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