 176 96 156
31 77 58 56
12 67 28 59
44 81 60 72
31 122 60 101
40 92 63 80
43 169 59 161
31 159 57 138
35 112 51 103
26 121 43 114
33 170 63 146
34 122 50 116
42 171 85 139
28 134 62 lll
20 70 26 66
27 71 39 64
Precinct No.
ill
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
1 52
153
1 54
155
1 56
157
1 58
1 59
160
161
162
Absentee Vote
Total Vote
Bakersfield,
California,
Yes No
59 116
29 121
28 135
27 66
21 66
31 85
37 89
28 109
40 115
41 128
24 ll5
34 124
29 102
69 120
36 128
43 78
52 118
31 132
36 134
32 107
33 142
36 97
50 105
41 lll
43 119
50 130
49 108
42 128
41 113
44 149
48 107
42 146
56 128
43 117
31 143
50 108
58 137
53 148
48 141
46 188
40 103
55 142
34 104
48 164
52 207
70 187
44 154
33 115
46 171
42 150
60 184
40 92
6748
291
7039
15117
711
15828
December 12, 1966
~easure B
Yes No
61 131
60 98
43 131
30 89
38 55
43 81
47 87
40 116
47 115
63 111
39 119
46 119
36 99
66 133
54 116
47 84
44 134
38 131
30 145
36 106
47 132
41 99
51 111
62 101
48 115
49 137
47 119
50 134
50 108
35 164
42 124
52 147
35 161
28 142
58 125
29 131
45 155
49 161
53 144
52 189
26 132
25 176
31 113
75 141
67 208
87 185
59 145
53 107
74 150
86 116
99 154
22 115
8270 14885
563 469
8833 15354
Page
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966
Date set for hearing before the Council
on appeal by the Central Southern Baptist
Church to certain aspects of the
decision of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment to request for a variance of
an R-1 Zone to permit the development of
an off-street parking area for an existing
church on that certain property commonly
known as 300 Houchin Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Council-
woman Balfanz, date of January 3, 1967 was set for hearing before the
Council on appeal by the Central Southern Baptist Church to certain
aspects of the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment relatiwe to
request for a variance of an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to
permit the development of off-street parking for an existing church
on that certain property commonly known as 300 Houchin Road.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on application by J. O. Barber for amending
of the zoning boundaries for those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 421 to 531 Olive Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Whittemore, date of January 3, 1967 was set for hearing before the
Council on application by J. O. Barber for amending of the zoning
boundaries from an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to
an R-3-P-D) Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Automobile Parking -
Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield Commonly known as 421 to 531
Live Street.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on application by Hazel Mathis for amending
of the zoning boundaries for that certain
property located on the east side of Beale
Avenue between Jefferson and Grace Street.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Council-
man Stiern, date of January 3, 1967 was set for hearing before the
Council on an application by Hazel Mathis for amending of the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone and an R-3
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-1-D (Limited Commercial
Architectural Design), or more restrictive, Zone, for that certain
property located on the east side of Beale Avenue between Jefferson
and Grace Street.
263
Page 8
264
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966 Page 9
Date set for hearing before the Council
on initiated action by the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning boundaries
of that certain property bounded on the
north by Christmas Tree Lane, on the south
by University Avenue, on the east by Dana
Street and on the west by Mr. Vernon Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Council
woman Balfanz, date of January 9, 1967 was set for hearing before the
Council on an action initiated by the Planning Commission to amend
the zoning boundaries from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design)
Zone to an R-4-D (Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or
more restrictive Zone, and to a C-1-D (Limited Commercial- Archi-
tectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, for that certain property
bounded on the north by Christmas Tree Lane, on the south by University
Avenue, on the east by Dana Street and on the west by Mr. Vernon Avenue.
Date set for hearing before the Council
on initiated action by the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning boundaries
for those certain properties located on
Lake Street, easterly of Union Avenue,
westerly of Kern Street, southerly of
Niles Street and northerly of Kentucky
Street.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz,
seconded by Councilman Rucker, date of January 9, 1967 was set for
hearing before the Council on an initiated action by the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning boundaries from a C-2 (Commercial
Zone and an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone to an M-1-D (Light
Manufacturing - Architectural Design or more restrictive, Zone, for
those certain properties located on Lake Street easterly of Union
Avenue, westerly of Kern Street, southerly of Niles Street and
northerly of Kentucky Street.
Encroachment Permit granted Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company for
underground fuel tank in alley at rear
of 1520 20th Street.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by
Councilman Stiern, Encroachment Permit was granted Pacific Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company to install lO,000 gallon underground
fuel tank in alley at rear of 1520 - 20th Street.
Bakersfield, California, December 12, 1966 Page l0
Reception of Certificate from City
Engineer of sufficiency of petition
for formation of a Public Improvement
District and City Attorney instructed
to prepare necessary resolutions.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, seconded by Council-
Stiern, Certificate from City Engineer of sufficiency of petition for
formation of a Public Improvement District to construct sidewalks
and the necessary retaining walls in an area bounded by Wilson Road,
"M~ Street, Rosalia Drive and "K" Street was received and ordered
placed on file. The City Attorney was instructed to prepare a
resolution of findings and determination of sufficiency of the perdition
and a resolution ordering the preparation of estimate, district map
and plans and specifications for the construction of sidewalks and
the necessary retaining walls.
Approval of Agreement with the County
of Kern for widening and resurfacing of
34th Street between Chester Avenue and
Union Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Agreement with the County of Kern for the widening and
resurfacing of 34th Street between Chester Avenue and Union Avenue
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Doolin, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
MAYOR o~f the City of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
Council of the City of Bakersfield
2:66
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966
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. December 19, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Clyde Skidmore of the
First Southern Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 12, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Reception of communication from League
of Women Voters of Bakersfield requesting
information regarding the City's Plan
for acquiring supplemental Water.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Park, communication from the League of Women Voters of Bakersfield
requesting additional information regarding the City's plan for ac-
quiring supplemental water was received and ordered placed on file.
When making the motion, Councilman Stiern stated that the Committee had
answered the questionnaire from the League last week as diligently,
appropriately and fairly as possible, and he wished to say on behalf of
the members of the Water Committee, that they are not interested in
carrying on any further dialogue with Mrs. Gelman, they are more
interested in making it possible that eventually the people of Bakers-
field will understand the issues of the Greater Bakersfield Municipal
Water District.
Reception of communication from Mr.
Gary E. Thompson re: accessory building
at 306 Vernal Place.
Upon a motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Park, communication from Mr. Gary E. Thompson, 300 Vernal Place,
regarding an accessory building at 306 Vernal Place being used as
an apartment house, was received and ordered placed on file and
referred to the City Attorney.
267
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966 Page 2
Council Statements.
Councilman Park said that in case he didn't have the
opportunity later, he wanted to wish all of his friends, the city
employees and citizens of Bakersfield, a Merry Christmas and a Happy
New Year. Mayor Karlen said he and all members of the Council joined
with Mr. Park in this wish.
Adoption of Report of Governmental
Efficiency Committee on Refuse Collection
in the Pierce Annexation.
Councilman Whirremote, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
Committee, read a report of a meeting held on December 13, 1966 with
members of the administrative staff, to consider recommendations rela'tive
to refuse collection in the recent Pierce annexation. Business
establishments in this area require heavy commercial collection and tile
refuse is currently being collected by a private collector for a
rate of $252.50 per month. For the City to extend its services and
maintain the same standard, it would cost approximately $345.00 per
month, due primarily to mileage differences between the city and county
dumps and truck capacity, It would also require a change in containerm;
to conform to the City's standard size. The Sanitation Superintendent
has requested the City to allow fhe private refuse collector to continue
commercial collection as an outside service on a month to month basis,
and the City will collect residential refuse in the Pierce area.
After careful review, the Governmental Efficiency Committee
is satisfied that fhe implementation of this recommendation will result
in considerable savings to the City of Bakersfield, and the members
therefore make the following recommendations:
1. Authorize the private collector to continue
commercial refuse collection in the Pierce
annexation area.
2. Authorize transfer of funds from the City's
Unappropriated Funds on a month to month
basis to the Sanitation Division's Rental
and Ourside Organizational Fund to cover such
services for the remainder of this fiscal year.
The GEC has been assured by the administrative staff and the
sanitation superintendent that the service provided in this area is
comparable to the City's refuse collection standards.
Bakersfield,
California,
December 19, 1966 Page 3
After considerable discussion as to whether the city should
continue the expensive operation of the city landfill when city
residents are paying county taxes that should entitle the City to
use the County dumps, Councilman Hosking moved adoption of the
report and the recommendations contained therein. This motion was
seconded by Councilman Stiern, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the necessary agreement with the private refuse collector.
Adoption of recommendations contained in
Governmental Efficiency Report on Police
Cars and Motorcycles.
Councilman Whittemore, chaimman of the Governmental Effi-
ciency Committee, read a report of a meeting held at the request of the
City Manager to review recommendations on replacement of police vehicles.
Basically, the recommendations will establish a policy of replacing
vehicles at 60,000 miles or after 3 years of service, whichever occurs
first.
Also considered by the Committee was a recommendation to
replace 12 solo motorcycles with four 4-door sedans to be used strictly
for traffic enforcement, which will result in an immediate savings of
an estimated $4,000 per year in vehicle replacement costs. It was
indicated that five 4-door sedans
exceed the replacement policy and
unless replaced this fiscal year.
not scheduled for replacement will
result in high maintenance cost
The Committee made the following
recommendations to the full Council:
1. Delete 1967 one-half ton pickup from the
current fiscal budget
2. Delete five solo motorcycles from the current
fiscal budget
3. Approve nine additional 4-door sedans
4. Approve the replacement of twelve solo motorcycles
This will increase 4-door sedans from 27 to 31 and decrease
colo motorcycles from 35 to 23.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded
by Councilman Hosking, the recommendations contained in the report were
adopted.
269
Bakers£ield, California, December 19~ 1966 Page 4
Councilman Park said he would like to commend the Police
Department and Chief Towle for this move towards efficiency~ as he
knows this is the type of progressiveness that is needed and the type
of reorganization that will eventually result in great savings to the
taxpayers.
He also stated that he hoped the Council will give some future
consideration relative to entering into a contract with the State
Employees Retirement System to lower the retirement age limit to 50 for
those officers in the Police Department who desire to do so.
Councilman Park also called attention to the fact that some
thought should be given to remodeling the police headquarters, as the
present building is not adequate for an expanding city and police force.
Reception of Report of the Governmental
Efficiency Committee on Retired Employees
Benefits.
Councilman Whittemore, chairman of the Governmental Efficie:acy
Committee, read a report of that Committee stating it has been presented
with an actuarial study prepared by the State Employees Retirement System
outlining the increased contribution rate that would be charged to the
City of Bakersfield to increase benefits of the currently retired
employees.
The GEC will take the information presented under study and
evaluation and will prepare a report to the full Council on this subject
during the Council's consideration of the fiscal 1967-68 budget. Upon
a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Stiern, the report
was received and ordered placed on file.
Date set for hearing on proposals for
changing business license ordinances.
Councilman Rucker, chairman of the Special Committee on
Business Licenses Tax and Procedure, read a report of this Committee,
stating that it has undertaken a complete examination~of the existing
revenue and taxation code and has reviewed the business license
ordinances in search of inequities that could exist within the present
licensing framework. Inequities were defined as:
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966 Page
1. License taxes working an injustice to licensees
and preventing the City from expanding its
economic activity
2. Outmoded rate structures which did not reflect
changes in prices and in volume of transactions
3. Inadequate coverage which could allow for
exemptions of certain businesses
They have examined the question of refundable fees and are
prepared to recommend steps by which the issuance of permits and
licenses will be simplified. The Committee recommends that the Council
cut the existing gross receipts tax scale on retail business by fifty
percent. However, this will result in a reduction of the City's annual
revenue by approximately $70,000. In order to compensate for this
reduction, the Committee recommends the imposition of a cigarette tax
as an alternative source of revenue, which will generate approximately
$75,000 to $85,000 yearly. Cutting the current business license tax
will spur economic expansion and city growth.
The Committee requested the Council to study the information
and data supplied them during the next few weeks, and upon a motion by
Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz, date of
January 16, 1967 was set for a public hearing before the Council on
the recommendations for changing the business license ordinances.
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin,
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2111 to 2236 inclusive,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee, were allowed,
authorization was granted for payment of same.
seconded by Councilman
in amount of $52,102.62,
and
Acceptance of low bid of Joe C. Brown
for construction of Multi-Purpose Game
Slabs at Siemon Park and at California
Avenue Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, low lump sum bid by Joe C. Brown for the construction of
Multi-Purpose Game Slabs at Siemon Park and at California Avenue Park
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorJ. zed
to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966 Page 6
Acceptance of Bid of Kern Sprinkler
Company for construction of Jefferson
Park Sprinkler System.
Upon ~ motion by Councilwoman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, low qualified bid of the Kern Sprinkler Company in amount of
$13,200. for construction of Jefferson Park Sprinkler System was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending the Municipal Code by adding
Sections 11.04.749 (Speed Limit on 24th
Street) and 11.04.764 (Speed Limit on
Columbus Street.)
After discussion, first reading was considered given an
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Munici-
pal Code by adding Sections 11.04.749 (Speed Limit on 24th Street) and
11.04.764 (Speed Limit on Columbus Street.)
Adoption of Resolution No. 79-66 of
Findings and Determinations on petition
for construction of sidewalks located
within Tract No. 1541, the same to be in-
cluded in Proposed Public Improvement
District No. 819, in the City of
Bakersfield, California.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Resolution No. 79-66 of Findings and Determinations on PetitJ. on
for construction of sidewalks located within Tract No. 1541, the same to
be included in proposed Public Improvement District No. 819, in the City
of Bakersfield, California, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
272
Bakersfield,
California, December 19, 1966
Page 7
Adoption of Resolution No. 80-66 of the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield,
ordering the preparation of Plans,
Specifications, Estimate of Cost, and
District Map in the-matter of proposed
Public Improvement District No. 810.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Resolution No. 80-66 of the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield, ordering the preparation of Plans, Specifications, Esti.-
mate of Cost, and District Map in the matter of proposed Public
Improvement District No. 810, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Step Salary Increases.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilwoman
Balfanz, the following step salary increases were approved, effective
January 1, 1967:
K. A. Bowen
L. J. Hillis
A. McGough
W. U. Patterson
E. J. Valliere
Detective E to 5
Motor Patrolman E to 5
Janitor E to 5
Patrolman E to 5
Admin. Assistant D to 4
Effective December 1, 1966
H. B. Stedman
Engineering Aide II C to 3
Encroachment Permit granted Greater Western
Builders' to construct wall and concrete
planter box along Sunset Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Encroachment Permit was granted Greater Western Builders' to
construct block wall and concrete planter box along east property line,
subject to the construction of an encroaching 15' x 4' high concrete
block wall at the back of sidewalk and extending westerly from the
easterly property line.
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966 Page 8
Hearings.
This being the time set for hearing of protest, objections:
or appeals in respect to the diagram, assessment and work done in
Public Improvement District No. 810 (Columbus Street) under and
pursuant to Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 810, and the
Improvement Act of 1911, the City Clerk reported that notices of
hearing had been sent out and no written protests were filed in her
office.
The Diagram and Assessment have been filed in the City Clerk's
office and the Affidavit of Publication and Certificates of Mailing
and Posting Notice of Hearing on the Assessment are also on file in
the City Clerk's office.
The Superintendent of Streets testified that the work was
constructed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications,
and that the assessment was prepared and spread by him, and that in
his opinion the assessment has been spread upon the lots or parcels of
land in the district subject to assessment in proportion to the benefits
arising from the work and to be received by each such lot or parcel.
The Mayor asked if any person present desired to make oral
protest. Hearing none, the public hearing was declared closed, and
upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman Whittemore,
Resolution No. 81-66 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, providing for a contribution; and making determinations
and confirming assessment and proceedings under Resolution of
Intention, Resolution No. 810, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966 Page
This was the time set for hearing before the Council on an
appeal by Mrs. Burnett Love to the decision of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment denying her application for a Conditional Use Permit ~of
an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the operation and Main-
tenance of a Boarding House for five to six persons on that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield, commonly known as 331 10th Street.
The City Clerk reported that this hearing had been duly
advertised and posted. Communication was received in the City Clerk's
office from Mr. Theodore S. Hougham, 331 - llth Street, requesting
the Council to refer to the two petitions containing 54 signatures on
file with the Board of Zoning Adjustment indicating the feeling of the
majority of the property owners in the neighborhood, and stating that
the people are still of the same opinion as before and they request the
CounCil to respect their wishes in this matter.
A letter was also received in the City Clerk's office from
Nancy Raper of the Kern County Welfare Department, stating that
Love had been licensed to care for aged guests and no complaints;
Mrs.
Mrs.
have been received about her home and care.
The findings of the Board of Zoning Adjustment at its regular
meeting held October 25, 1966 on the application, were read.
The applicant, Mrs. Love, addressed the Council, stating
that she was desirous of obtaining the Conditional Use Permit, had not
discussed the matter with her neighbors and was not aware they were
opposed to the operation of the boarding house.
Mr. Theodore Hougham addressed the Council stating~ that this
was a residential neighborhood and the people in the area were
desirous of keeping it that way.
The Mayor then closed the public hearing. It was brought out
during Council discussion that five parking spaces are required for
this operation and only two spaces are provided. It was then moved
by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Whittemore, that the
dicision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment be upheld, and Zoning
Resolution No. 199 denying a Conditional Use Permit to permit the
Bakersfield, California, December 19, 1966 Page
operation and maintenance of a boarding house
on that certain property commonly known as 331
adopted.
Ayes:
Noes:
for five to six persons
- 10th Street, be
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whirremote
None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M.
275,'
l0
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of 'the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
276
Bakersfield,
California, December 27, 1966
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. December 27, 1966.
The Mayor called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invocation by Dr. Glenn Puder of the First
Presbyterian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Karlen. Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park,
Rucker, Stiern, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of December 19, 1966 were
approved as presented.
Reception of communication from Leo
N. Whitecotton, Re: Traffic congestion at
City Hall and County Administrative
Buidling at 5:00 P.M.
Upon a motion motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by
Councilman Park, communication from Leo N. Whitecotton, 726 N.
Fairfax Road, regarding traffic congestion at City Hall and the
County Administrative Building at 5:00 P.M., was received and
referred to the Traffic Authority.
Council Statements.
Councilman Park stated he would like to read the following
letter:
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Congressman-elect Bob Mathias has paid me the high honor
of asking me to serve with him in the Washington, D.C. Office, as
his Administrative Assistant. Although I am flattered and deeply
grateful to Bob for the confidence that he is placing in me~ I have
accepted the position with mixed emotions. It requires that I resign
from my position as City Councilman from the Third Ward. My resigna.-
tion shall be effective at the close of tonight's meeting.
I wish to thank the folks of the Third Ward for having
granted me the privilege of representing them for the last two years.
It has been one of the most interesting and enjoyable experiences of
my life. I look with pride upon the accomplishments made during this
2'77'
Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1966 - Page 2
on the
and is
of Bakersfield.
missed.
'time, with full realization that in government seldom can one
individual claim full credit for accomplishment but that progress
is made through the cooperative efforts of many. I am very grateful
to the Mayor, Council Members, City Employees and Citizens
of this community for the spirit of cooperativehess that has existed
during my term in office. I'm going to miss you all.
However, I am looking forward with great anticipation, to
serving with Bob Mathias in an area of broader service. This is an
opportunity to serve not only the City of Bakersfield, but the entire
18th Congressional District. Bob is honest, sincere and accustomed to
hard work and I know that he is going to be an exceptional Congressman
for this District. I'm proud to be part of his team in Washington.
Because of the vacancy created by my resignation and in
order for the Third Ward to have proper representation with the least
interruptions possible, I respectfully request the following:
1. The Mayor and City Council call for a special
election to be held at the earliest possible date
2. An interim appointment be made to fill the vacancy
until a duly elected representative can be seated
Yours truly,
(s) William H. Park
Third Ward Councilman
Dr. Stiern commented that Councilman Park will be greatly
missed on the Council, as in two years he has distinguished himself
as a very fine Coun~lman. He can only say that Congressman Mathias
is building himself a fine staff and he wished Mr. Park every success
in Washington, D. C.
Councilman Whirremote said he has worked with Councilman Park
Governmental Efficiency Committee and several other committees,
very much aware of the fine contributions he has made to the City
He joined with Dr. Stiern in saying that he will be
278
Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1966 - Page~3
Councilman Hosking said he has worked with Mr. Park on
the Water Committee and he will indeed be missed. He wished him
Godspeed and said he feels that he will continue to serve theCity
of Bakersfield in Washington.
Councilwoman Balfanz said she would like to add her
sentiments to the previous remarks. She has worked with Mr. Park on
the Governmental Efficiency Committee and they spent many hours trying
to do a good job for the City, and she feels that the whole committee
profired by working with Mr. Park.
Councilman Doolin said he wished to congratulate Mr. Park,
and he feels that Mr. Mathias has made a wise choice. They have not
always agreed on everything,
but he feels that Mr. Park is an honest
and hard worker, and he doesn't know of a more sincere representative
for the Third Ward who has served on the Council. He then wished
him Godspeed.
Councilman Rucker said he would like to comment that it
has been a great pleasure for him to have the opportunity to serve
There have been times when he did not
knows that at all times he was trying
of Bakersfield and he wished him luck.
the Council with Mr. Park.
agree with Mr. Park, but he
to do the best for the City
Mayor Karlen said he anticipates with Mr. Park's presence
in Washington, that the Council probably will be in closer contact
with Washington than ever before, and the Council will look forward
to hearing from Mr. Park when legislation comes up that could
effect the City in any way. He stated that it was Mr. Park who
first planted the seed in his mind to run for the office of Mayor.
He then wished him Godspeed and a pleasant trip back to Washington.
Council adopts Minute Order of intention
to call a Special Election to fill the
vacancy in the Third Ward.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, the Council went on record as declaring its intention to
call a Special Election for Councilman to fill the vacancy in the
Third Ward for the remainder of the unexpired term. Councilman Park
abstained from voting on this motion.
on
Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1966
Page 4
Appointment of Mr. John Pryor as Member
of the Police Civil Service Commission.
Councilman Park nominated Mr. John Pryor, 2712 Noble Avenue,
for appointment as a member of the Police Civil Service Commission,
for a six-year term expiring December 31, 1972. No other nomimtions
being made, the Mayor declared the nominations closed. Upon a
motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz,
Mr. Pyror was appointed by an unanimous ballot.
Appointment of Two Members of the Civil
Service Commission for Miscellaneous
Departments.
Councilman Stiern nominated Michael Bealessio for re-app~oint-
merit as a Member of the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous
Departments. Councilwoman Balfanz nominated Gerald H. Brock for
appointment as a Member of the Civil Service Commission for Miscellaneous
Departments. Councilman Stiern moved the nominations be closed.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilwoman Balfanz~
Mr. Michael Bealessio and Mr. Gerald H. Brock were appointed as
members of this Civil Service Commission for foursyear terms expiring
December 31, 1970.
Appointment of Five Members of the
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern~ the following were re-appointed as Members of the Housing
Advisory and Appeals Board for four year terms expiring January 1,
1971:
Walter H. Condley
Curtis Johnson
William H.
Walter Heisey
Cliff Harding
Pinckard
Allowance of Claims.
Upon a motion by Councilman Doolin,
Rucker, Vouchers Nos. 2237 to 2310 inclusive,
as audited by the Finance Approval Committee were allowed,
authorization was granted for payment of same.
seconded by Councilman
in amount of $55,962.80,
and
2S0
Bakersfield,
California,
December
27, 1966 - Page 5
Acceptance of Bid of Jim Alfter for
Construction of Tennis Courts in Wilson
Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, lump sum bid of Jim Alfter for construction of Tennis Courts in
Wilson Park was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1659 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending the Municipal Code by adding
Sections 11.04.749 (Speed Limit on 24th
Street) and 11.04.764 (Speed Limit on
Columbus Street.)
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, Ordinance No. 1659 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Municipal Code by adding Sections 11.04.749
(Speed Limit on 24th Street) and 11.04.764 (Speed Limit on Columbus
Street), was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Balfanz, Doolin, Hosking, Park, Rucker, Stiern,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of General Natural Gas Extension
and Service Agreement with the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilwoman Balfanz, General Natural Gas Extension and Service Agreement
with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same. This agreement covers service to the
new fire station.
Approval of Contract Change Order No. 1
to Contract No. 88-66 with Griffith Co.
for Hauling, Placing and Compacfing
imported Borrow on Columbus Street between
Mt. Vernon Avenue and 400 feet west of Auburn
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Doolin, Contract Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 88-66 to Griffith
Co., for hauling, placing and compacting imported borrow on Columbus
Street between Mi. Vernon Avenue and 400 feet west of Auburn Street,
total increase in contract price amounting to $1,361.00, was approved,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1966 - Page 6
Acceptance of Work and Notice of
Completion for Contract No. 88-66 for
Hauling, Placing and Compacting Imported
Borrow on Columbus Street between Mr.
Vernon Avenue and 400 feet west of Auburn Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Park, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Notice of Completion for Contract No.88-66 for Hauling, Placing
and Compacting Imported Borrow on Columbus Street between Mr. Vernon
Avenue and 400 feet west of Auburn Street.
Acceptance of Street Right of Way Deeds
and Easement Grants for those properties
commonly known as 2420 to 2650 Ming Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by Councilman
Hosking, Street Right of Way Deeds and Easements Grants were accepted from
~e following owners of property commonly known as 2420 to 2650 Ming
Avenue:
Union Oil Company of California
Joseph H. Uhler
Steve Haberfelde and Beverly J. Haberfelde
Lewis H. Creber and A. Valentine Creber
Maria Towers
William Holzer and Sheila R. Holzer
Bobby R. Robertson and Shirley L. Robertson
Acceptance of resignation of William H.
Park as Councilman for the Third Ward.
Upon a motion by Councilman Hosking, seconded by Councilman
Stiern, fhe resignation of William H. Park as Councilman for the Third
Ward was accepted with regeret.
Mayor Karlen stated that before adjournment he wished to take
this opporunity to express the best wishes of the members of the City
Council, the City Employees and himself, as Mayor of the City of
Bakersfield, to all residents of the City of Bakersfield, for a Happy
New Year. He said "May we all share in the successes of our
illustrious residents, the wealth of our diversified economy and the
happiness we all continually seek throughout the coming year - 1967,
the year of many changes."
Council,
Doolin,
Bakersfield, California, December 27, 1966 - Page 7
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before this
upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, seconded by Councilman
the meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
MAY~R of the City
of Bakersfield, C
ATTEST:
CITY~ an~x-~'~icio ~er-~of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California