HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/79 MINUTES RA JOINT MINUTES
BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMEHT AGENCY
JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DECEMBER 5, 1979
A Joint Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency was held in the Council Chamber of City Hall
at 4 p.m. Tuesday, Decmeber 5, 1979. Purpose of the meeting was to conduct
public hearings on the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the
Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, and the Joint Development Agreement
between the Agency and Bakersfield Associates on a Retail Shopping Center Site.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vincent Casper, Chairman
Jeanne Foth
John S. Mooneyham
Dr. Glenn D. Puder
ABSENT:
Robert E. K[ng
Frank S. Lewis
Ralph H. Poehner,
Vice Chairman
STAFF PRESENT:
H. E. Bergen, Executive Director
Dennis Needham, Deputy Executive Director
Philip Kelmar, Treasurer
Kenneth Hoagland, City Attorney
Richard Oberholzer, Assistant City Attorney
Melvin Tooker, Development Services Coordinator
Jim Gilchrist, Community Development & Housing Coordinator
E. B. Jacobs, Murray Kane and Erma Lake, Agency Special Counsel
Calvin Hollis, Agency Financial Consultant
Edward A. Holden, A.I.C.P. (Preparer of the E.I.R.)
Jerry Keyser, Land Consultant
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daniel W. Donahue, Tom Schreiber and Dick Jensen of
John S. Griffith & Company (Developers)
Jeff Nagle, Downtown Business Association, Fresno
A copy of the Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield dated
December 5, 1979 marked Exhibit "A," reflecting all action taken at the Joint
Public Hearings, is attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof.
Bake rs f i e~l-d ~e~eve 1 opmen t ~..,~ c y
Bernice E. Stewart, Secretary to the
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979
Minutes of a Joint Public Rearing of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield and %he Bakersfield Redevelopment
Agency, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall'at 4:00
P.M., December 5, 1979.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart.
Mayor Hart stated this is the time for the Special
Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency called for the purpose of conducting joint public
hearings on (1) the proposed Third Amendment to the Amended
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment
Project, which includes the addition of certain land to the
Project area; and (2) the proposed sale and lease of land in
the Project area, as proposed to be amended, as provided for
in the proposed Joint Development Agreement between the
Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates.
Notice of these joint public hearings have been
published and mailed as required by the California Community
Redevelopment Law. As Mayer I will chair the joint bearings.
Will the members of the Redevelopment Agency and the staff
please take their places.
Mayor Hart led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The City Clerk call(d the roll of the Council, as
follows:
Present:
Councilmen Means, Miller, Payne, Ratty,
Barton, Christensen
Absent: None
The Agency Secretary called the roll of
as follows:
Present: Agency Members Foth, Mooneyham, Puder,
Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner
Mayor Hart stated he would like to make
of procedural rules governing this public hearing.
contains the following documents:
Strong,
the Agency,
Casper
a statement
The record
E X H I B I T "A"
Bakersfield, Califernia, December 5, 1979 - Page
The proposed Third Amendment to the Amended
Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Agency Report to tile City
Council on the proposed Third Amendment to
the Amended Redevelopment Plan.
Proposed Amended Rules Governing Participation
and Preferences by Owners, Operators of
Businesses and Tenants in the Downtown
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project.
do
The existing Amended Redevelopment Plan.
The proposed Joint Development Agreement.
The Summary Report on the proposed Joint
Development Agreement which includes an
"Analysis of the Cost of Agreement" and a
Reuse Analysis."
The Replacement ttousing Plan.
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for the Proposed Third Amendment and
the Joint Development Agreement.
Environmenta/ Documents prepared for prior
Project area activities which includes:
(1) Bank of America Tower and Retail
Complex, October 30, 1972.
(2) "K" Street Parking Garage, June 28,
1974.
(3) New Police Facilities, August 12, 1974.
(4)
Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment
Project and Area Proposed to be Added
to the Project, November 18, 197.1.
(5)
Supplement to the EIR on the Bakers-
field Redevelopment Project and the
Area Proposed to be Added to the
Prqject, September 1, 1976.
Ladies and Gentlemen, in order that we may have an orderly
meeting and make the most efficient use of our time here, I am
going to ask that everyone who participates in this hearing observe
a few simple rules. To assure that everybody who wishes to speak
will have an opportunity to be heard, the Council and the Agency
will follow the following rules:
The written agenda will govern the course
of the meeting. Copies of the agenda are
available in case you did not take one at
the door.
Baker~field, California, December 5, 1979 Page 3
b. All persons who desire to be heard will
have an opportunity to speak.
People who wish to speak for or against
the Proposed Third Amendment to the Amended
Redevelopment Plan and the Proposed Joint
Development Agreement should fill out a
form. These form~ will now be ricked up.
If you do not have a form~ please raise
your hand and one will be given to yon.
d. Before commencing to speak, you will be
sworn in by the City Clerk.
Before you start to speak, please give
your name and address and the organization,
if any, which you are representing at this
hearing.
In order that everyone will be able to hear
those who are speaking, we want to urge you
to speak clearly and directly into the
microphone.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for the City
Council.
Agency Chairman Casper declared the hearing open for
the Redevelopment Agency.
City Manager and Executive Director of the Redevelop-
merit Agency Bergen stated this project has taken a long time and
many people have put a considerable amount of effort into it in
order to reach this point. Mr. Bergen introduced the Agency
consultants and developer as follows:
Eugene Jacobs, Murray Kane and Erma Lake,
Special Counsel for the Redevelopment Agency.
Calvin Hollis, Financ'ial Consultant for the
Redevelopment Agency.
Jerry Keyser, Land Economist for tile Redevelop-
ment Agency.
Edward Holden, Regional & Environmental Planner
for the Redevelopment Agency.
Dan Donahue, President of John S. Griffith
Company. Mr. Donahue introduced Mr. Tem
Schriber and Mr. Jack Jensen, Vice-Presidents
of John S. Griffith Company.
Jeff Nagle, President of Fresno's Downtown
Business Association.
Bakersfield, California, l)eccmber 5, 1979 - Page
Deputy Director of ~he Redevelopment Agency Needham
entered the following two documents into the record:
1. Proposed Addition to Section 511 of the
Joint Development Agreement:
(h)
The Agency at its option may terminate
this Agreement if the Agency Js required
to issue bonds in an amount higher than
presently estimated in order to fund
higher than presently estimated Agency
costs as set forth in the Summary Report
for this Agreement dated November 1979,
and the Agency despite diligent effort
is unable to obtain (other funds, such
as federal UDAG or EDA funding, to
replace such bond funding. In the
event of such termination the Agency
shall return Developer's Deposit and
neither party shall have any further
rights or liabilities against the other,
except as set forth in Part III of the
Method of Financing, Attachment No. 2.
Addendum to Report to City Council, Section
VI, Method and Plan for Relocation of Occupants
and Businesses, Proposed Third Amendment to
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project.
The Agency participants were sworn in as a body by the
City Clerk.
Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency Needham,
with the aid of a map, explained the Proposed Third Amendment to
the Redevelopment Plan and Joint Development Agreement. The
Proposed Third Amendment includes the site for the downtown shop-
ping center, which is bounded by 20th Street on the south, "Q"
Street on the east, 23-24th Streets on the north and "L" Street
on the west; and the hotel project which is bounded by "N" Street
on the west, Truxtun Avenue on the north, "Q" Street on the east
and 16th Street on the south. The total shopping center area is
approximately'44 acres and encompasses approximately 16.7 blocks
of property. The total area of the hotel site is approximately
20 acres of land.
The Joint Development Agreement stipulates that the
Redevelopment Agency will acquire the property for the purpose of
constructing a regional shopping center containing approximately
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 5
850,000 square feet, building parking £acilities and making
public improvements. The Redevelopment Agency is responsible
for acquisition of land, relocation of people and businesses,
demolition of structares, clearing the land and public improve-
ments, including signal lights, traffic changes, street improv~-
merits, sewer mains, fire hydrants and water facilities. Mr.
Needham, with the aid of a sibe plan, pointed out the two areas
that the developer will purchase for the shopping center at a
price of $7,000,000.
Mr. Edward Holden, Regional City Planner for the Rede-
velopment Agency and author of the subsequent EIR for the Third
Amendment, stated the EIR covers the additional areas, shopping
center, hotel complex and amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
There are basically two documents, the draft report and supple-
mental report. The supplemental report contains the basic summary
of the impact areas, mitigation measures, communications received'
on the basic draft document and comments on the communications.
The bottom line of these documents is the finding that there are
no substantial potential adverse impacts identified with respect
to the items reviewed. The documents identify three unavoidable
impacts. It is not completely possible to identify and quantify
all the things the impact the downtown shopping center will have
on other areas. These impacts are likely to be both negative and
positive. There are some that just cannot be identified. Another
unavoidable impact is that there will be an increase in traffic
associated with both of these items. Mitigation measures have
been suggested that should take care of the basic traffic problems.
In a situation of this kind there are likely to be a few more
accidents than normal, simply because of the increased traffic.
In any situation where activities are expanded in the downtown
area, more electrical, etc., energy will be used, although conser-
vation measures are recommended to be considered in as many
situations as possible. The Environmental Impact Statements
Bakcrsi'i(~ld, Califr~rnia, Ih~comb(?r 5, 1979 - P~gt) 6
47!
contain a number of recommendations on traffic as well as other
areas. The Redevelopment Agency has reviewed these documents,
certified the subsequent EIR and recommended it to the City
Council.
Mr. Calvin Ho]lis, member or the firm of Katz, tlollis,
Coren & Associates, the Redevelopment Agency's Financial Consul-
tants, stated the document entitled "Summary for the Proposed
Sale of Land to Bakersfield Associates for the Development of a
Retail Shopping Center" contains the estimated cost, projected
revenues and financing plan for the Amended Redevelopment Areas
which will contain the shopping center. Page 3 of that document
lists the cost for land acquisition, demolition-site preparation,
on and off improvements, relocation, public parking facilities,
administrative and interest computations. The acquisition
appraisals are a result of a budget estimate prepared by local
appraisers. Relocation costs and budget estimates were prepared
by the firm of Port & Flor, who are relocation specialists.
Parking facilities costs were prepared after discussions with the
developer and are the basic costs presented by him. Interest on
loans and bonds to finance the agreement were prepared by our
office, based on the assumed financing plan. The financing plan
being presented, at this time, is a combination of lease revenue
financing and use of land£ill proceeds. The developer will pur-
chase the retail center parcels (Parcels A and B) for $7,000,000.
The developer will advance $5,000,000, of the $7,000,000, to the
Agency. The Agency will then have use of those funds for acquisi-
tion, relocation, etc. It is proposed that the Agency sell a
Lease Revenue Bond Issue of approximately $20,000,000, which will
finance the balance of the acquisition site assembly cost and
construction of the parking facilities. The revenue to support
that bond issue will come from tax increments from the Redevelop-
ment Project Area and lease payments from the developer. Lease
payments for the first four years will be $800,000 per year,
Bakersfield, Cal. i£ornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 7
going to $900,000 per year in the fifth year and thereafter to
the end of the lease. There is nothing in the Gann Initiative
(Proposition 4), Proposition 13 or recent legislation that
implements Proposition 13, which will prohibit the Redevelopment
Agency fron~ issuing Revenue Bonds. Each bond issue will be
judged by the bond market on its own merits There is no reason ·
to think that a bond issue, as we have structured it, could not
be sold on the market. Within the next two months there will be
agencies in the State going to the bond market to issue exactly
the type of financing that is anticipated for this project·
Mr. Jeff Nagle, President of the City of Fresno's
Downtown Business Association, stated coming from Fresno it is
a little bit difficult to understand how a proposal such as the
one being discussed today can be considered controversial. Down-
towns across the country would jump at the chance to attract a
qualified developer with a proven record that is not only willing,
but anxious, to bring a multimillion dollar retail complex with
four, and possibly five, major department stores to Bakersfield's
downtown area. Fresno's City Council has never has 'the opportunity
to say yes to a development that would mean the beginning of a new
era for the entire City. During business hours downtown is a
hustling-bustling place, but comes that magic hour, the exodus
takes place, then it is a desert. This proposed retail complex
can change all of that in time because Bakersfield will have,
once again, a downtown that is a vital thriving place for evening
shopping, dining and entertainment. Bakersfield is fortunate in
that the City has developed in a way that the downtown area is
really the center of the City. The Council's obligation to their
constituents is to do what is in the best interest of the entire
City. All selfish considerations should be set aside· This
could very well be the most important decision that this City
Council will ever make. Approval of this downtown complex will
spur additional development, improve property values, generate
Bakc, rsfield, Cain[ >lnla, December 5, 19'[9 - Page 8
Jobs and tax revenues, and those revenues will benefit every
citizen of the City of Bakersfield. Opportunities like this do
not come up every day. Bakersfield can survive very well with-
out another suburban shopping center, but it cannot survive and
continue to grow and prosper wiChout a strong, vital, viable
and well-balanced downtown. Mr. Nagle urged the Council and
Redevelopment Agency to approve the development of the downtown
area.
Mr. Jerry Keyser, President of Keyser, Marston Associates,
Land Economic Advisors to the Redevelopment Agency, stated their
role has been to prepare a document that' covers the following:
1. Reuse value for the retail center parcel.
2. Fair lease value for the parking facilities.
3. Section 33433 - Evaluation of price that the
site could command for alternative uses.
The conclusion of the findings is that the disposition price of
$7,000,000 and lease payment of $800,000 per year, increasing in
the fifth year to $900,000 per year, represents a fair value for
the transaction between the Agency and developer. Further, the
$7,000,000 exceeds the value that could be achieved for this site
by some other use or combination of uses. Mr. Keyser then reviewed
the procedure they used to reach these conclusions.
Mr. Murray Kane, Special Counsel to the Redevelopment
Agency, stated one of the step~ they have taken towards the adop-
tion of the Proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment P2an
is to try, in the time available, to meet and consult with those
people affected by the adoption of the plan and obtain their
advice about relocation and displacement. Meetings have been
held with as many property owners, business people, renters,
churches, nonprofit groups and community organizations that time
would allow. It has become clear, from the advice obtained, that
in certain circumstances this will not be a full and just compen-
sation for them. The office of Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs has
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 9
prepared, and previously made available to the public, an addendum
to the report to the Council from the Agency on this subject. Mr.
Kane then summarized the specific circumstances they feel the
Agency should consider when special relocation assistance is
needed to meet the needs of the area involved and changed circum-
stances, such as the passage of Proposition 13, to avoid substan-
tial economic loss in these moves.
Mr. Eugene B. Jacobs, Special Counsel for the Redeve-
velopment Agency, stated from the date of adoption, and the date
the contract with the developer is signed, the process would be
that within 90 days the Agency would seek to obtain its money in
order to buy the property and move the project and the developer
would put up the $5,000,000. That money would then be used to
make the offers and necessary purchases. These purchases and
moves would be geared in such a way that the owners could stay
in place while their new location is being prepared and then they
could move over a weekend or evening in such a way that there
not be a loss of business. This kind of timing could be
would
started by March or April and the sale take place, so the land
goes to the developer within a period of five months to one year.
To bring the cost down, as much surface parking as possible has
been planned, with one deck of structured parking. If money is
&yailable at a later date, fro~ other sources, and if the deve-
loper brings in a fifth store, then additional structured parking
would be added to the site. This was done in order to cut down
the Agency's cost at the front of the process. There will also
come out of this process a requirement that all iow and moderate
income housing be replaced in the project or City and that 20%
of the tax increment from the last and this proposed amendment
be used for low or moderate income housing, people, business
and residences, and they would have to be assisted in their move
to another location.
Bakers field,
Call rornia,
December 5,
1979 - Page 10
Mr. Jacobs pointed out a plan of the hotel on the wall
and stated that the Joint Development Agreement will be brought
back soon, but it is not ready at this point in time.
Mr. Jacobs than reviewed some of the problems that have
been raised by the public in meetings and the newspaper.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Dan Donahue,
President of John S. Griffith & Company, developer of the project,
stated the most important thing that can be stated tonight is that
all of the answers are not known. The City consultants, Redevelop-
ment Agency members, concerned citizens and business associates do
not know all the answers. John S. driffith and Company, in part-
nership with the May Company Department Stores, is prepared to
expend the effort, funds and time to rebuild downtown Bakersfield.
Tonight we are requesting an expansion of the boundaries and
approval of basic business terms, an understanding of how we will
proceed and finance both the public and privaLe portions of this
development. Mr. Donahue then reviewed the displacement of exist-
ing tenants and homeowners, people who may be adversely affected
by this development. John S. Griffith & Company has developed
four other redevelopment projectswhere it was necessary to use
condemnation and relocate people. Without a doubt people were
inconvenienced. It is a long drawn out process, but without
question, in time, all of these people realized it was for the
betterment of the community, and he personally believes each and
every one of them was financially rewarded equal to the value
taken from them.
The second issue of controversy is that the taxpayers
will be subsidizing the bond issues and public costs are going
to be paid by the taxpayers. Tl'e City's consultants, particularly
Mr. Keyser and Mr. Hollis, have explained that John S. 6riffith
& Company is prepared to pay $7,000,000 for Parcels A and B.
Of that amount, $5,000,000 will be advanced, in cash, so the
process can be speeded along. Furthermore, the bonds will be
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page
for an extremely long period of time and payments will be made
to the City for an extremely long period of time. John S.
Griffith & Company and May Company are going to own a develop-
ment in downtown and participace and become fabric in the com-
munity. The reason this area has been chosen for the shopping
center, rather than the 19th Street and Chester Avenue area,
is the cost of parking.
There have been questions as to how many shopping
centers this con, unity can support. A great deal of research
has been done on that subject. John S. Griffith's partner,
the May Company, has conducted, at their expense, a retail
evaluation of this community. That evaluation concluded,
beyond a question of doubt, that the community can support one
full-blown regional shopping center in the foreseeable future.
That conclusion has been seconded by the Research Departments
of J. C. Penney Company and Montgomery Ward.
Mr. Donahue also stated he would like to second the
statements made by Mr. Nagle as to the reasons why this develop-
ment would be good for Bakersfield and urged approval of the
project.
Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency Needham
stated this concludes the Agency's presentation. If there are
any questions, Agency represent.atives are available for a more
in-depth discussion.
Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs stated that Agency
Member Poehner is not participating in this hearing because his
family owns property in the area.
Mayor Hart stated the City Clerk will read the names
and addresses of all persons who have submitted written communi-
cations in favor of the proposed Third Amendment to the Amended
Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Joint Development Agreement.
The Clerk will also g~ve a brief and general summary of each
written communication.
Bakersfield, Californi. a, Dcc(m~bor 5, ]979 - Page
Letter from Dick Foster, David W. Thomley
Corporation, Investment Properties, P. O.
Box 212t, Bakersfield, dated November 20,
1979, strongly urging that the Council
support the downtown sbopping center.
Letter from Joe tfenl(~y, Henley's Photo, Inc.,
2000 "H" Street, Bakersfield, dated November
30, 1979, offering their experience in
relocation to help in the downtown project
and also stat.lng their relocation has been
very successful.
Letter from Skip Witham, President of the
Downtown Business Association, 1408 - 17th
Street, Bakersfield, dated December 4, 1979,
stating their Board of Directors voted to
support the Council, staff and Redevelopment
Agency in their efforts to proceed with the
proposed shopping center.
Telegram from Cletus Stanley, Executive
Secretary-Treasurer of the Kern, Inyo and
Mono Counties Building Trades Council,
dated December 4, 1979, stating the Building
Trades Council and all its affiliated local
unions are in favor of the Downtown Rede-.
velopment Program and further delays would
be detrimental to the community.
Telegram from Bob Carter, President of the
Kern, Inyo and Mono C~,unties Central Labor
Council, dated December 4, 1979, supporting
the Downtown Redevelopment Project and
urging that the Council take all necessary
steps towards the completion of the project.
Letter from Jeff Wattenbarger, President of
Bakersfield & Kern County Builders' Exchange,
711 24th Street, dated December 5, 1979,
recommending the Council proceed and take
positive action on this development.
Mayor Hart stated at this time we will have oral state-
ments and questions from person's in favor of the proposed Third
Amendment and Joint Development Agreement. Will the City Clerk
please call the persons who have turned in forms and swear in
each speaker.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk the following
persons spoke in favor of the proposed Third Amendment and Joint
Development Agreement:
Mr. Ted Fritts, Co-Publisher/Editor of the Bakersfield
Californian, stated if the Council and Redevelopment
Agency think the downtown retail center has merit it
should be approved, but approval should not be based
on. what some other private citizen plans to do in
the future with his property.
4'??'
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 13
Mr. Edwin W. Wilson, 1208 Tam O'Shanter Drive,
practicing law and a property owner in the
downtown area.
Mrs. Lois Anderline, 6708 Norris Road.
Mary Rohde, 4308 Alexander Street, business
in downtown area.
Mr. Arthur Rockoff, 4501 Christmas Tree Lane.
Mr. Robert A. Miller, 2620 College Avenue,
and representing Wilbur Rickett and William
C. Kuhs on development of First Baptist Church
property into professional offices and
commercial property.
Mr. Frank Casey, 4105 Coronado Avenue,
representing Greater Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. Jack Balfanz, 612 Vista Verde, representing
the Bakersfield Board of Realtors.
Mayor Hart stated the City Clerk will read the names
and addresses of all persons who have submitted written communi-
cations in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment to the
Amended Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Joint Development
Agreement. The Clerk will also give a brief and general summary
of each written communication.
Letter from Mrs. P. Cummings, 175 La Mesa
Drive, in favor of John Brock's proposed
shopping center in Northeast B~kersfield,
but opposing a downtown shopping center.
Letter from Richard H. wise, Law Offices
of Mullins, Wise & Dickman, 21st Floor,
Crocker Plaza Post at Montgomery, San
Francisco, California, representing
Charles A. Holloway, owner of Pacific
Telephone Building at 22nd and "L" Streets
and two parking lots, concerned with con-
demnation of his building.
Letter from Mrs. Roger Glendening, 2425
Truxtun Avenue, expressing a desire to
allow the pub]lc to vote on the downtown
shopping center project.
Mayor Hart stated at this time we will have oral state-
ments and questions from persons in opposition to the proposed
Third Amendment and Joint Deve]opment Amendment. Will the City
Clerk please call the persons who have turned in forms and swear
in each speaker.
Bakersfield, Cali fornia, December 5, 1979 - Page
After being sworn in by the City Clerk the following
persons spoke in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment and
Joint Development Agreement:
Mr. Larry Gean, 2015 - 3rd Street, representing
himself, Mrs. Tom Eng, 2120 "O" Street, and
the Board of Directors of Confucius Church,
2128 "N" Street.
Mr. William C. Kuhs, 1815 Ridgewood Drive,
Attorney at Law, representing Gray,bar Electric
Company, 820 - 22nd Street. Submitted two
photographs of Graybar Electric's building in
the proposed Downtown Redevelopment Area.
Mr. Ralph J. Poehner, 1109 Princeton Street,
owner of Ralph's Piston Ring Service, 830 -
21st Street. Mr. Poehner submitted a petition
containing 76 signatures from persons in the
area opposing the location of the Downtown
Shopping Mall in the area between 23rd Street,
20th Street, "L" Street and "Q" Street.
Mrs. Anne Monroe, 3991 Marella Way.
Mr. Mike M. Munoz, 2723 Noble Avenue owner
of Sinaloa's Restaurant, 910 - 20th Street.
Mr. Glenn Sogo, 600 "T" Street, representing
Japanese Buddhist Temple, 2207 "N" Street,
stated they are very concerned about moving
a shrine that was brought from Japan and put
into the building in 1931. They are afraid
it will collapse.
Mr. David B. Jones, 706 Arvin Street, owner of
Callaway's Automotive Machine Shop, 2216 "N"
Street.
Tillyen Edna Dewey, 2615 18th Street.
Mr. Dominic Bianco, Attorney at Law, 1107
Truxtun Avenue, representing several residents,
property owners and businesses in the proposed
redevelopment area.
Mr. Tom Poor, 3529 Country Club Drive, owner
of Communication Enterprises, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Bakersfield Electronics, 2315
"Q" Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, a brief recess
was declared at 6:55 P.M. and the hearing reconvened at 7:10 P.M.
Mr. Dominic Bianco, Attorney at Law, 1107
Truxtun Avenue, representing several residents,
property owners and businesses in the proposed
redevelopment area, continued his presentation
in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment
and Joint Development Agreement. Mr. Bianco
presented 32 photographs of the area proposed
479.
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 15
to be added to the redevelopment area and a
copy of an article from the Los Angeles Times
dated December 2, 1979, entitled "Propositions
13 and 4 Add Up to Trouble for Municipal Bonds
in State."
Mayor Hart stated the City Clerk will read the names
and addresses of all other persons who have st~bmitted written
communications regarding the proposed Third Amendment and the
proposed Joint Development Agreement. The clerk will also give
a brief and general summary of each such written communication.
Mr. Thomas L. Eveland, Attorney for the Bakers-
field Chinese Church, 2010 "O" Street, prin-
cipally concerned with replacement cost and
relocation site of new church.
Mayor Hart stated at this time we will have oral state-
ments and questions by other persons not wishing to declare either
in favor or in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment and
Joint Development Agreement. Will the City Clerk please call the
persons who have turned in forms and swear in each speaker.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Donald J.
Olsson, 2900 Dartmouth Street, stated he wholeheartedly supports
the improvement and redevelopment of downtown Bakersfield; how-
ever the sleazy hotels, bars and pornography shops in the heart
of Bakersfield are more of a blight than the churches, Y.M.C.A.,
businesses and existing substandard housing in the area of the
proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. It does not
make sense to construct a shopping center of this magnitude next
door to the smut shops on 19th Street. Mr. Olsson requested that
the Council consider a plan for the incorporation of 19th Street
into the redevelopment of downtown.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Tom Eveland,
3707 Barbara Avenue, Attorney speaking on behalf of the Bakers-
field Chinese Church, stated they are not in favor or opposed to
the Redevelopment Plan, and the Council & Redevelopment Agency
should vote in the interest of the people of the entire City.
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 -. Page
Their concern is that the Bakerslield Chinese Church be given
adequate compensation if they have 5o move, and they would like
to be relocated in tae same genera] area with no interruption
in church set%ices.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk,
Mr. John Kelly,
Attorney representing the Y.M.C.A., stated 'the Y.M.C.A. is not
taking a position either in favor or against the proposed Third
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan or Joint Development Agreement.
Their concern is that they will be able to continue with their
activities and have a replacement cost position for purchasing
alternate facilities.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Richard D.
Jones, 1950 Port Edwards Place, Newport Beach, California, Trustee
of Gladstone Foundation who owns Valley Plaza, stated they are
not taking a position either in favor or against the proposed
development; they merely have questions as taxpayers.
Agency Chairman Casper briefly recessed the joint public
hearing at 7:55 P.M., in order to convene the regular Council
Meeting.
~ayor Hart briefly recessed the joint public hearing
at 7:55 P.M., in order to convene the regular Council Meeting.
After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Richard
Hill, 10425 Haines Canyon, Tujunga, California, representing
~unicipal Services, Inc.,
consulting firm based in
representative of Valley
a redevelopment and municipal financing
Los Angeles, stated he was asked by a
Plaza to review the financial aspects
of the Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement for the
proposed shopping center. Their purpose is not for or against
the project, but rather to express concerns on the aspects of
the proposal for consideration tonight. Mr. Hill asked several
questions of Mr. Hollis regarding the financing of the proposed
project.
Bakersfield, Calii'ornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 17
Jan Comer, 2417 Hubert #A, representing WUI/TAS, Inc.,
2315 "Q" Street, (Able-1 Telephone Answering Service), submitted
the following question:
"What will the City do to ]nsure that my 300
customers will not incur any additional
m~)nthly charges for services they now receive?"
Special Counsel Jacobs stated Ms. Comer should meet
with the staff to discuss this, but as a general answer there
should not be any additional charges due 'to this process.
Mr. Preson H. Burdette, Multi-Business Systems, 101
Cart Street, requested that the record show the following comment:
"I think this project would be good for the
business community."
Mrs. Grace Shelton, 811 - 22nd Street, and rental at
2125 "Q" Street, submitted the following question:
"Will I get the real value of ~ny property?"
Special Counsel Jacobs stated there would be the market
value as if it were sold on the private market.
Osie L. Wood, 821- 22nd Street, representing
requested that the record show the following
Mr. & Mrs.
Carter's Super Shop,
comment:
"The price of my prop(rty."
Special Counsel Jacobs stated they could not give him
the price of his property tonight, because only budget appraisals
have been conducted at this ti~e. The price of the property will
be given to him at th~ appropriate time when specific appraisals
have been done by the appraisers.
Mayor Hart asked if there were any other per~Mons
desiring to speak at this time. Hearing no requests to speak,
the public hearing was declared closed for the purposes of the
City Council.
Agency Chairman Casper closed the public hearing for
the purposes of the Redevelopment Agency.
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 18
Mayor Hart asked if the members of the Redevelopment
Agency desired to discuss and consider taking action at this
time.
Agency Chairman Casper asked if any members of the
Redevelopment Agency desired to ask questions or request further
clarification on.the proposed Third Amendment and the proposed
Joint Development Agreement.
Special Counsel Jacobs and Financial Consultant Calvin
Hollis clarified all the points which |las been raised by the
individuals participating in the public portion of the hearing.
Agency Member Foth explained her support of the proposed
redevelopment of the downtown area.
Approval!of Addition to Section 511
of the Joint Development Agreement
and Addendum to Report to City Council,
Section VI. Method and Plan for
Relocation of Occupants and Businesses,
Proposed Third Amendment to Redevelop-
ment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Puder, seconded by Agency
Member Mooneyham, Addition to Section 511 of the Joint Development
Agreement and Addendum to Report to City Council, Section VI,
Method and Plan for Relocation of Occupants and Businesses,
Proposed Third Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, were approved to be included
in the respective documents.
Adoption of Resolution No. RA 11-79 of
the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
approving and adopting "Amended Rules
Governing Participation and Preferences
by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and
Tenants in the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project."
Upon a motion by Agency Member Foth, seconded by Agency
Member Mooneyham, Resolution No. RAll-79 of the Bakersfield Rede-
velopment Agency approving and adopting "Amended Rules Governing
Participation and Preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses,
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, Dec(tuber 5, 1979 - Page 19
and Tenants
was adopted by the following roll call vote:
in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project,"
Ayes: Agency Members Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Casper
Noes: None
Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner
Adoption of Resolution No. RA12-79 of
the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
making certain findings that provisions
of low and moderate-income housing out-
side the Project Area as Amended by
the Third Amendment, will be of
benefit to the Project as Amended.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Puder, seconded by Agency
Member Foth, Resolution No. RA12-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency making certain findings that provisions of low and
moderate-income housing outside the Project Area as amended by the
Third Amendment, will be of benefit to the Project as Amended, was
adopted by
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the following roll
Agency Members Foth,
None
Agency Members King,
call vote:
Mooneyham, Puder, Casper
Lewis, Poehner
Adoption of Resolution RA13-79 of the
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
approving and recommending the
adoption of the Third Amendment to
the Amended Redevelopment Plan for
the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Project.
Upon a motion by Agenby Member Foth, seconded by Agency
Member ~ooneyham, Resolution No. RA13-79 of the Bakersfield Rede-
velopment Agency approving and recommending the adoption of the
Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Down-
town Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, was adopted by the follow-
ing roll call vote:
Ayes: Agency ~Iembers Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Casper
Noes: None
Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner
Bakersfield,
Cali l'orn~ a,
Decemb(~r 5, 1979 - Page 20
Upon a motion by Agency
Agency Member Foth, Resolution No.
Adoption of R()so]ution No. RA14-79 of
the Bakersfield Rodeve]c~pment Agency
making environmental findings necessary
for the Proposed Joint Developmen~
Agreement between the Bakersfield
Redeveiopmen~; Agency and B~tker~fie!d
Associates for the sale and develop-
ment of real property located in the
Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment
Project.
Member Mooneyham, seconded by
RA14-79 of the Bakersfield
Redevelopment Agency making environmental findings necessary for
the Proposed Joint Development Agreement between the Bakersfield
Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates for sale and
development of real property located in the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Agency Members Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Casper
Noes: None
Absent:
Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner
Adoption of Resolution No. RA15-79 of
the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
making certain findings with respect
to the consideration to be received
by the Agency pursuant to the Joint
Development Agreement between the
Agency and Bakersfield Associates;
approving the proposed sale~ lease
and sublease of real property and
the Joint Development Agreement; and
authorizing the execution and imple-
mentation of said Joint Development
Agreement.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Puder, seconded by Agency
Member Foth, Resolution No.
ment Agency making certain
tion to be received by the
meat Agreement between the
RA15-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
findings with respect to the considera-
Agency pursuant to the Joint Develop-
Agency and Bakersfield Associates;
approving the proposed sale, lease and sublease of real property
and the Joint Development Agreement; and authorizing the execution
and implementation of said Joint Development Agreement, was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
Bakersfield, California, D~cember 5, 1979 - Page 21
Ayes'.
Noes:
Absent:
Agency Members Foth,
None
Agency Members King,
Agency Chairman Casi)er stated
,~!ooneyham, Puder, Casper
Lewis, Poehner
that that completes the
Agency's consideration and actions.
Mayor Hart asked if any members of the Council desired
to ask questions or request further clarification on the proposed
Third Amendment and the proposed Joint Development Agreement.
In answer to a question by Councilman Miller, Special
Counsel Jacobs explained the various forms of blight.
In answer to a question by Councilman Means, Deputy
Director of the Redevelopment Agency Needham stated as the
Amendment is written, he feels very comfortable with it and
concurs that if it gets to a point where the bonds cannot be sold,
etc., the staff would definitely recommend that the Council take
the necessary action to cancel the project.
Special Counsel Jacobs stated the amendment added to the
Joint Development Agreement tonight is a double fail-safe, because
the agreement already contains a termination clause if the bonds
cannot be sold. If the bonds can be sold it means there is adequate
money to take care of it. This is an additional out that even if
the bonds could be sold at an amount higher than $20,000,000 you
would not be required to do so.
In answer tq questions by Councilman Strong, Special
Counsels Jacobs and Kane explained the tax increments for the
downtown area.
Adoption of Resolution No. 90-79 of
the City Council o£ the City of
Bakersfield adoptiz{g the Final Sub-
sequent Environmental Impact Report
for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Project, and making certain
findings with respect to the Environ-
mental Impact of said Project.
Bakers frigid, CaliN)rni;~, D('c(~mL, cr 5, 1979 - l';i~ 22
After a lengthy discussion, Councilman Barton made a
motion that Resolui;ion o~ thc City Council of the City of Bakers-
field adopting the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
for the Downtown Bakersfield Rec!~vetoplnfknt Pr~jec:~, and £~aking
certain findings wi. th respect ~o the Environmental Impact of said
Project, be adopted.
Councilman Strong stated he is not in favor of the
project because there are too many unanswered questions. IIe
stated he has thoroughly revi(~wed most of the documents available
in connection with the proposal and listened to arguments for and
against. Over the years he has tried to remain objective allowing
the facts to determine his sense of direction. It has been admit-
ted here tonight that people within the Agency and outside the
Agency will have to subsidize the project to some extent. If i~
did not require taxpayers I>articipation then the Redevelopment
Agency and Council would not be involved.
is not blighted. Ail a person has to do
to buy a parcel of land within the area.
The area in question
to find that ()ut is try
Councilman Strong also
stated he has a problem with government taking land from private
citizens who have worked hard to establish businesses or homes
and then paying them what they Jhink is a fair market value and
giving the land to other private interests. Another overriding
thing that exists in this particular project is that the public
does not want it.
Councilman Christensen stated he concurs with practi-
cally everything Councilman Strong said. He would like the
people to know he believes in the free enterprise system. He
does not believe in subsidizing a downtown agency to make a man
move from his property and then turn around and ~ell it to some
yokel from out of town. It is not part of the American way and
he cannot swallow that pill. He has to vote the convictions of
his constituents in the 2nd Ward, who were polled very heavily,
Bakersfield, Ca!iio~'nia, Decembc. r 5, 1979 - Page 23
and they are 90% opposed to the Downtown Redevelopment Agency.
He promised he would vote their will.
Councilman Means stated he is aware this is an issue
that concerns every resident of Bakersfield. Any decision like
this requires a tremendous amount of research, discussions with
residents and thinking about what is best for all the citizens.
It is not an easy decision. After talking to many business
people and surveying over 400 people in the 5th Ward, the decision
was that they were in favor of it. This was a written question-
naire that was handed out to 477 people, which included 23 signa-
tures against the project. 109 were opposed, 338 in favor and 30
had no opinion. He supports the downtown center and the majority
of the residents in his ward seem to support it. He talked to
City officials in Santa Moniaa, Fresno, Santa Cruz and Los Angeles
and they seem to feel if we do not take this opportunity to improve
the downtown area that it will never be what we in Bakersfield hope
it will be. The senior citizens in Ward 5 want a downtown to be
proud of and a place they can go to on the bus. The Council
should continue to be certain that the taxpayers will benefit
and support this center. If it is found that that is not true,
he would not vote to approve the bonds. He demanded that the staff
monitor the project and keep him informed. He felt the downtown
center will be in the best interest of the entire City.
Councilman Miller stated, as stated by several Councilmen,
he is also bullish on Bakersfield and downtown. He wished he
could vote for this project, but as stated by Mr. Donahue there
are unanswered questions. For that reason he cannot support this
particular proposal. However, it should be stressed that the
Council set forth in the next few weeks a safety valve, somewhere
along the line, so the Council can be assured the expenditures
are monitored and the City
tire that the Council keep
tures made on this project.
knows where it is going. It is impera-
close tabs with regards to the expendi-
Bakersfield, Cal[f~>rp, i~'~, December 5, 1979 - Page 24
Councilman Payne staled he does not believe that this
Council can sit here a~d make a decision based upon a choice
between two hypothetical projects, downtown redevelopment and
the eastside shopping center. The choice here tonight is clear.
The Council has to decide ~hether or not the downtown shopping
center or redevelopment project stands on its own merits, just
as the decision will have to be made on the other shopping center
one month from tonight. He stated he also believes in the free
enterprise system and it is a matter of clear-cut economics that
one of the centers will survive and the other one will-not. That
is not the Council's decision to make. Re also conducted a survey
from anyone who wanted to address the subject, the only stipulation
being that only "yes" and "no" votes would be accepted. 499 "no"
votes and 657 "yes" votes were received. Every question he had
about the downtown redevelopment has been adequately answered
either tonight or during the past two weeks. This Council has
to be a little farsighted before casting votes tonight. The
long-term effects and results of this project need to be kept in
mind. He honestly believes the contract and project the Council
is being asked to enter into tonight has sufficient safeguards
to protect the City and constituents and he fully intends to
support it.
Councilman Ratty stated this is a hard decision for
everyone. The intent .is clear and the Council is trying to make
the best judgment for the community. Bakersfield has a rare
opportunity at this time which not many cities get, to correct
an error that was made some 15 years ago. If this downtown
center does not go, these department stores will be in peripheral
centers and this town, like San Diego, will be without a major
retail department store. In other words, it will be a downtown
without a major draw. It is not a viable center now and it will
become worse and that has to be taken into account. He stated
Bakersfield, California D ~ ~-
, ecemD..r 5, 1979 - Page 25
he does not undersLand all the balk about subsidy, because he
has not seen that subsidy identified; maybe to a minor degree
but nothing of a substantial nature. As far as low income housing
is concerned, a 'resolution will be passed later on regarding
supplying logy and moderate ~ncome housi~)g~ Most of the concerns
expressed tonight were about relocation and compensation. They
were not necessarily against the center as against the dislocation
and compensation they would receive for their prdperty. Council-
man Ratty then read a letter from Mr. Joe Henley, 2000 "H" Street,
who went through the relocation process, to show what happened
to his business and the compensation he received.
Mayor Hart declared a brief recess in order to change
the tape on the recording equipment.
Councilman Ratty stated he feels this is a free enter-
prise effort. The developer is paying for these things. It is
coming from monies generated by the center. Location and number
of shopping centers is not normally a factor in determining the
City's future. Whetber or not the central core of the community
is downtown, the retail, financial and government heart are
alive or dead makes a vital difference in the life of the City.
The difference affects almost everybody. The cost of government,
transportation, crime, unemployment opportunities and property
values. This will be one City if we have a prosperous vital
com~nunity core and another entirely different City if the com-
munity center is allowed to die. Disapproval or postponement of
a downtown center will seriously affect existing business and
some will be forced to close. Councilman Ratty then reviewed
some' Of the things that will happen if the downtown center is
approved. There is not any question of what will happen if
this very vital project is not approved for the City.
Bakersfield, Caiif(~,.~ii:~, Decemb~.~r 5, 1979 - Page 26
Councilman Barton
for 37 years and has seen a
the type of business moving
viable downtown. ?his is a
st~.i(~d he has been in Bakersfield
decline in the downtown area and
in that does not lend itself to a
too~ the Cou~cil can use to improve
the downtown area. Be stated h~ will support these motions that
will start the process for the downtown regional center. For
the people in the area affected, he will take a hard look and
be an ongoing participant i~ seeing that they are given all of
the courtesies and conditions they deserve and warrant, not
only by law, but those that are brought about by the new actions
taken tonight. He sta~ed he will personally watch, hopefully,
every one of the transactions that take place in the area that
will affect someone relocating to be sure they come out of this
with a fair shake.
After a lengthy discussion, upon a motion by Council-
man Barton, Resolution No. 90-79 of the City Council of the
City of Bakersfield adopting the Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project,
and making certain findings with respect to the Environmental
call
Impact of said Project, was adopted by the following roll
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Barton
Noes: Councilmen Miller, Strong, Christensen
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 91-79 of
the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield making certain findings
that provision of Low- and Moderate-
Income Housing outside the Project
Area as amended by the Third Amend-
ment, will be of benefit to the
Project as amended.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 91-79
of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield making certain
findings that provision of Low- and Moderate-Income Housing
outside the Project Area as amended by the Third Amendment,
Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1P79 - Page 27
will be of benefit to tile Project as amended, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ratty,
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne,
Noes: Councilman .Miller
Absent: None
Strong, Barton, Christensen
First reading of an Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Bakers-
field approving and adopting the
Third Amendment to the Amended
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown
Bakersfield Redevelopment Projeqt.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and adopting
the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the
Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project.
Adoption of Resolution No. 92-79 of
the City Council msking environmental
findings necessary for the Proposed
Joint Development Agreement~ as changed,
between the Bakers£ield Redevelopment
Agency and Bskersfield Associates for
the sale and development of real property
located in the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Resolution No. 92-79
of the City Council making environmental findings necessary for
the Proposed Joint Development Agreement, as changed, between the
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates for
the sale and development of real property located in the Downtown
was adopted by the following
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project,
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne,
Noes:
Absent:
Ratty, Barton
Councilmen Miller, Strong, Christensen
None
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 28
Adoption of Resolution No. 93-79 of
the City Council approvin~[ a change
in the Joint Development Agre~ment
between tile Agency and Bakcrsfie].d
Associates; making certain findings
with respect to the consideration
to be received ~y the Bakersfield
Redevelopn:ent Agency pursuant t,) ~;a~d
Agreement, a~ changed; approving the
sale, lease, and sub]ease of real
property; consenting to %he p~'ovisions
for certain public improw~ments; and
approving the Joint Development
Agreement, as changed.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 93-79
of the City Council approving a change in the Joint Development
Agreement between the Agency and Bakersfield Associates; making
certain findings with respect to the consideration to be received
by the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency pursuant to said Agreement,
as changed; approving the sale, lease and sublease of real property;
consenting to the provisions for certain public improvements; and
approving the Joint Development Agreement, as changed, was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Paync, Ratty, Barton
Noes: Councilmen Miller, Strong, Christensen
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, all documents
involved in the Joint Public Hearing between the City Council
and Redevelopment Agency were received and ordered placed on
file.
Upon a motion
ADJOURNMENT
by Agency Member Foth, seconded by Agency
Member Puder, the Joint Public Hearing before the Council of the
City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency on
the Proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan
for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project and the Joint
Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
and Bakersfield Associates, was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Bakersf.ieild, Cali ~'~)raia, ~ec(~mber 5, 1979 - Page 29
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Joint Public
Hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency on the Proposed Third Amendment
to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project and the Joint Development Agreement between
the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates
was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
DONALD M. HART
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
H. E. BERGEN
CITY CLERK and Ex O££icio Clerk of the
of the City o£ Bakersfield, California
ma
Council