HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1976 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, December 6, 1976
341
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council o£ the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Haii at 8:00 P.M., December 6, 1976.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart foilowed
by the Pledge of Aliegiance and Invocation by Councilman Donald A.
Rogers.
Present:
Absent:
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bteecker,
Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales
None
Minutes of
approved as presented.
the reguiar meeting of November 29, 1976 were
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Steven V. Schmieder, 9051 Stockdale Highway, requested
that the Council grant permission to move into his new home at
2205 - 23rd,Street before installation of off-street parking pad.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the matter of Mr.
Schmieder's request for permission to move into his new home at
2205 23rd Street was referred to Community Development Director
Foster to work out a solution.
C~rrespondence.
. Communication from Warner Cable TV
of Kern County requesting a public
hearing for a rate increase.
Mr. Charles Smith, Regional Manager of Warner Cable TV,
Inc., stated that he was present to answer questions of the Council.
Councilman Bleecker read the following prepared statement:
"Mr. Smith, before I ask you these questions I
want to say that I had rather not be asking
them at all. There are a number of reasons
why, which I will try to explain.
In a capitalistic system, the way I see it,
government is supposedto promote private and
free ~nterprise - not hinder it. Competition
is supposedto be the great equalizer in the
market place, and if government would just
leave business alone everything is suppos~ to
come up roses. But where competition is
restricted (i.e. controlled monopolies) or
34°
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 2
where there may be collusion among competitors
(anti-trust laws), government not only has the
right but the obligation in certain areas (such
as the setting of rates) to see that the user
or buyer gets a square shake. I think that
as a matter o£ practicality even though Warner
or Bakersfield Cable TV do not operate under
exclusive franchises, Bakersfield Cable TV is
in effect locked in areawise to serving the
City limits as they existed several years ago
and Warner Cable TV can operate anywhere in
the County including any areas as they may
become annexed to the City. Actually (and I
repeat - as a matter of practicality) the
Greater Bakersfield area is divided into two
well defined spheres of influence as far as
cable TV is concerned, with Bakersfield Cable
operating primarily within the City limits
and Warner operating all around it.
For economic reasons or for whatever other
reasons I may not know about, there now
physically exists two distinct and well defined
spheres of influence which have a monopoly on
cable TV service in the Greater Bakersfield
area. If, for instance, a family residing
at 2600 - 18th Street wants cable TV they must
contract with Bakersfield Cable TV. They may
not negotiate rate or installation charges,
or service charges, etc. because these rates
are set by the City Council. If the picture
is bad or at times non-existent they may not
contract with Warner because Warnes does not
serve the area. It is impossible for the
subscriber to take business elsewhere - he
may only complain or have the service dis-
continued. To me this is a monopoly and the
same is true in the case of Warner Cable TV
where they surround the City.
Now, somebody may say that cable TV is not a
necessity like the telephone or gas or electricity
or water -this is very true - but neither is a
washer and dryer or an automobile or movie
houses or restaurants or microwave ovens or
television sets or many, many other things
people buy really absolute necessities. The
aforementioned items, however, are subject to
intense competition in price, availability,
style, size, make, guarantees, etc., and the
consumer may be confused but he has a choice -
not just a do or don't choice as in the case
of cable television.
A much preferred situation would be if both
Bakersfield and Warner Cable TV could run their
lines side by side on all existing telephone
poles or in all underground service areas any-
where in this City or County or in any other
City in the County. Since neither franchise
is exclusive, I suppose they could do this.
If they would, the fact of competition including
rates, quality of the picture, service and
available programming would soon become very
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 3
343
evident. The user would have a definite choice
and I would be willing to make the motion that
the Council get out of this rate setting
business altogether. The cable TV companies
would have to justify nothing except to the
user and in the absence of any collusion on
rate fixing, etc. (which is illegal anyway)
the true spirit of free enterprise would have
been accomplished and the user wouldn't have
to look to government to solve his cable TV
problems.
In the absence of true competition this Council
has the option to set rates, etc. I think we
should exercise the option but before we do,
I think we need to do and know the following:
(These remarks were directed to Mr. Charles
Smith, Regional Manager of Warner Cable TV)
We need to set certain criteria as to
what is a fair return based on net assets
or based on whatever other criteria this
Council may agree upon.
We need to set guidelines to determine
whether or not certain of your selling
expenses and general and administrative
expenses paid to your main New York office
are appropriate and generally within the
bounds of acceptable practices.
The members of the Council must agree upon
whether or not your investment tax credits
should be added to your profit picture in
determining a fair return on your invest-
ment.
Under current rates your gross profit could
be substantially increased if you served
more than 50% of the eligible subscribers.
We need to know why your subscription rate
is only 50%. As a layman it appears rather
low to me. If it could be increased perhaps
a rate increase would not be necessary.
We need to know if you would consider and
if Bakersfield Cable TV would consider
serving all areas of Greater Bakersfield
as true competitors. If not, why not?
We need to know why your proposed rates
are in many cases higher than Bakersfield
Cable TV and higher than other cable
companies performing the same service in
those cities surveyed by the City of
Bakersfield's Finance Department.
If a business is under capitalized in the
beginning and interest charges paid are
used as an offset against revenues two
things are accomplished:
(a)
As in the case of investment tax
credits, interest paid is a deductible
expense for tax ~urposes.
344
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 4
(b)
Interest paid and added as an expense
item on a profit and loss statement
decreases the profit picture.
We need to know if borrowing by Warner Cable
of Kern was made at arms length from an
independent financial institution or were
funds borrowed from the parent Warner Co.
or any of its subsidiaries. If this should
be the case where one branch of Warner may
profit where the other branch may show a
large expense, it is doubtful that the full
interest expense of some $170,000 as shown
in your report to the City should be
allowed as an offset against revenues in
figuring a profit on paper for the purpose
of gaining a rate increase.
Mr. Smith the Council wants to be fair to you
and we certainly want you to make a profit, but
in the absence of competition the Council wants
to be sure and wants the user to be sure that
any increases granted are just and fair. I
want you to know I will do everything possible
to serve you as well as the public interest,
but I feel very strongly that it is up to
Warner Cable TV to prove to this Council that
the requested increases are absolutely necessary."
Councilman Rogers made a motion that public hearing on
request for a rate increase from Warner Cable TV of Kern County
be set fo~,Mo~day, December 20, 1976, at 8:00 P.M. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall.
City Manager Bergen, in answer to a question, stated
that if the s~aff receives the additional requested data promptly,
a report with staff comments can be given to the Council, hopefully,
by December 13th, or 15th at the latest, so the Council might have
time to study prior to the hearing on December 20th. If the
information is not received the staff will inform the Council next
Monday night and a determination can be made at that time whether
or not to proceed with the public hearing.
Councilman Rogers' motion that the public hearing on
request for a rate increase from Warner Cable TV of Kern County
be set for Monday, December 20, 1976 at 8:00 P.M., in the Council
Chambers of City Hail, was approved.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker reported on the status of the
Christmas Tree lights on Truxtun Avenue and stated that they will
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 5
345
be turned on around December 10th. The Fire Department has always
assumed the expense of lighting the trees without a specific budget
for that purpose, and prior to next Christmas season the Fire
Chief intends to come to the Council with a budget request covering
all aspects of maintenance, lamp replacement, labor costs, etc.
Councilman Bleecker thanked Fire Chief Needham and Assistant City
Manager Buell for their understanding and well evidenced Christmas
spirit and stated he feels sure the Council will help the Fire
Department accomplish this request next year.
Reports.
Councilman Rogers, Chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, read Report NQ. 14-76 regarding Cable TV Undergrounding,
as follows:
On October ll, Mr. Roy Wattenbarger appeared
before the Council and requested that the
Council require cable television companies to
participate with other utilities in paying
their portions-of installing trenches for
undergrounding utilities in new subdivisions.
This Committee was asked to study the matter
and bring it back to the Council for appropraite
action.
Over the last severa~ months, the Committee
has met with Mr. Wattenbarger and a major
d~¥eloper in.the city, as well as with
representatives of Warner Cable and Bakers-
field'Cable to determine what practices are
currently in effect.
Mr. Wattenbarger indicated that up until
January 1, 1975, Warner Cable was paying.a.
proportionate share of the trenching costs.
In discussions with the cable cgmpanies,~ it
was determined by the Committee that this had,
in fact, been the case and.was done so to hono
a commitment which had been made by Warner
Cable's predecessor, Cypress Cable TV. After
that commitment by Cypress was fulfilled,
Warner Cable, as a matter of corporate policy,
did not continue to pay trenching costs.
Bakersfield Cable TV ha~ never participated in
trenching costs.
The amount of proportionat~ cost to be paid by
a contractor is dependent upon the number of
agencies which share a common trench. For
example, if the gas company, electric company,
telephone company, and the cable company were
all to use.the sa~e trench for undergrounding
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 6
their utilities, then each of the utilities,
except cable, would pay their proportionate
share and the remaining one-fourth would be
paid by the contractor. It was further brought
out that the undergrounding of cable television
does not have nearly as restrictive a require-
ment as the other utilities. For example,
requirements for gas lines are that the trench
must be approximately a foot wide and four
feet deep, whereas the cable companies need
only a trench six inches wide by approximately
a foot deep and, therefore, it is the cable
companies' contention that they would be
required to pay a disproportionate share of
the cost as compared to what their actual needs
would be. It was also brought out by the
cable companies that they already install, at
their own costs, both the conduit and the
cabling necessary for installation of the
cable television system, and that the only
issue here is just the actual trenching costs.
Cable television cannot recapture its costs
the way utility companies can, since there is
no way of knowing precisely how many residents
will hook up to the cable. Cable company
representatives indicated that, in general
terms, they only expect to have 50 percent of
an area. This makes their cost recovery much
more difficult than a utility company with a
100 percent hookup.
After considerable discussion by the Committee,
it is our recommendation that the current
practice of having the contractors pay for
their portion of the cable trenching be
continued.
Mayor Hart announced that due to a real or imaginary
conflict of interest he will not participate in or preside over
this discussion.
Mr. Roy Wattenbarger, local subdivider and builder,
stated that he disagrees with the findings listed in the report
and feels that the cable TV companies should pay their proportionate
share of the trenching.
City Attorney Hoagland stated, in answer to a question,
that it is part of the City Subdivision Ordinance, that when a
subdivision in being developed that utilities must be installed,
including cable television.
Mr. Betdell Dickinson, 3904 Panorama Drive, stated that
trenching for utility cables is expensive and not as simple as it
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 7
347
sounds, and he feels the cable television should pay their share
of the costs. Mr. Dickinson stated that the cable TV companies
have always paid their share of the trenching and they just
recently decided not pay for this service.
Councilman Rogers stated that Mr. Howard Charmell,
General Manager of Bakersfield Cable TV, stated in a Water and
City Growth Committee meeting that they have never paid for any
trenching.
During a lengthy discussion, Councilman Rogers made a
motion that any action on Report No. 14-76 of the Water and City
Growth Committee regarding Cable TV Undergrounding, be deferred
until the committee can meet again with all interested parties
and then return to the Council with a report and recommendation.
Councilman Barton called for the motion to be acted
upon.
Councilman Strong requested that the Water and City
Growth Committee give consideration to Mr. Wattenbarger's concern
that their findings might have some results on his pending
litigation regarding a claim.
Councilman Rogers' motion that any
14-76 of the Water and City Growth Committee
action on Report No.
regarding Cable ?V
Undergrounding, be deferred until the committee can meet again
with all interested parties and then return to the Council with a
report and recommendation, was approved.
Councilman Rogers stated he would like to recognize Mr.
Howard Channell, General Manager of Bakersfield Cable TV, who is
in the audience, and have him make a brief statement regarding
whether or not they have ever paid or are now paying for trenching
costs.
Councilman Christensen made a motion that the discussion
on the trenching costs for cable television be tabled. This motion
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 8
failed to carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Christensen
Noes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers, Sceales
Absent: None
Mr. Howard Channell, General Manager of Bakersfield Cable
TV, stated that he has been in Bakersfield a little over six years
and they have not paid trenching costs, it has always been provided
for by the developer.
Mr. Dickinson stated that he would produce documents
from Pacific Gas & Electric Company showing that Bakersfield Cable
TV was assessed for a portion of the trenching.
Councilman Barton suggested that the Water and City
Growth Committee consider removing cable television as a utility
from the ordinance and then it would not be mandatory to provide
this service to subdivisions.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 17-76
regarding Establishment of City Water Department, as follows:
At the request of the City Council, the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee met
with the staff this past week to work out the
details for establishing the City's new
Department of Water. Attached to this report
are two detailed organizational charts which
this committee is proposing for tentative
approval tonight by the City Council. The
reason for the two proposed organizational
charts is that there is still some question
whether North Kern Water District will enter
into an agreement with the City, whereby, we
would maintain their canal system. If North
Kern decides to maintain their own operation
then the number of personnel needed by the
City would be substantially decreased. By
approving the two plans tonight the staff can
proceed with contacting potential employees
as soon as it is decided which of the two plans
will be put into effect. Hopefully this decision
will be forthcoming tomorrow. Official action
by the Council can then be taken tomorrow by
approving the necessary resolutions and
emergency ordinances.
In order to avoid any further delays we are
requesting tentative Council approval tonight
as follows:
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 9
949
1. Creation of a new City Department to be
known as the Department of Water.
Tentative approval of the attached organi-
zational charts with £inal approval as to
which plan to follow pending the decision
of North Kern Water District.
Tentative approval of the attached job
speci£ications for the classifications of
Water Manager; Assistant Water Manager;
Water Superintendent; Water Dispatcher I;
Water Dispatcher II; ttydrographer I;
Hydrographer II; Canal Tender; Laborer;
Equipment Operator III; Weed Controller;
and Accountant II.
Tentative approval to bring into the work
force of the City without examination,
those employees of Tenneco West, Inc.,
whose primary duties were confined to the
operation of the water and canal system.
Tentative approval to credit said employees
with five days sick leave for each full
year of employment with Tenneco West, Inc.,
up to the maximum allowable to all City
employees.
Tentative approval for vacation eligibility
as follows: From and after January 1, 1977,
said employees shall be credited with the
length of time employed by Tenneco West,
Inc., as if they had worked for the City
during said period. Accrual and use of
such vacation rights shall be in accordance
with the City's vacation ordinance from
and after January l, 1977.
In order to implement this report we are recom-
mending that the City Council instruct the
City Attorney to draw up the necessary resolutions
and ordinances for final adoption by the City
Council at tomorrow night's continued Council
meeting.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
Report No. 17-76 of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee regarding Establishment o£ City Water Department, was
accepted; the six recommendations as outlined in the report, were
approved; and the City Attorney was instructed to draw up the
necessary resolutions and ordinances for final adoption by the
City Council at tomorrow night's continued Council meeting.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Memorandum from
the Acting Public Works Director to the City Manager, dated
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page l0
December 6, 1976, regarding Service Agreement - Bakersfield Sub-
regional Wastewater Management Plan, was received and ordered
placed on file.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a
Allowance of Claims Nos. 2034 to 2104,
inclusive, in the amount of $251,474.01.
(b
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Plaza
Realty Investors as required by the
Planning Commission for Parcel Map No.
3889, provides additional right-of-way
on Gibson and extension of Burr Street.
(C
Street Right-of-Way Deeds providing
fifteen feet of additional right-of-way
for Planz Road from "H" Street to
McCourry Street from:
Planz Road Baptist Church of Bakersfield;
Lydia M. Brackeen;
Department of Veterans Affairs for Louis
Eynaud;
Louis Eynaud;
Columbus and Margie L. Foster (2 each);
Derrell A. and Elizabeth J. Hanson:
Deanie Jane Bolles;
Cecil V. and Aubry Lee Banthrall;
Phenix P. and Mildred Z. Polston;
Troy and Vivian F. Lasater;
Earnest D. and Nadine Alspaw;
William H. and Irene R. Simpson;
Jess R. and Gloria Martinez;
Charley N. and Mary E. White;
Bobby G. Jr. and Helen J. Kiser;
and a
Public Utilities Easement from Charley N.
and Mary E. White.
(d)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on Street and Sewer Improvements
under Tract No. 3786 - Contract No.
76-45 with Tenneco Realty Devleopment
Corporation.
(e)
Plans and Specifications for "Improvement
of Planz Road between "H" Street and
McCourry Street,,,
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilman Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders,
Rogers, Sceales
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page
352
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of R. L.
Grosh and Sons Scenic Studios for Theatrical Curtains for Civic
Auditorium-Installed, was accepted and the other bid rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Rose
Chemical Company for Annual Contract for Water Treatment Chemicals,
was accepted, the other bid rejected and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, high bid of T. J.
Jamieson of the J. T. Company for 15 plus acres of surplus real
property (Eissler Park Site), was accepted and the other bid
rejected; exercise of option with Parr Investment Company, dated
October 16, 1976, for real property located at intersection of
University Avenue and Camden Street for park purposes, establish
an escrow for the appropriate mutual exchange of money and deeds
and other requirements, were approved.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low base bid of
Peter C. David Company for construction of Northwest Bakersfield
Drain - Phase II, was accepted, all other alternates and bids
rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2305 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Sections
17.46.020, 17.46.030, 17.46.040,
17.46.100, 17.46.120, Subsection
(8) of Section 17.46.130; adding
Sections 17.46.045, 17.46.125 and
repealing Subsection (9) of Section
17.46.130 o£ Chapter 17.46 of the
Municipal Code concerning the Flood
Plain Zones.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Ordinance No.
2305 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 17.46.020, 17.46.030, 17.46.040, 17.46.100, 17.46.120,
Subsection (8) of Section 17.46.130; adding Sections 17.46.045,
17.46.125 and repealing Subsection (9) of Section 17.46.130 of
Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code concerning the Flood Plain
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 12
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
was adopted by
Councilmen
None
None
the following roll call vote:
Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen,
Rogers, Sceales
New Business.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 916 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its inten-
tion to order the vacation of a
Public Utilities Easement south of
Panorama Drive and easterly of
Crescent Drive, in the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Resolution of
None
None
Intention No. 916 of the Council
declaring its intention to order
Easement south of Panorama Drive
in the City of Bakersfield and setting January 3,
on the matter before the Council, was adopted by
roll call vote:
Ayes Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker,
Rogers, Sceales
Noes
Absent:
field
Medders,
of the City of Bakersfield
the vacation of a Public Utilities
and easterly of Crescent Drive,
1977 for hearing
the following
Approval of request from Bakers-
field Investment and Realty Co. to
withdraw application for amendment
to Land Use Element of the Bakers-
field Area General Plan concerning
that property commonly known as
2401 Panorama Drive.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, request
Investment and Realty Company to withdraw their
Christensen, Medders,
from Bakers-
application
for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Area
General Plan concerning that property commonly known as 2401
Panorama Drive, was approved.
Approval of Boundaries of proposed
Annexation designated as Ming No. 8.
Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Annexation boundaries
designated as Ming No. 8, located across from the Valley Plaza
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 13
353
Shopping Center at the northeast corner o£ Hughes Lane and Ming
Avenue and containing approximately 1.6 acres of uninhabited
territory, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and
City Attorney for referral to LAFCO.
Approval of Boundaries of proposed
Annexation designated as Fairfax No.
1.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Annexation boundaries
designated as Fairfax No. l, located north and east of Highland
High School and containing approximately 95.7 acres of uninhabited
territory, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and
City Attorney for referral to LAFCO.
Approval of Boundaries o£ proposed
Annexation designated as Manor No. 1.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Annexation boundaries
designated as Manor No. l, located east of Manor Street and north
of the Kern River Bluffs and containing approximately 18.07 acres
of uninhabited territory, were approved and referred to the City
Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFCO.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council of the City of Bakersfield on the initiated action by
the Planning Commission to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One
Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property
in the County of Kern located between Talisman Drive on the north
and Ming Avenue on the south, known as Ming No. 7 Annexation.
This hearing has been duly advertised, the property
posted and the property owners have been notified as required by
law.
The majority of this 2.83 acre parcel is undeveloped.
The surrounding properties are zoned R-1 and are developed with
single family homes, both in the City and in the unincorporated
area with the exception of a portion on the west which is developed
with a church. The Planning Commission found the proposed zoning
354
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 14
upon annexation consistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and recommended approval of the R-1 zoning.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and
action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Ordinance No. 2306
~w Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning
Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield and find
said Zoning Upon Annexation consistent with the General Plan, was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders,
Rogers, Sceales
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council of the City of Bakersfield on the initiated action of the
Planning Commission to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family
Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property in
the County of Kern located near the northwest corner of the inter-
section of Edwards Avenue and Sandy Lane, known as Bernard No. 2
Annexation.
This hearing has been duly advertised, the property
posted and the property owners have been notified as required by
law.
Subject triangular parcel contains .42 acres and is
undeveloped. Surrounding properties are zoned R-1 and are
undeveloped except for single family dwellings on both the east
and south corners. There is a City approved tentative subdivision
map containing six family lots on this property and adjacent
properties within the City.
The Planning Commission found
Annexation would be consistent with the
General Plan and recommended approval
the proposed Zoning Upon
Land Use Element of the
of the R-1 zoning.
Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 15
855
pation.
portion of the
action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Ordinance No. 2307
New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter l?.12 (Zoning
Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield and find
said Zoning Upon Annexation consistent with the General Plan, was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and
Noes
Absent:
Councilmen Strong,
Rogers,
None
None
Upon a motion
Barton, Bleecker, Christensen,
Sceales
Recess.
by Councilman Christensen,
recessed the regular meeting at
7, 1976 at 8:00 P.M.
9:55 P.M., until
Medders,
the Council
Tuesday, December
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY C~FYRK and Ex-Off~io Clerk of the Council
of the' City of Bakers~ield, California
ma