Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1976 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 8:00 P. M., February 2, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Bleecker followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Chaplain Brian Endicott of Kern View Hospital. Present: Absent: The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Councilmen Sceales. Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Mayor Hart and Councilman Christensen Minutes of the regular meeting of January 26, approved as presented. 1976 were Scheduled Public Statements. Robert Wolfersberger, Project Chairman and Vice- the Kern County Music Educators Association, requested Mr. President of that the Council waive the rental charge at the Civic Auditorium for a free concert to be given for school students and the public. Auditorium Manager Graviss explained the discounts that an organization can qualify for if granted a permit by the Board of Charity Appeals and Solicitations. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the Auditorium Manager was requested to give the Kern County Music Educators Association every possible consideration and the maximum discount allowable under the existing Ordinance for the free concert to be held May 16, 1976. Dr. Don Ratty, representing the Downtown Business Associa- tion, addressed the Council in support of continuing the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mr. Roy Obar, Senior Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce, representing the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Frank Zeuch, President of Kern County & Bakersfield Builders Exchange, urged the Council to continue the Community Development Block Grant Program. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 2 Miss Bonnye Deal, representing the Board of the League of Women Voters, addressed the Council in support of continuing the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mrs. Geraldine Bradley, Director of Operations Programs for Senior Citizens of the Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation, addressed the Council on behalf of the senior citizens of Bakersfield requesting that a multi-purpose center be provided for them in Bakersfield. Mrs. Marie Dickinson, 1733 Cypress Circle, urged the Council to withdraw from the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mr. opposition to Roger Barrenstein, 143 Chester Avenue, spoke in the Community Development Grant Program funds. Paula Freeborn, 235 Pine Street, urged the Council to turn down all Federal grants and withdraw from the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mr. Alex Lopez, Route 7, Box 183, urged the Council to withdraw from the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mr. Roger A. Braase, Vice-President of the Bakersfield Board of Realtors, read a letter from the Board of Directors of the Bakersfield Board of Realtors expressing their support of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Councilman Barton moved that the City of Bakersfield honor the contract with HUD and complete the first year's Community Development Block Grant Program. Councilman Strong stated that it is his understanding that nothing has been said or anything on record which would point to concrete evidence that the Federal Government has attempted to come to Bakersfield and assert control of the City's Program. Even though I was disturbed and had a number of objections to the various resolutions that were submitted, HUD did not change the staff's recon~endations. That has to be said for the people in Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 3 is meant by strings. has proceeded at the with HUD. direction. don't know; the audience whether they are for or against this program; HUD did not change one single word in Bakersfield's application. It is precisely the way the staff submitted it. I am beginning to think that the strings which have been referred to are invisible and would like to have someone explain and the records verify what The audience should also know that the staff Council's direction to enter into an agreement The staff signed a contract with HUD at this Council's Whether this Council is going to honor that contract, but HUD is honoring their part in spite of the letters that I wrote and objections I have made. They have not listened to me and have not listened to anyone else. He stated that he would like the Council to think in terms of this first-year plan and at some later date concern itself with the second-year's grant. Councilman Strong also stated that he finds it a little hard to believe that Bakersfield is the only City in the Country that is so moralistic, independent and responsible that they alone can refuse these funds. expressed confidence in like to see it continue, The business people that appeared tonight the Community Development Program and would and he would hope that the Council will listen to that segment of the community. Councilman Rogers stated that this is a tough decision, and it is recognized that there are problems in the community. It is not intended that these areas will be written off; something has to be done, but the debate is to determine the best way to solve these problems. In regard to the question on how to eliminate these problems, it is my belief that the best way to accomplish that is always through individual effort, working within the framework of private enterprise. That is what made this country great, and that is the only thing that will keep it great. Since I have been on the Council, this one issue has caused more bickering and division within our community than anything else, and this truly concerns me. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 4 HUD may or may not change the rules, but the Federal Government certainly does; and this is what is frightening. Bakersfield should not be criticized for being first as long as it stands for morality and freedom. If all the other cities in this country choose to sell their freedom for a bag full of silver~ let them do it; but I want no part of it for Bakersfield or myself. This type of program is a step in the wrong direction, and the sooner the City of Bakersfield extricates itself from it, the easier it will be. I will have to oppose the motion of continuing with the first year's program. Councilman Medders stated that in his studies of American history and the U. S. Constitution, he has not found that government owes its citizens care, security and abundance from birth to the grave. Yet more and more that seems to be the expectation and philosophy of all too many.- There is no doubt that the City of Bakersfield could use the funds; we could use all the money that we can lay our hands on. But, until we are sure just what's going to happen by taking it, these invisible strings have a way of coming down on you; and whether I can name the strings or not, you stay around for a couple of years and see how well they can bind and tie you up. To me, the Federal Government is not literally alien. The fact is that through its program requirements it takes away local controls and options, and I don't believe anyone who is thinking squarely wants that to happen. In my view it was never intended that the Federal Government be engaged in neighborhood projects, but it's happening. The Federal Government was not intended to be involved in schools, but it is. The Federal Government was not intended to be involved in the affairs of cities; again, it is~ not in Bakersfield as much as in some other cities, but we are getting there. I don't believe that it is in the best interest of the people I represent to sell them out for a pittance. The whole amount over the three years is hardly more than ten or fifteen per cent of our yearly budget. We can't sell out for that low Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 5 price or for any amount for that matter. My recommendation would be, at this point~ that we use the creative genius of the Community Development Department to come up with some good sound alternative projects whereby opportunities for aiding people and upgrading their neighborhoods may be provided by private enterprise. In this manner the people who want to be involved can absentee owners will have to go along whether As a parting thought~ we have gone a long way participate and the they like it or not. downhill since back in the early sixties on the inaugural day when John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you .... " Councilman Barton stated that his motion was to conclude the first year's application of the contract which has a value of $331,000.00. Where was the rationale when the City applied to the Federal Government for a $12,000,000.00 sewer grant fund? Tonight the Council hassles over $331,000.00, visualizing all kinds of Where were the strings on the $12,000,000.00 sewer grant strings. funds? Councilman Medders applied for the $12,000,000.00 the E.P.A. requirements on the any other way. stated that the City of Bakersfield because the Federal Government put City, and we could not afford it Public Works Director Bidwell stated that in 1972 the City was given order to upgrade their sewer treatment facilities or we would be in violation of the Clean Water Act and be subject to fines up to $6,000.00 per day. Councilman Barton asked the Public Works Director if the Federal Government mandated the City to apply for the $12,000~000.00 or could that have been accomplished from the City tax base by raising the taxes. Public Works Director Bidwell replied that it was not mandated, that the City had to apply for the grant. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 6 Councilman Sceales stated that, if he is not mistaken, the City of Bakersfield is or will be called upon to help participate in this program. It may cost each household $3.50 per month for many years. People are not getting it free; they are going to pay for it. Councilman Rogers called for the question. honor Development Block Grant Program, roll Ayes: Noes: Absent: failed to carry by call vote: Councilmen Strong, Barton Councilmen Sceales, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Councilman Christensen Vice-Mayor Bleecker declared a brief recess at Deferred Business. City Council determination on Community Development Block Grant Program. Councilman Bleecker stated that there is a lot of truth in almost everything that has been said tonight, pro and con, on the Community Development Block Grant Program. The truth is according to one's point of view. There is one City in this that has participated in every type of Federal assistance since Federal assistance was invented, and that is New York City. New York City is bankrupt. Much of the bankruptcy that it suffered was brought about by matching funds. Even though this Community Development Program is not a matching fund-type program, it is similar in that there are a number of requirements that are put on the user of these funds. In fact, New York City became so dependent upon Federal aid that when they were about to go under, they couldn't believe that the Congress and President wouldn't go along with getting them pumped up again through more massive Federal aid. The President and Congress did go along, and it's Councilman Barton's motion that the City of Bakersfield the contract with HUD and complete the first year's Community the following this time. country Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 7 doubtful that these loans will ever be paid back. This is hundreds of millions of dollars. Who is paying for that? Everybody in this room that pays Federal Income Taxes is paying for that. It is one of the biggest boondoggies that was ever perpetrated on the American people, but everybody thought that we can't let New York City go under. It would have been all right with me. That's one reason why I can't support a Community Development Program of this type in the City of Bakersfield. Once this City gets dependent upon that type of thing, long after I'm gone, it's my children that are going to suffer more than anybody else. For years this Council and the staff have approved of and tried to foster implementation of local improvement districts for curbs, gutters and things of that nature. They have been mostly successful at the point in time when the people who live on a certain block make up their own minds that they want to improve their street where they live. The same is true of lighting. It's happened all over this City, and I am sure it will continue to happen. All over this Country politicians of various stripes, liberals on one hand and conservatives on the other~ are talking more and more about how bad big government is. It's almost totally unpopular anymore for a politican of the Federal ilk to get up and try to promote new people programs, because they can't afford the ones they have already promoted. We have a situation that's amazing in that two political factions of widely divergent viewpoints have found a common ground, and that's a common ground because that's what the people want. They don't want anymore big programs with big spending because the people have decided, the ones who pay most of the tax, that they cannot afford it anymore. One thing that was touched upon by several speakers and two or three members of the Council is freedom. When you have a situation where you are dependent upon some government entity other than your own to take care of your local problems and local affairs~ the people that are promoting these programs and rules and regulations that go along with them don't know what's going on in Bakersfield. Bakersfield~ California, February 2~ 1976 - Page 8 They could care less. They slap a bunch of rules and regulations on there and mete out a little at a time as long as you're going along with their ideas about how a program should be implemented and accomplished. I don't think the people in this community want that either. I think freedom amounts to being left alone by government, except for one's own personal protection. Good government might decide that they can encumber your property through confiscatory taxation by the whims and frailties that they promote at the Federal level in these big giveaway programs. As far as business is concerned locally, this is one of the areas in this whole country that has suffered least because we have good sound agriculture and oil industry, both of which are very much in demand. You can invent all the Federal giveaway programs and implement everything you can think of and put those in and around this City, but I can't see where it would help business very much. If they ever lose the agriculture and the oil there isn't going to be any business in Bakersfield. Regarding a comment made by a Councilman earlier about the City having applied for this program and he wished we would keep it, I didn't apply for it; I voted against it in the beginning. I can't see any necessity for it because I don't like the freedom that it takes away from me. On the issue before the body now, I can certainly support it. This probably won't be the last go around on it. There aregoing to be more attempts from time to time to put it in, I am sure. It does take courage to extricate oneself from a bad situation; it takes a lot of courage. I've got it, and I think this Council has got it. Councilman Rogers stated that he feels that Bakersfield stands at a very important crossroad tonight, and a lot of us may be surprised at how many other cities up and down the State probably feel the way we do. I think there is a good chance we may start something here tonight that will go a long way towards restoring the freedom of local control. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 9 Councilman Rogers moved that the participation of the City of Bakersfield in the Community Block Grant Funds for fiscal year 1975-76 be terminated as of February 2, 1976. Councilman Bleecker stated that the motion embodies a termination of participation for Fiscal Year 1975-76, and the original proposal was for a three-year program. He asked the City Attorney if this motion would extricate the City from the whole program. City Attorney Hoagland stated that there was a question that was raised last week regarding what the implications of termination would be relative to the amount of monies already expended and obligated and those not spent or obligated. A letter was addressed to HUD specifically asking two questions relative to that and the answer came in by telephone (a written answer will be The legal position of HUD as to the termination is as sent later). follows: 1. "All funds which have been expended or obligated in accordance with applicable laws, regulations under the provisions of the contract will be deemed to have been committed under the program and are not recoverable by the Department. Determination of such compliance will be made by the Department through an appropriate audience." I might add that~ from what we know of the monitoring, all the funds were expended properly. 2. "All funds granted but not obligated will be recovered by the Department and the City's Letter of Credit canceled. 3. "Any funds which have been spent or obligated for activities determined to be ineligible shall be returned to the Department directly 4O0 Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 10 from the City. Such funds that are not returned by the City HUD will deduct this amount from future entitlements should the City seek to reenter the program." As far as we know at this time there are no funds which have been spent or obligated for activities determined to be ineligible. Bleecker asked if this motion gets the City out of the three-year program. City Attorney Hoagland stated that it gets the City out of the first-year program as of this point in time, and no application has been made for the second and third year. On the Planning Commission's agenda for Wednesday would be an application for the second year, and if it's the desire of the Council to terminate participation in this program, it should be included in the motion. Councilman Rogers altered his motion that the participation of the City of Bakersfield in the Community Development Block Grants be terminated as of February 2, 1976~ and the two contract planners be picked up by the City and assigned to much needed activities. Councilman Barton asked the staff what the cost to the City would be if this motion passes. City Manager Bergen stated that he could not give an exact figure, but the memorandum from the Finance Director would supply a very close figure. The staff has been led to believe, as the Attorney reported, that our costs incurred prior to this time and pursuant to the program would qualify. There is an exit audit and some equipment purchased that may not qualify. But these would be relatively minor when you look at the total program. If you wanted to recess, I might be able to give you better figures. Councilman Bleecker asked if the staff could give a ball park figure of what it might cost the City to get out of this program. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 401 City Manager Bergen stated that he would rather make an estimate. He stated he didn't think there was any major cost. The Attorney covered it when he indicated that HUD would audit and then would come in and give us a figure. If I could give you an exact dollar and cents figure today, we would; but I am unable to. We have been led to believe it would be minor. Councilman Barton asked the staff to give a total amount. Vice-Mayor Bleecker declared a brief recess. City Manager Bergen stated that the staff would estimate $25~000.00 and pointed out that this includes the salary of the two contract employees, and we think we can offset some of this. Councilman Bleecker asked how much offset that would be? City Manager Bergen stated that Assistant City Manager Russell indicated that we could offset that filling some Planning Department positions. cost down to about $15,000.00. by $10,000.00 by not That would get the Councilman Barton stated that Councilman Bleecker brought up the question of future participaton and asked Mr. Foster if this motion passes to terminate this program, would there be a chance in the future for the program ever to be reinstated. Community Development Director Foster stated that as near as the staff can ascertain at this point, we would not be able to reapply until the next year, and then we would take our chances. It would be up to the Council to apply. Councilman Strong asked for a division of the motion. Councilman Rogers stated that he would have no objection to dividing the motion, as requested by Councilman Strong. Councilman Rogers' motion that the participation of the City of Bakersfield in the Community Development Block Grant Funds be terminated as of February 2, vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Noes: Councilmen Strong, Absent: 1976~ carried by the following roll call Bleecker, Medders, Barton Councilman Christensen Rogers Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 12 Vice-Mayor Bleecker repeated Councilman Rogers' second motion that the Contract Planners be retained for the life of their contracts. Councilman Strong requested more explanation of that motion. He asked if they were talking about the life of the contract under the contract that the City has with HUD; and how could it be a contract if the Council has terminated the City's contract with HUD. Councilman Bleecker stated that the contract that we have with these people is a City contract except that we have drawn against our Letters of Credit to pay them as part of the Community Development Block Grant. The motion means that we will retain those people and pay them ourselves. Councilman Rogers' motion that the Contract Planners be retained by the City and assigned to much needed activities, carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: Councilman Christensen Mrs. Marie Dickinson congratulated the Council for the actions they took this evening. Council Statements. Councilman Rogers requested that the staff investigate various ways of controlling the use of tennis courts in the City by contacting the cities of Manhattan Beach, La Jolla and San Diego and report to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee for consideration and report back to the Council. Councilman Bleecker stated that he has had numerous complaints in regards to the dirty condition of the downtown traffic control structures and, by contract, the Downtown Improvement District is responsible £or keeping them clean. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 13 Councilman Bleecker suggested that whenever the City notices that the downtown traffic control structures are dirty that City crews clean them and assess the Downtown Improvement District for the cost. (d) by the Ayes: Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on (a (c (d) the Consent Calendar: Allowance of Claims Nos. 2947 to 3022, inclusive, in the amount of $318,364.73. Claim for Personal Injury from Carlan R. Bryant, 3813 Eucalyptus Street, Bakersfield. (Refer to City Attorney) Application for Encroachment Permit from Bob Chapel, 2200 Thelma Drive. Contract for improvements within Parcel Map No. 3281 - located along a portion of San Dimas and 36th Street. (e) DELETED Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), and deletion of Item (e), of the Consent Calendar, following roll call vote: Councilmen Noes: None Absent~ Councilman Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker Rogers Christensen Barnett, (b), (c), were adopted Board of Trustees for two-year term expiring December Medders, Deferred Business (Continued) Reappointment of Mr. George B. Barnett Sr. to the Kern Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Mr. George H. Sr., was reappointed to the Kern Mosquito Abatement District 31, 1977. New Business. Deferral of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield protesting the execution of Contracts or Agreements for lands within one mile of the City located in Agricul- tural Preserves. A property owner is seeking to place farm lands which are within one mile of the City under contract with the County to 404 Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page f4 obtain tax relief under the Williamson Act. The County has notified the City as required. Under the law, if the City protests the execution of the contracts and LAFCO upholds the protest, then, should the County execute such contracts, the City shall have an option of not succeeding to the contract upon annexation of the land to the City. The proposed resolution protesting the contracts is for the purpose of acquiring the right to exercise an option at a later date. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield protesting the execution of Contracts or Agreements for lands within one mile of the City located in Agricultural Preserves, was held over for one week for more in-depth ~nformation. Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 912 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of Sonora Street between Sumner and Kentucky Streets, in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution of Intention No. 912 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of Sonora Street between Sumner and Kentucky Streets, in the City of Bakersfield and setting March 8, 1976 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: Councilman Christensen Deferral of action on Future Use of old Police Building. The Planning Commission requested staff to submit a report on alternative to the future use of the old Police Building site. The Commission's unanimous decision recommends to the Council that the old Police Building be demolished, and the site be converted into a parking lot as soon as the building is vacated. Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 15 4O5 Councilman Barton moved that the report on the future use of the old Police Building be referred to the Business Develop- ment and Parking Committee for study and recommendation back to the Council. Councilman Bleecker stated that he would have to oppose the motion as the plans for the old Police Building have been obvious for several months and the Planning Commission recommendation is sound, particularly regarding converting this property to a parking lot and perhaps at a later date, because of the value of that property, it might be developed into something else. Councilman Barton's motion that the report on the future use of the old Police Building be referred to the Business Develop- ment and Parking Committee for study and recommendation back to the Council, was approved. Councilman Bleecker voted in the negative on this motion. Approval of Construction Change Order No. 6 to Contract No. 74-109 with Fred S. Macomber for construction of the Police Facility. This Change Order provides for the following: 1. The addition of a demountable wall and a new door to provide an area for privacy separation in the locker system. 2. Floor leveling and door cutting in 12 toilet rooms. This Change Order increases the contract price by $4,278.06. Three additional days are requested for completion of the contract as a result of this Change Order. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Construction Change Order No. 6 to Contract No. 74-109 with Fred S. Macomber for construction of the Police Facility, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to This is Paula E. Crandell execute same. Hearings. the time set for public hearing to the decision of the Board of regarding her application for on an Appeal by Zoning Adjustment a Conditional Use Permit for the 41}I; Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 16 purpose of permitting the operation and maintenance of a Day Care Nursery for six (6) children in an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 2300 Christopher Court. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. The Board of Zoning Adjustment approved the application subject to the applicant converting the existing illegally enclosed garage being used for living purposes to a garage to provide parking. V~ce-Mayor Bleecker participation. Mrs. conversion of declared the hearing open for public Paula Crande]l, the applicant, stated that the the garage was done by a prior owner; she had no idea it was done illegally; and they planned to use this room as a play- room for the children. She also stated that the parents picking up or dropping off their children stop for less than five minutes and there is no need for more off-street parking. Mrs. Crandell submitted six letters from neighbors and mothers of the children in favor of the day care nursery. Mrs. Betty Salley spoke in favor of the day care nursery. Vice-Mayor Bleecker closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Zoning Resolution No. 248, granting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the operation and maintenance of a Day Care Nursery for six (6) children on that certain property commonly known as 2300 Christopher Court, was adopted by the followSng roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Seeales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: Councilman Christensen Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 17 This is the time set for public hearing on application by Charles L. Wren to amend the zoning boundaries from an MN (Mobile- home) Zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling). or more restrictive, Zone, and an R-S (Residential Suburban), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south side of Harris Road between Stacey Street and Stine Road. This hearing has been duly advertised and the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. A tentative subdivision map has been approved on this land which depicted twenty-seven residential lots. The parcel of applicant is requesting R-S estate suburban residential on the west half. zoning for the east half (adjacent to lots in the county), and R-1 zoning The Planning Commission found the proposed zoning would be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Vice-Mayor Bleecker declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. Charles L. Wren, the applicant, and Mr. George Lusich spoke in favor of the zone change and answered questions of the Council. No further protests or objections being received, the public portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2257 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 o£ Bakersfield located on the south side of Harris Road, between Stacey Street and Stine Road, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Noes None Absent: Councilman Christensen Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 18 This is the time set for public hearing on application by Warren G. Brock to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, and an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located on the south- east corner of Planz Road and Raider Drive. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. The proposed .82 acre parcel for R-2 would allow fourteen dwelling units and the proposed 1.15 acre parcel for R-3 would allow thirty-nine dwelling units. The Planning Commission, at their January 7, 1976 meeting, were of the opinion that this requested zoning would be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and would be compatible with the area, provided the "D" Architectural Design Overlay is applied to both parcels. Vice-Mayor Bleecker declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. George Lusich, representing the applicant, spoke in favor and was present to answer questions of the Council. No further protests or objections being received, the public portion of the hearing was closed for deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2258 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the South- east corner of Planz Road and Raider Drive with the "D" Architectural Design Overlay applied to insure compatible development, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers Noes: None Absent: Councilman Christensen Bakersfield, California, February 2, 1976 - Page 19 409 This is the time set for continued public hearing before the Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory designated as "Kern annexed to the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly River No. 4" proposed to be advertised, the property posted and notices sent to all property owners as required by law. The public portion of this hearing was closed at the Council Meeting of December 9, 1974. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the hearing on the annexation of "Kern River No. 4," was continued until April 12, 1976. This is the time set for continued public hearing before the Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory designated as "Kern River No. 5" proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and notices sent to all property owners as required by law. The public portion of this hearing was closed at the Council Meeting of December 9, 1974. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the hearing on the annexation of "Kern River No. 5," was continued until April 12, 1976. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, the meeting was adjourned at ll:10 P.M. VICE~R of the City of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CITY CLERK ~nd Ex-Offic~o Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfind, California ma