Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCT - DEC 1975Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 97 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., October 6, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation President, 4th Quorum of Seventies, Church Latter-Day Saints. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Medders Absent: Councilman Rogers Minutes of the regular meeting of September 29, 1975 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Ray Pettit, Chairman of the Greater Bakersfield Bicentennial Committee, distributed copies of the Charter of the Greater Bakersfield Bicentennial Committee and extended an invitation to the Mayor, Council and City Officials to attend the official presentation of a certificate and flag certifying that Bakersfield has qualified as a National Bicentennial Community, on Thursday, October 16, Hall. by Mr. Richard Nielsen, of Jesus Christ of 1975 at 12:15 P.M. on the steps of City Hearings. Bleecker, Mayor Hart announced that the public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 909, regarding the vacation of a portion of Inyo street lying between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street, cannot be acted upon tonight as the property was not properly posted. City Attorney Hoagland stated that a new Resolution of Intention will probably have to be adopted and a new hearing date will be set at that time. Scheduled Public Statements (Continued). Mrs. Anne Monroe, 236 North Stine Road, objected to the various City offices shielding the whereabouts of officials. 98 Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 2 Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, communication from the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, dated September 22, 1975, commending the Council for their fiscal responsibility by not increasing the tax rate for 1975-76, was received and ordered placed on file. Scheduled Public Statements (Continued). Mr. Dan Pico of Pico Manufacturing, submitted a petition and pictures, to the Council, opposing the closing of Sacramento Street between 21st and Grove Streets and blocking of the alley with vehicles, which has caused inconvenience and hardship to property owners, businesses and their customers. City Attorney Hoagland stated that prior to the closing of Sacramento Street the property was posted and a public hearing held, and no one appeared in opposition. Mr. Hoagland also stated that there are only two ways a vacated street can be reopened, one is if the laws were not adhered to during proceedings to close the street, and the other is to start eminent domain proceedings. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Traffic Authority was directed to investigate blocking of the alley bounded by Sacramento Street, Union Avenue, Grove Street and East 21st Street, and any dangers that may be involved to traffic because Sacramento Street has been closed and a report made to the Business Development and Parking Committee. Council Statements. Councilman Medders reported that Assembly Bill 700, life- time tenure for Police Officers, has been vetoed by Governor Brown as requested by the Council on September 15, 1975. Councilman Christensen requested that the City Attorney contact Bakersfield Cable TV and have them insert a statement explaining their billing process to customers. Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 3 99 Councilman Bleecker requested that the City Attorney investigate Bakersfield Cable TV's billing process and possible action that the Council could take to insure that customers are not being taken advantage of by this process. Reports. City Manager Bergen reported on request from the Fire Department for a Budget Transfer in the amount of $6,500.00 to replace a Fire Pumper Engine. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Budget Transfer in the amount of $6,500.00 from the Council's Contingency Fund No. 11-510-6100 to Fire Department Account No. 11-640-7200 to replace a Fire Pumper Engine, was approved. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance inclusive, (Claim No. of Claims Nos. 1249 to 1332, in the amount of $291,033.01. 1332 added at Council Meeting) (b) Sewer Easement from E. Jesse Haberkern, Louise Klipstein and Challenge Cream and Butter Association for 10" sewer line running east from Union Avenue between 18th and 19th Streets, required under Parcel Map 3174. (c) Plans and Specifications for the construction of the Sanitary Sewer Main in Gosford Road. (d) Plans and Specifications for the resurfacing of Union Avenue from S.P.R.R. to Niles Street. (e) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work for street and sewer improvements under Tract 3673 - Contract No. 75-18 with Elmer F. Karpe, Inc. (f) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work on concrete construction of land- scaped traffic barriers on "K" and "L" Streets Contract No. 75-102 with Jim Alfter. (g) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work on construction of Actis Road Storm Drain between Planz Road and Hahn Avenue - Contract No. 75-98 with S. Salomon Pipeline Construction. 100 Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 4 Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Medders Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers Action on Bids. Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, usual bidding requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with Section 5.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Director was authorized to negotiate a price with American Air Filter Co., Inc. for Blower Enclosure and Silencer for Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Fred S. Macomber for construction of City Hall West Wing and Alternate No. 2 providing for venetian blinds, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, low bid of Clow Corporation for Fire Hydrants and Burys, was accepted and all other bids rejected. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid of James G. Francis for reconstruction and widening of a portion of 17th Street and "L" Street, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, all bids for consolidated Police and Fire Alarm Monitoring System were rejected, authorization was granted to revise the specifications and the Finance Director was authorized to rebid the franchise. Assistant City Manager Buell answered questions regarding the proposed alarm monitoring system. Councilman Sceales stated that he is opposed to the City of Bakersfield entering into a franchise when it is not necessary. Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 5 101 Mr. Doug Lovegreen, owner and operator of Imperial Alarm Company, outlined the operations of the present alarm system and objected to the proposed system being franchised. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Police Chief and/or Fire Chief were directed to justify, in writing, the necessity of a franchise to have one central communications system outside the Bakersfield Police Department and that communication is to be submitted to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee. Adoption of Resolution No. 65-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield certifying the adequacy, accuracy and objectivity of the Final Environmental Impact Report Re Use and Disposition of Property and Water Rights Acquired by the City of Bakersfield from Tenneco West, Inc. in Settlement of Litigation, the evaluation of said Report, findings thereof, and the approval of the project described therein. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 3, 1975, adopted a resolution recommending that the Environmental Impact Report be certified as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Resources Guidelines;. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Resolution No. 65-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield certifying the adequacy, accuracy and objectivity of the Final Environmental Impact Report Re Use and Disposition of Property and Water Rights Acquired by the City of Bakersfield from Tenneco West, Inc. in Settlement of Litigation, the evaluation of said report, findings thereof, and the approval of the project described therein, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers 102 Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 6 Deferred Business. Appointment of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Conference, October 19-22, 1975. Each year the League of California Cities requests that every City Council designate a voting representative and alternate to vote on matters affecting municipal or league policy during the conference. Councilman Bleecker stated that since there has been concern about getting the consensus of the Council prior to voting on the various resolutions at the Annual League of California Cities Conference, he would move that when the resolutions are received that they be distributed to each Councilman for their perusal; eqch Councilman mark his vote, on each resolution, in the margin next to the number; the resolutions be given to the City Clerk for tabulation no later than October 15th; the results of this tabulation be indicated to the City's Voting Delegate so he may vote accordingly at the Conference; and each resolution and the results of the Council's vote be posted for public perusal and the press be given a copy. This motion was unanimously approved. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Councilman Barton was designated as Voting Delegate and Councilman Christensen was designated as Alternate for the League of California Cities Conference to be held in San Francisco, October 19-22, 1975. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2248 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving a Formal Agree- ment relating to a Public Leaseback, and the execution thereof by and between the City of Bakersfield and the City of Bakersfield Water Facilities Corporation. Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2248 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving a Formal Agreement relating to a Public Leaseback, and the execution thereof by and between the City of Bakersfield and the City of Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 7 103 Bakersfield Water Facilities Corporation, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers New Business. Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 910 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of the Pedestrian Walkway between Shattuck and Telegraph Avenues, in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution of Intention No. 910 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, de- claring its intention to order the vacation of the Pedestrian Walkway between Shattuck and Telegraph Avenues, in the City of Bakersfield and setting October 27, 1975 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: Councilman Rogers First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakers- field amending Chapter 17.56 of the Municipal Code, concerning Automobile Parking Requirements. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 17.56 of the Municipal Code, concerning Automobile Parking Requirements. Approval of Extension of Lease Agreement No. 112-69 with Albert L. and Shirley Phillips. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Lease Agreement No. 112-69 with Albert L. and Shirley Phillips for lease of 3.4 acres of City-owned property located at Treatment Plant No. 1 for cattle grazing, was extended for one year and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. 104 Bakersfield, California, October 6, 1975 - Page 8 Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P. M. MAYOR of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CIT Clerk of the of the City of Ba~sfield, California ma Council Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 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., October 27, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Reverend Ross Chenot, Associate Minister of the University Baptist Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 1975 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. David Chipp, representing Goldie's Top of the Strip, 1900 Union Avenue, requested that the Council adopt an ordinance that would permit a cover charge for businesses engaged in public dancing and sale of alcoholic beverages. City Attorney Hoagland outlined the wording that could accomplish this change. Captain Edward Miller of the Police Department, stated that the requested modification of the existing ordinance would not create a problem for the Police Department. First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 7.40.010 (a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakers- field, concerning Public Dances. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, first reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 7.40.010 (a) of the Municipal Code of the City Dances. Mr. Ed Christie, of the candidates for Bakersfield's at Harvey Auditorium on November l, the Mayor and Council to attend. of Bakersfield, concerning Public 4218 Columbus Street, Junior Miss 1975 at introduced five Pageant to be held 7:30 P. M., and invited 106 Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 2 Correspondence. Councilman Rogers stated that a letter was addressed to the City Counci~ in respect a letter of intent between the City and North Kern Water Storage District, and the City appreciates fhe interest they have shown and is aware of the obligation in our letters of intent and is therefore proceeding accordingly. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, communication from North Kern Water Storage District, dated September 30, 1975, regarding North Kern Water Storage District Letter of Intent, was received and referred to staff for a response acknowledging the City's obligation in the letter of intent. Council Statements. Councilman Barton presented a Delegate's Report of the 77th Annual Conference of the League of California Cities and stated that a copy of the final resolutions may be obtained in the City Clerk's office. Councilman Barton stated that sometime in the future he intends to request that was made in this report. the Council adopt the recommendation that Reports. City Manager Bergen read a report regarding Excessive Speed Complaints on Laurel Drive, Sandra Drive and Agate Street, as follows: At the City Council meeting of September 15, 1975, Councilman Barton requested that a program be established to aid in controlling the excessive speed of vehicles on Laurel Drive, Sandra Drive and Agate Street. Attached is a memorandum from the Police Depart- ment regarding their findings and recommendations. As the memorandum indicates, both visual and radar surveys were conducted on each of the three streets during the month of September. As a result of these surveys, the department feels that additional patrols should be assigned to these areas both during daylight hours and on Friday and Saturday nights. The department feels that the increased patrols will be instru- mental in eliminating the excessive speed on these streets. Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 3 107 Councilman Rogers, Chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, read Report No. 9-75 regarding Kern Delta Water Storage District Election, as follows: Kern Delta Water Storage District is holding an election on November 4, 1975 to authorize the sale of bonds for financing the acquisition of the Kern Island Water Company from the City. The City has 70,140 votes in the District by virtue of our sewage treatment plant. It is recommended that the City cast a "Yes" vote in the bond election so that the sale of Kern Island to Kern Delta may be consummated. This may be done by giving the manager and attorney of Kern Delta the City's proxy. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Report No. 9-75 of the Water and City Growth Committee regarding Kern Delta Water Storage District Election, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the Mayor was authorized to sign the proxy for the Manager and Attorney of Kern Delta Water Storage District to cast a "Yes" vote for the City of Bakersfield in an election Kern Delta Water Storage District is holding to authorize the sale of bonds for financing the acquisition of the Kern Island Water Company from the City, to be held on November 4, 1975. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1333 to 1654, inclusive, in the amount of $593,272.47. (b) Claim for Wages by a census worker from Frances Collins, 766 North Florida, Banning, California. (Refer to City Attorney) (c) Claim for Indemnification from Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (Refer to City Attorney) (d) Claim for Personal Injuries from Don Mathis and Judy A. Mathis, 16592 Busby Lane, Huntington Beach, California. (Refer to City Attorney) (e) Claim for Damages from Juan Aguila, P.O. Box 267, Bakersfield. (Refer to City Attorney) Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 Page 4 (f) (g) (h) (i) (k) (c), of the vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Upon (d), (e), Consent Claim for Personal Injuries from Roger Dale Roberts, 706 Blossom Street, Bakers- field. (Refer to City Attorney) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work on project known as Masonry Construction of Landscaped Traffic Barriers on "K" Street and "L" Street - Contract No. 75-105 with Weaver Brick. Application for Encroachment Permit from S. A. Camp Ginning Co., Shaffer, Calif. DELETED Contract and Improvements for Parcel Map No. 2913 - located west of Sfine Road and south of Ming Avenue. Plans and Specifications for construction of a Sanitary Sewer along 58 Freeway between Houchin Road and Oleander Avenue. a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k) and deletion of Item (i), Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call Councilmen Strong, Rogers, None None Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Sceales usual bidding requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with Section 5.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Director was authorized to negotiate a price with Hotsy of San Joaquin Valley for High Pressure Cleaner. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, low bid of Bakers Welding Supply for Annual Contract for Welding Supplies, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Deferred Business. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2249 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 17.56 of the Municipal Code, concerning Automobile Parking Requirements. Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 5 10 9 Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 2249 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 17.56 of the Municipal Code, concerning Automobile Parking Requirements, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: None New Business. Adoption of Resolution No. 66-75 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field consenting to assignment of Agreement for Legal Services from Individual to Corporation. Eugene B. Jacobs acts as Legal Counsel for the Redevelop-- ment Agency and he recently incorporated. This resolution amends existing agreements to read: "Eugene B. Jacobs, Incorporated." Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 66-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield consenting to assignment of Agreement for Legal Services from Individual to Corporation, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: None Approval of Fee of $1.50 to be charged for painting names on parking spaces at the "K" Street Parking Garage. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Fee of $1.50 for any individual whose name is painted on a parking space at the "K" Street Parking Garage, was approved. Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 909a of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of Inyo Street lying between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street, in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution of Intention No. 909a of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, 110 Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 6 declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of Inyo Street lying between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street, in the City of Bakersfield and setting November 17, 1975 for hearing on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Rogers, Noes: None Absent: None After a lengthy discussion, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Sceales upon a motion by Councilman Councilmen Strong, Rogers, call vote: Barton, Sceales Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, None None Adoption of Resolution No. 67-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving principles of Settlement of Pending Litigation. This resolution approves the principles for the settle- ment of the law suit of Kern Delta in relation to the acquisition Noes: Absent: by Kern Delta of the Kern Island Canal. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Resolution No. 67-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving principles of Settlement of Pending Litigation, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Rogers, None None Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Sceales Ayes: Noes: Absent: by the following roll Christensen the City Attorney was requested to r~search the legality of the proposed and past closing of Inyo Street and provide the Council with an opinion or sense of direction by November 10, 1975,, Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 7 111' Approval of Minute Order setting November 17, 1975 as the date for hearing an Appeal by Carl W. Smith to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. On September 23, 1975, the Board of Zoning Adjustment denied Mr. Smith's application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate and maintain a Day Care Nursery at 2701 - 3rd Street, and on October 6, 1975, he filed an appeal in the City Clerk's office. In accordance with Section 17.60.110 (A) of the Municipal Code, the City Council shall set date for hearing of appeals to the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Minute Order setting November 17, 1975 as the date for hearing an Appeal by Carl W. Smith to decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, was approved. Approval of Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and State Depart- ment of Transportation authorizing the City to proceed with construction of a Sanitary Sewer along Freeway 58 between Oleander Avenue and Houchin Road. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and State Department of Transportation authorizing the City to proceed with construction of sanitary sewer along Freeway 58 between Oleander Avenue and Houchin Road, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Approval of Construction Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. 74-109 with Fred S. Macomber for Police Facility. The proposed Change Order will provide for 16 additional phone outlets. The Change Order increases the contract price by $1,407.00. No increase in time is allowed as a result of this Change Order. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Construction Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. 74-109 with Fred S. Macomber for Police Facility, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. 112 Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 8 patton. portion action. Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing before the Council on the 1975 Weed Abatement Program. All lots have been posted and owners have been notified by certified mail. Fire Marshal Reed reported that as of October 27, 1975 the Fire Department has issued 848 Weed Abatement Notices: 512 compliances have been received; 103 parcels, or persons who wish the City to abate their weeds; and 228 parcels are still outstanding. These parcels are subject to a second notification and the Fire Department is now waiting for a declaration from those individuals as to which way they want their weeds abated. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- No protests or objections being received, the public of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 68-75 finding that certain Weeds growing on properties in the City of Bakersfield constitute a public nuisance and directing the Chief of the Fire Department to destroy said Weeds, 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 on Resolution of Intention No. 910 of the Council of the City Of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of the Pedestrian Walkway between Shattuck and Telegraph Avenues, in the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly posted. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. Frank Moody, 1305 Shattuck Avenue, spoke in favor of the vacation. No protests or objections being received, the public Bakersfield, California, October 27, 1975 - Page 9 portion of the hearing was closed action. for Council deliberation and 69-75 of of the Pedestrian Walkway between Shattuck and in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the vote: Ayes: Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution No. the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation Telegraph Avenues, following roll call Barton, Bleecker, Sceales Noes: Absent: Councilmen Strong, Rogers, Council, adjourned at 9:25 P. Christensen, Medders, None None Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was M. MA' ty of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: C~T~ cL~k and ~-O~.f/icio Clerk of the Counoil of the (City of Bakersfield, California ma 114 Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 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., November 3, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Captain David Patrick of the Salvation Army. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Absent: None Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Minutes of the regular meeting of October 27, 1975 were approved as presented. Presentation of Retirement Plaque. Mayor Hart presented a retirement plaque to Henry Young of the Public Works Department, who completed 29 years 8 months of service with the City of Bakersfield, effective October 18, 1975. Scheduled' Public Statements. Miss Stacie Elizabeth Meacham, 1975-76 National Poster Child for the Epilepsy Foundation of America, sponsored by Kern County Epilepsy Society, Inc., thanked citizens of Bakersfield for their help of America. the Mayor, Council and to the Epilepsy Foundation Correspondence. Pefition from members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, Seventh Day Advenfist and Emergency Service, members of the Sainfs Memorial Church of God in Christ and residents of the Easf Truxfun Avenue area regarding disturbances emanating from Pancho's Food, 1200 East Truxtun Avenue, was received. Cify Manager Bergen read a memorandum from R. O. Price, Chief of Police, on the subject of the Petition regarding Complaints .... Pancho's Care, as follows: For some time we have been aware of some com- plaints regarding fhe noise emanating from Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 2 115 Pancho's Care, 1200 East Truxtun Avenue. Most of the complaints we have received relate to the noise of the band and automobiles leaving the establishment, particularly at closing time. It should be noted that on numerous occasions officers have been sent out and only one time was it found that the noise could be in any way construed as annoying, and certainly not nearly the magnitude as was caused by the railroad in the same vicinity. Officers had been assigned to patrol the area and write reports of their observations of violations; however, none have been observed. It is true that they have some problems with vehicular traffic at closing time; however, some of this traffic is due to the closing of several other establishments further out on Edison Highway. The person making all of the complaints we have received has been adamant about the noise. In checking with other neighbors who are perhaps closer to Pancho's than the complainant, it was found that they are not disturbed by the restaurant at all and felt that the railroad was far more of a nuisance. It should be noted that Pancho's Restaurant is situated in a business area. There are very few residents in any close proximity to the restaurant. It is felt that the restaurant is not a police problem either by nature of the noise or traffic, more than any other business of that nature in the city. Council Statements. Councilman Christensen read a letter, over his signature, addressed to the City Attorney, dated November 3, 1975, regarding Questionable Legality of Gifts of City Property to Private Corporation. Reports. Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 15-75 regarding Part-Time Clerical Help for Juvenile Diversion Program, as follows: In September of this year the City Police Depart- ment, in cooperation with the Kern County Probation Department, initiated a Juvenile Diversion Program. This program was established in an effort to promote more effective communi- cations and a closer working relationship between the two departments in combating juvenile delinquency. In essence the County is assigning a full time probation officer at the Bakersfield Police Department where there 116 Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 3 will be a better opportunity to participate on a day to day basis with the police officers in decisions and actions regarding juvenile minor offenses. To carry out this project the City is required to provide a part-time clerk typist, however, the costs for these services will be reimbursed to the City by the County. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has reviewed this program with the staff and we feel it has merit. We, therefore, recommend Council approval transferring $4,160.00 from the Council's Contingency Fund, which will be replaced quarterly by County reimbursements, to the Police Department's Temporary Help Fund; approval of the attached agreement, and authorize the Mayor to execute this agreement. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Report No. 15-75 of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding Part-Time Clerical Help for Juvenile Diversion Program, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Budget Transfer from the Council's Contingency Fund No. 11-510-6100 to the Police Department's Temporary Help Fund No. 11-620-0200, in the amount of $4,160.00, was approved. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Agreement with the County of Kern regarding part-time clerical help for the Juvenile Diversion Program, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, read Report No. 8-75 regarding Budget Transfer for the City CENTREX Telephone System, as follows: With the merging of the City's Fire Dispatch and Police Dispatch, a new method of answering emergency calls and dispatching assistance units has been designed in a Centralized Communica- tions Center. At the present time, both departments answer emergency calls and adminis- trative calls on their own switchboards and then either redirect administrative calls or dispatch the appropriate emergency unit. When the Centralized Communications Center is completed, the existing PBX boards for both Fire and Pol~e will be eliminated. At the time the Centralized Communications Center was designed, it was anticipated that only the Police Department would convert its Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 4 117 telephone system to a CENTREX operation. Further study has indicated that a far more efficient overall City operation may be achieved through the conversion of the entire telephone system. The first step in this over- all telephone conversion was the Joint Powers Agreement that the City Council entered into with the County of Kern to utilize the already existing County switching gear. That joint utilization will save the City $1,000 on initial installation and approximately $460 a month in basic charges. Now that the final engineering studies have been completed by the telephone company, the one- time installation costs will run approximately $17,400 and the City's monthly charge for the entire system will be approximately $4,900. This compares to a current monthly charge of $3,550. Our present toll charges will remain unchanged. While this represents an increase of about $1,350 per month, the City will no longer have the responsibility for maintenance of any of the telephone or back-up voice dispatch systems. This will all be assumed by the tele- phone company. The City currently maintains all of this kind of equipment in the Police and Fire facilities. Attached to this report is a copy of the proposal made by Pacific Telephone which details each portion of the new system. It is the recommendation of this committee that $17,400 be transferred from the Council Contingency Fund Account No. 11-510-6100 to the City Hall Telephone Account No. 11-706-3400 to accomplish this work. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Report No. 8-75 of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, regarding Budget Transfer for the City CENTREX Telephone System, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Budget Transfer from the Council's Contingency Fund Account No. 11-510-6100 to the City Hall Telephone Account No. 11-706-3400 in the amount of $17,400.00, was approved. City Manager Bergen read a report regarding Implementation of Community Development Grant Projects, as follows: The City staff is ready to proceed with the projects approved under the first-year Com- munity Development Block Grant Program. As the Council is aware, the planning portion of the grant program, including preparation of the Target Area Plan, has been underway now for approximately two months. 118 Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 5 The other projects included in the grant program have not been initiated pending establishment of legal procedures and general policy guide- lines. A draft resolution incorporating these procedures and guidelines was reviewed with the City Council at the recent planning workshop on October 14. This resolution has been put into final form and is now ready for formal Council consideration. With its adoption, the City can proceed with the implementation of these projects as soon as possible. Therefore, it is recommended accept this report and adopt resolution. that the Council the attached Deferral of action on Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, providing for specific projects for the first action year in respect to' the Community Development Program Block Grant (No. B-75-MC-06-0510) under the provisions of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The Council questioned the staff regarding the wording of the proposed resolution and various projects in the Community Development Program. After a lengthy discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Strong, action on a resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, providing for specific projects for the first action year in respect to the Community Development Program Block Grant (No. B-75-MC-06-0510) under the provisions of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, was deferred until such time as the staff can answer the questions that have been raised tonight, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1708 to 1765, inclusive, in the amount of $182,244.96. Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 6 119 (b) Claims for Damages from Elyis Surman, Jr., 2211 Monterey Street, #2, Mrs. Mary Lee Surman, 1110 Matthew Henson Drive, Lurene Henderson, 1423 E. California Avenue, Lorenzo Wright, 1544 E. 10th Street, Smithie Callahan, 530½ E. 3rd Street and Isory Smith, 1518 E. 10th Street. (Refer to City Attorney) (c) Street Right-of-Way Deed from Bobby G. Dean and Mary A. Dean, husband and wife, providing for 25 feet of right of way on Cottonwood Road, north of Watts Drive. (d) Map of Tract No. 3761 Unit "A" and Contract and Specifications for improvements therein- located south of Planz Road and west of Akers Road. (e) Plans and Specifications for construction of a Sanitary Sewer in Harris Road between Stine Road and Wible Road. (f) Request from Kern High School District for closing of Alley located on west half of the east-west alley in Block 207 of the map of the City of Bakersfield bounded on the north by 21st Street, "L" Street on the east, 20th Street on the south and "K" Street on the west. (Refer to the Planning Commission) Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleeeker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, low bid of Griffith Company for resurfacing Union Avenue between S.P.R.R. and Niles Street, was accepted, the other bid rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Monk Stationers, Inc., for new Police Building Office Furniture, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 7 Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bid of Valley G. M. Diesel, Inc., for replacement of Diesel Engine for Fire Truck, was accepted and the other bid rejected. Deferred Business. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2250 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 7.40.010 (a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, concerning Public Dances. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2250 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 7.40.010 (a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakers- field, concerning Public Dances, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Sceales Strong Noes: None Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Rogers New Business. Adoption of Resolution No. 70-75 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field ascertaining and determining the prevailing rate of wages to be paid to certain crafts and types of workmen employed on public work in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 70-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ascertaining and deter- mining the prevailing rate of wages to be paid to certain crafts and types of workmen employed on public work in the City of Bakers- field, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 8 121 Adoption of Resolution No. 71-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield determining and declaring that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of certain real property for the widening of a portion of Wilson Road and further declaring the intention of the City of Bakersfield to acquire said property under Eminent Domain proceedings, and directing the Cify Attorney to commence an action in the Superior Court for the purpose of acquiring said property. This resolution would direct the City Attorney to commence Eminent Domain proceedings to acquire property at 2900 Wilson Road needed in connection with the project to widen and reconstruct Wilson Road, approved by the Council on June 19, 1974. All other rights-of-way for the project have been obtained by negotiation bul: the subject property owner who lives in Wasco has refused the City's best offer. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Resolution No. 71-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield determining and declaring that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of certain real property for the widening of a portion of Wilson Road and further declaring the intention of the City of Bakersfield to acquire said property under Eminent Domain proceedings, and directing the City Attorney to commence an action in Superior Court for the purpose of acquiring said property, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Strong Approval of Annexation Boundaries designated as Stine No. 4. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Annexation Boundaries designated as Stine No. 4, located northerly of Ming Avenue and abuts Stine Road on the west, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC. 122 Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 9 Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property in the County of Kern, located easterly of the east end of Wendy Avenue, known as "Panorama No. 2" Annexation. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and property owners notified as required by law. A tentative subdivision map has been approved by the Planning Commission on this 2.66 acre parcel. All adjacent properties are zoned R-l, both in the City and in the unincorporated area. The proposed R-1 zoning is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 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 Rogers, Ordinance No. 2251 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield and finding that such amendment is consistent with the General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, November 3, 1975 - Page 10 Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. MAY R t e~rsfield, Calif. ATTEST: CITY/6iLERK and~'Ex-O/~icio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bake~field, California ma 124 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 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., November 10, The meeting was called by the Pledge of Allegiance and Minister of the Unity Center. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. 1975. to order by Mayor Hart followed Invocation by Reverend Dick Beavans, Councilmen Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton Absent: None Minutes of the regular meeting of November 3, 1975 were approved as presented. Mayor Hart welcomed and introduced the student counter- parts for the Office of Mayor and members of the Council who are participating in the Annual Teenage Student Government Day on Wednesday, November 12, 1975. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Mayor Hart presented a Certificate of Appreciation to former Councilman and Police Commissioner Richard Hosking for 10 years of loyal and conscientious service to the City of Bakersfield. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, communication from Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc., dated October 31, 1975, requesting a rate revision for refuse collection service, was received and referred to the staff for study and recommendation. Council Statements. Approval of Water Contracts with Ca~velo, Rag-Gulch, Kern-Tulare Water District and North Kern Water District. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Water Contracts with Cawelo, Rag-Gulch, Kern-Tulare Water District and North Kern Water District formalizing the City's prior letters of intent, were approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 2 !25 The following is a verbatim transcript of incidents regarding the past and proposed closing of Inyo Street and two letters from Councilman Christensen, dated November 3, 1975 and November 5, 1975, regarding Questionable Legality of Gifts of City' Property to Private Corporation: Medders: A week ago I sat here somewhat dumbfounded and[ amazed as a prepared statement was read. It started out as a foudroy~nt scheme to make headlines. It continued with a series of scurrilous personal attacks on individuals. In effect, it insinuated that businesses and corporations are less than desirable in our American system, and along the way, the statements strayed from the pertinent facts and at one point was completely void of truth. In total, the entire verbiage was a comedy of errors, half-truths and innuendoes. Regardless of all else, one should use accurate information when he puts together a dissertation. The facts were simple, until they were blown completely out of perspective and proportion. On property that had to do with Sandstone Brick, the former Second Ward Councilman had nothing to do with the discussion, nor did he vote on the issue. The minutes of the proper meetings gave clear indications of the truth; however, when a Councilman asks for information from the Clerk's office by date or number, that's what he gets regardless of whom he may be. Afterwards, if the Councilman has made an erroneous request, rather than cast dispersions on the employees, the honest thing to do would be to admit the error. After all, the job description for office personnel does not inclu~de reading the Councilman's mind. Sad, however, witch hunters througlh their pomposity tended to become confused and their facts become fragmented, and in their insidious desire and need to find great fault and wrong doing on the part of others, they have a tendency to lose their resistance to a disease which is commonly referred to, from time to time, as the loose lip. I can only deduct from what I heard that a personal vendetta is being carried on, and at 126 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 3 this point, I am not at all sure that Inyo Street is the real issue. I reason this because Sacramento Street went through the same procedure and was abandoned by this present Council. Under- stand this, I'm not saying that Bud Lindsey did anything improper; just the opposite is true. He followed the established procedure for a street abandonment, which is a request, a referral by the Council to the Planning Commission for comment, the setting of a hearing date and the public hearing. What I am saying is that I fail to see the difference. If one was right how can the other be wrong. If you are a Councilman does that mean that you lose your rights? It is not my intention to sit to defend the former Second Ward Councilman because he hasn't done anything or there is nothing to be defended. However, I am extremely disappointed because of the scurrility and abusivehess leveled at an individual who was not in the City at the time, and in fact, it is my understanding, was not even in the country. The definition for this gutter type of tactic is commonly referred to as a cheap shot. Any Councilman making a statement should label it--label whatever he is going to say according to the context of the statement. A suggestion here is that one or more of the following choices might be used: Number 1, you could call it opinion; Number 2, fact; Number 3, fiction; Number 4, my own slanted view; or Number 5, a little fact and a whole lot of fiction. Another approach might be to say I'm about to make a statement and I don't have any earthly idea to its authenticity, but I'll start and talk for a while then we'll see what it sounds like. A gift of public property has been mentioned rather profusely, and it is my understanding that the property on either side of the street, to the centerline, belongs to the adjacent property; and if a gift was made, that property was made to the City in the beginning and if you return it you are returning a gift. You are not giving them something. The only thing the City has done --is to--is to create and maintain a thoroughfare across that Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 4 127 property. The term "Watergate" and "Conflict of Interest" keep popping up. In my opinion, the biggest and most flagrant conflict of interest that exists and is perpetrated on the public is when a candidate takes contributions funds from an employee union or the political arm of that employee union and then votes increases in salary and in fringe benefits to those employees. Your honor, going back to the---where I said you should label your statements, I'd like to label this one "My Opinion and a Whole Lot of Facts." Thank you. Mayor Hart: Bleecker: questions to ask the Thank you Mr. Medders. Mr. Bleecker. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I have a number of Councilman from the Second Ward regarding his letters of November 3rd and November 5 to the City Attorney's office. And I ask at this time, Mr. Mayor, I specifically request that my questions, the Second Ward Councilman's answers, and all relative conversations which may occur through any ensuing debate, be spread upon the minutes verbatim so that a written public document can be made readily available to anyone concerned. Mayor Hart: Mrs. Anderson, will you so note please. Bleecker: The first question I have, Mr. Mayor, of Councilman Christensen--is--and in view of certain statements that the Councilman has made since the letters were written, publicly that have appeared in the newspaper, and so forth and so on ..... In your letter of November 3rd--I would refer the Council to that letter--page 2, paragraph 2--where you state that Councilman Heisey, former Councilman Heisey now, Councilman at the time, not only participated in the Council deliberations but also voted in favor of a resolution closing a street beneficial to Sandstone Brick Company, can you now sir admit that you made a false allegation and that former Councilman Heisey's vote had absolutely nothing to do with any street closure beneficial to Sandstone Brick Company in any way whatsoever? Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 5 Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, would you want to respond to that at this time or ..... Christensen: No response to this question except for one thing. I was misinformed at the time when I asked for the notes and the tapes that were connected between the closing of 18th Street and Truxtun, and evidently there was a misunderstanding between the, two ladies that I spoke to, and I mentioned it to them, and I apologize tO them, and if there is any other apology to be made, it should be made by Sandstone Brick and by Mr. Heisey for leathering his nest through the holding of his office by acquiring the closing of a street, by appointing a member to a Planning Commission ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that the Councilman is making a statement and not answering my question, and he indicated originally that he would not answer the question. Mayor Hart: All right. Mr. Christensen, in the interest of time, since you have the light and the chance for total rebuttal, if you'll permit me, shall we go ahead with this and then limit exchange until you're prepared or out of respect to this floor that Mr. Bleecker at this time maintains by his priority on the button. Christensen: Well, I have a statement that I would like to make tonight to the Mayor and to the Council ..... Bleecker: Well Mr. Mayor, may I suggest also that now is not the time for this statement because I have the floor and I'm asking the questions. Now if Councilman from the Second Ward doesn't want to answer these questions, that's up to him. I'm making the questions. Christensen: I'll stand on the facts and the cases which. I quoted such as Stigall rs. Taft, Millbrae Association rs. the City of Millbrae, the Government Code of 1090, and I'll stand on the County of Kern vs. Drinkhouse--and I don't choose to deal in folderol. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 6 129 Mayor Hart: Thank you Mr. Christensen. Christensen: Thank you. Bleecker: Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Far be it for me, Mr. Mayor, to deal in any folderol. I have these specific questions; there are a number of them. Mayor Hart: I urge you to make your questions a matter of record as you so indicated you desired to do and then ..... Bleecker: And I'm going to do that Mr. Mayor. I'm going to do it right now, and let the record show that the Councilman from the Second Ward refused to answer the question I just asked. The next question is, do you now admit that since Mr. Heisey did not participate in any improper or illegal Council deliberations or vote, in numbered paragraphs That's my question, Mr. that all of your allegations are all false one and two of your November 3rd letter? Mayor. Mayor Hart: Fine--if you'll Mr. Bleecker. Mr. Christensen says he time to answer ..... Bleecker: Well, Mr. wouldn't answer that question. any questions? Mayor Hart: Do you have comment at Mr. Christensen? Christensen: What was the date Bleecker: This is relevant, Mr. go to your next question is not prepared at this Christensen indicated that he Did he indicate he wouldn't answer this time, on that? Christensen, to your letter of November 3rd, paragraphs one and two, and my question was-- Do you now admit that since Mr. Heisey did not participate, according to the official record, in any improper or illegal Council deliberations or vote, that all of your allegations are all false in numbers paragraphs one and two of your November 3rd letter? Christensen: I do not admit it, and I stand by the cases thus quoted. 130 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 7 Mayor Hart: Next question please, Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: Calling the Councilman from the Second Ward's attention to page 3 of his November 3rd letter, numbered paragraph 3--in this paragraph you alleged that Mr. Tim Banks, a member of the Planning Commission and also one of the many employees of Sandstone Brick Company, participated in the discussions which led[ to the current Planning Commission recommendations relevant to the City street easement on the north one-half of Inyo Street at 18th Street. Where did you obtain this information, and do you still believe it to be true? That is that Mr. Banks participated in the discussion on this particular item. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen do you wish to respond? Christensen: What page is that on please? Bleecker: Councilman, it's in your letter of November 3rd, page 3, numbered paragraph 3. Christensen: I would like to point out that I asked for the tape and they were unable to provide it. Bleecker: Well, since the Councilman brought that up, Mr. Mayor, I would like to relate to the Council, at this time-- and he brought the subject up you understand--what happened there. I would also like to revert back first, Mr. Mayor, if I might, to answer a statement that the Councilman from the Second Ward made a few minutes ago, in that he indicates that he was given a wrong or false or whatever information by members of the staff in the Clerk's office. It is my understanding, because you see I've done my homework, Mr. Mayor, and I went afte~ these false allegations were brought to bear, I talked to people and I asked them what actually happened, and I asked the City Manager to--through his office-- ask certain employees exactly what did happen at that particular time when the Councilman from the Second Ward came into the Clerk's office. It is my understanding, sir, that he asked for a specific resolution by number, and I would ask Mr. Bergen, since I have Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 8 131 talked this over with Mr. Bergen and have talked to certain members of the staff myself, to indicate to this Council at this time, Mr. Mayor, exactly what did happen regarding the information that the Councilman from the Second Ward received on anything having to do with the closure of Inyo Street. Mayor Hart: Mr. Bergen, please, would you respond to Mr. Bleecker's statement. City Manager Bergen: I was asked this specific question and I talked to the--both of the girls--ladies involved and they indicated to me that Mr. Christensen asked for that resolution by number. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, if I might continue, is there not a--Mr. Bergen--a statement to that effect made by the employees involved, in writing? City Manager Bergen: Yes---Yes. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, if I might continue. In regard to the fact, and it is a fact, that the meeting of the Planning Commission to which the Councilman from the Second Ward referred, it is a fact that those proceedings were not taped. The explanation has been given to the Councilman that the employee in charge of taping those proceedings was unfamiliar with the machine in that she was not the person who regularly did that, and that they were record ..... not recorded because of her error. However, according to the rules and according to custom, in the way those meetings are handled, the minutes were taken down in speedwriting or shorthand, one or the other, and that is what she used to prepare the minutes of that meeting and certified to the contents of that meeting, and those minutes clearly state that Commissioner or Planning Commissioner Banks abstained from participating in any form whatsoever in the deliberations that we're considering here. So, in view of this I would like to ask the question again, Councilman, do you now admit that since---we have reiterated what Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 9 happened at that Planning Commission meeting, that Mr. Banks acted improperly in any way in that discussion? In other words, in this paragraph of your letter, paragraph 3, your letter, page 3, November 3rd, is this--in this paragraph you allege that Mr. Tim Banks, a member of the Planning Commission and also one of the employees of Sandstone Brick Company, participated in the discussions which led to the current public utilities .... I mean .... Planning Commission recommendations relevant to the City street easement on north one-half of Inyo Street. Where did you obtain the information that he participated in this discussion and do you still believe it to be true? Christensen: over with. Mayor Hart: Please continue your report so it will get I don't think he is prepared to ..... Bleecker: Let the record show, Madam Clerk, that the Councilman refused to answer that question. I would like to indicate, Mr. Mayor, that it is clear to me that the truth of what happened at that meeting, and I believe the minutes that the Clerk of that meeting prepared, and it seems highly improper, knowing the facts, that the Councilman refused to answer the question, but I would like to indicate that in my opinion that Mr. Banks' conduct was admirable and in keeping with the rules and regulations of the State of California and that anything false. Commission and the law of the to the contrary is totally Later on in that same paragraph 3 you refer to known investment interests of key City staff in former Councilman Heisey's E1 Tejon Investment Company. Were you referring to Mr. Bergen, the City Manager, when you made that statement, Councilman? Christensen: Please continue on with your folderol. I'm not on trial. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page l0 Bleecker: Let the record show, Madam Clerk, that the Councilman refused to answer the question. The Councilman has already admitted in the press that he was referring to Mr. Bergen, so I don't think it's much of folderol. I just thought I'd get him to reiterate it if he would ..... Christensen: Pardon me, I don't want a misunderstanding-- I said what you were giving was folderol. Bleecker: Oh, I see, but the Councilman has admitted to the press, Mr. Mayor, that ..... it was Mr. Bergen he was referring to, and I would like to ask this question of the Councilman. Before you made these allegations regarding the City Manager, Councilman, did you take the time to inquire of Mr. Bergen personally regarding any of the facts about the Tejon Investment Company before either your letter of November 3rd or your supplement letter of November 5th? Christensen: Would you please continue with the report so we can get over with this folderol. Bleecker: Now, Mr. Mayor ..... Christensen: I'm not on trial. I'm not on trial and I stand on Stigall rs. Taft, Millbrae Association vs. the City of Millbrae and the Government Code of 1090 and the County of Kern Drinkhouse. Please continue. Bleecker: Madam Clerk, let the record show that the simple question of whether he had a personal conversation with Mr. Bergen about his stock in Tejon Investment Company, that the Councilman from the Second Ward refused to answer that question. Mayor Hart: You must as well indicate his response and the references that he was citing. Go ahead Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: Now in your letter of November 5th, Councilmarl, on page 4, numbered paragraph 12, you state that the City Manager is an investor .... is an investor .... that's on November 4th .... in one of Mr. Heisey's companies .... Mr. Heisey's companies .... 134 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page ll headquartered at the Sandstone facilities and that would benefit if the requested street gift is granted. Did you mean to infer, Councilman, that Tejon Investment Company is owned or controlled by Mr. Heisey? Christensen: Please continue on. Bleecker: Let the record show, Madam Clerk, that the Councilman refused to answer that question. Did you know any of the facts about Tejon Investment Company and did you inquire of them before you made any allegations regarding Mr. Bergen? Mayor Hart: I don't believe that Mr. Christensen wants to respond to that one either; will you so indicate. Bleecker: Well, Mr. Mayor, I took the time to gather a few facts regarding Tejon Investment Company and I find that Mr. McKinnon is the Manager of the company; that the company leases office space from Sandstone Brick Company, as many other companies do; that Mr. McKinnon is not an employee of Sandstone Brick Company and never has been and that his presence in Sandstone Brick Company's office is to take care of the business of Tejon Investment Company; that the company was founded in 1962, a restricted stock company, dealing in first and second trust deeds, and that there are more than 40 investors in that company; that the board of directors numbers 11; that at no time did Mr. Heisey or Mr. Bergen own anything like a controlling interest in that company, in that Mr. Heisey had something like five or six thousand shares out of 183,100 and Mr. Bergen had something like one thousand shares out of 183,100 and that the shares are worth about $2.00 apiece; and that at the time Mr. Bergen bought his shares, he paid $2,000.00 for them and, at the time he divested himself of those shares, he paid $2,000.00 for them--that he made no profit out of those shares. In fact he could of put the same amount of money in a bank paying 5% interest and have made a little profit. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 12 Christensen: That'd been good. Bleecker: So, it indicates to me, Mr. Mayor, that the attempt to relate any relationship that a former Councilman had and Mr. Bergen had, in that both owned stock in the same investment company, has nothing whatsoever to do with any prior or proposed closing of Inyo Street. It is also indicated to me, Mr. Mayor, by Mr. McKinnon, the Manager of Tejon Investment Company, that the Councilman from the Second Ward never called Tejon Investment Company or wrote them any letter to find out anything about the company, yet he refers to it as one of Mr. Heisey's companies, obviously to try to make something out of the fact that Mr. Heisey and Mr. Bergen happened to own stock in the same company. My next question, Mr. Mayor, of the Councilman from the Second Ward is why did you send copies of both your November 3rd and 5 letters to the news media and to Mr. Strange, the Chairman of the Grand Jury, and to Mr. Leddy, District Attorney? Christensen: Please continue on. I'm not on trial. I'd like to give you one quotation to think over, "Seek ye the truth and the truth shall set you free." Please continue. Bleecker: I'd just like to suggest, Mr. Mayor, that the Councilman may be in bondage for ever and ever. However, let the record show that the Councilman refused to answer that question also. Is there some reason, Councilman, why you did not type your letters of November 3 and 5 on your official City Council stationery? Christensen: It's with regret that I do not have any Council stationery. I have asked for it and not received it. Thank you. Bleecker: Then is there also some reason why you signed both letters simply J. M. Christensen, without adding Councilman, Second Ward, or something to that---of that nature under your signature? Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 13 Christensen: No comment. Bleecker: Since the contents of your letter of November 5 was not delivered orally by you before this Council, like the contents of the November 3 letter, and delivered in open session and, since you did not use official Council stationery, neither did you sign this letter as Councilman Christensen or something of the like, did you make all the statements contained therein in your capacity as an elected City official or did you make those statements in your capacity as a private citizen? In other words, in which role did you see yourself when you made these statements? Mayor Hart: Do you have any comment Mr. Christensen? Christensen: No comment. I am a Councilman of the Second Ward, and my name goes where I go. Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: On page 2 of your November 5 letter, near the bottom of the first paragraph you state, "t~l~at need for a little," and I quote, "narrow alley to take the place of our street if there is no present nor prospective need for the street? Clearly the question is rhetorical for all except those persons who are determined to make this newest gift to the Heisey-Curran-Sandstone interest regardless of the public interest that they have sworn to serve~l" I ask yo~ sir, who are you referring to there? Would you name these people that you indicate have sworn to uphold the public interest who are not doing so? Christensen: No comment; it is self explanatory. I'm not on trial, thank you. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, let the record show that in this query to identify these people that heretofore have not been identified in this particular paragraph, except perhaps by innuendo, that the Councilman refused to name "those persons." Mayor Hart: So indicate, these people he refers to as please, Mrs. Anderson. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 14 Bleecker: Since the Councilman will not indicate who those persons are who have violated, in his words, more or less their public trust, are you suggesting, Councilman, that they, these unnamed persons in your letter, have violated their Oath of Office? This is a very serious charge, indeed. Christensen: No comment; please continue. Bleecker: Let the record show, Madam Clerk, that the Councilman from the Second Ward refused to answer that question also. It is quite obvious to anybody with a lick of sense and who's taken the time to find out the real facts that the Councilman's letters of November 3 and 5 are fraught with misstatements and thinly veiled innuendo alleging misconduct or worse on the part of Mr. Heisey, Mr. Banks, and Mr. Bergen. Tell me, Councilman, did you compose and type up both of these letters yourself? Christensen: I'm not a typist. No comment. Bleecker: Then, Mr. Christensen, on page 2, paragraph 2 of your November 3rd letter, where you refer to the Stigall rs. City of Taft, what does 58 C 2d 565 mean, in your letter? Christensen: You would have to ask one of my seven attorneys. Bleecker: Well then, do you indicate sir that you have some legal firm helping you in this effort, whatever it is? Christensen: No comment; you have heard from me. Continue on with your folderol. Bleecker: Would you mind telling this Council, Mr. Christensen, who did compose and type up these letters. Christensen: I'm not on trial. Please continue. Bleecker: Let the record show that the Councilman refused to answer the question as to whether or not he composed and typed this letter or whether some legal firm or anybody else helped him in composing and typing up this letter. From what you know now, sir, do you not owe a public apology to Mr. Heisey and Mr. Banks and Mr. Bergen for any injury Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 15 you may have caused their reputation by publishing garbage in your November 3 and 5 letters? Christensen: That is under no way. 'I think they owe Bleecker: Do you not that bunch of one thing I'm very happy to say, no, an apology. also owe an apology to the people of this City because the falsehoods you caused to be published could very well have undermined their confidence in their local government? Christensen: Continue on. The folderol ..... Bleecker: Let the record show that the Councilman from the Second Ward refused to answer that question. Finally, Councilman, let me say that I feel very sorry for you that you can't come up with something of a constructive nature instead of always trying to tear down confidence in this City government. I'm very sorry indeed that you have resorted to the very lowest type of character assignation while trying to use a bunch of lies to prove your point for God knows what purpose. I think that after this most members of this Council and the citizenry as a whole will take anything you may say here only with a very small grain of salt. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, please. Christensen: Mr. Mayor I have a Council Statement and letter directed to you and the Council that I would like to have the privilege to make after we hear, on the Agenda, hear from .... the report from the City Attorney. I'd like very much to have it deferred until after I hear from the City Attorney, and at that time I'd love to make a statement to the honorable Mayor and to the Council. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Where will we find that ..... Assistant City Clerk Anderson: It's under Council Mayor Hart: Yes, I see that. We have a Council Statement request from Mr. Barton, please. Reports. -. 139 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 16 the Noise Element Metropolitan Area 1975. Barton: Mr. Mayor, I will defer my statement until the conclusion of the reports from our attorney, but I'd also like to make the request that the total minutes of this meeting, dealing with this subject, be in verbatim, not only the portion by Mr.- .... Councilman Bleecker, but the total subject matter that we're dealing with. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mrs. Anderson make that a matter of practice. Mayor Hart announced for the benefit of those people in the audience awaiting the public hearings concerning the Noise Element and Seismic Safety Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan that it has been requested that these hearings be held over until November 17, 1975. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, hearings concerning and Seismic Safety Element of the Bakersfield General Plan were continued until November 17, Mayor Hart: I see no indication of other Council Statements. At this time we'll ask that the next item be Reports. Is that right, Mrs. Anderson? You have Reports. Assistant City Clerk Anderson: the report? Yes sir, there is a report from the Public Works Director and City Attorney relative to the closing of Inyo Street. Mayor Hart: If you will please, Mr. Hoagland. Yes ..... then ...... please. Deputy Public Works Director Hawley: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, the Public Works Department has prepared a report and a map of the various abandonment proceedings along Inyo Street. I would like to give you each a copy of our report and the map and then step to the map on the board for some further comments. Mayor Hart: Thank you. 140 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 17 Hawley: The map that I have on the board--this shows Union Avenue, Truxtun Avenue, California Avenue and Inyo Street and 178 Freeway. The street vacations on Inyo Street involved four separate proceedings; vacation under the first two proceedings virtually eliminated Inyo Street as a collector street and subsequent closings did not have a significant effect on the traffic ---the traffic circulation in the area. The first segment vacated is this section here where Inyo crossed the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. On November the 7th, 1949, the Council, at the Council hearing, vacated this portion of Inyo Street. The request for this particular vacation was from Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The second portion vacated is where Inyo Street crosses what is now Route 178 Freeway. This portion of Inyo Street was vacated through agreement with the City and the State of California. This portion was vacated on July 17, 1961. The third portion of Inyo Street vacated was just adjacent to this second segment, and it's this little section right here between the north right-of-way of Niles Street and the south right-of-way line of Route 178 Freeway. The fourth segment involves several events that took place between 1961 and 1972 and that effects this particular area here. Between 1961 and 1967 there were meetings and discussions between the City, the Public Utility Commission, and Santa Fe Railroad Company regarding railroad crossing protection along various streets, including Sonora, Inyo, and Baker. As a result of these meetings, it was felt that consideration should be given to close the Inyo crossing and open the Tulare Street crossing. The Tulare crossing was considered safer because of the angle the tracks face across the intersection of Inyo and Dolores, and also it was more centrally located between Sonora and Baker. Then in January 31st of 1967, the City submitted a letter--and the letter is attached in the packets, the memo that I gave you, it's attached as Exhibit A. This letter to the Public Utility Commission indicated the Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 18 141 City's proposal to close Inyo Street crossing and open the crossing at Tulare Street. The closing of the Inyo Street crossing was requested due to the necessity for a complex and costly railroad crossing protection system at this location. In December 29, 1967, the City submitted a letter, and the letter is attached as Exhibit B, regarding the Inyo Street crossing proposal to the Santa Fe Railroad Company. Then in May 1, 1968, the Santa Fe Railroad responded favorably to the above proposal to close the Inyo crossing and open the Tulare crossing. That's attached as Exhibit B-1. On April 13, 1971, the City received a request from Sandstone Brick Company for a vacation of a portion of Inyo Street. This particular request was directed to the City Council, and since it is not a part of our files, I did not attach it as part of your .... in the packet I gave you; however, I do have copies here in case any of the Council would like a copy of that particular request. On April 14, 1971, the City Council received the request and referred it to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. In April 17, 1971, the Public Works Department submitted letters to the various utility companies and to the Police and Fire Department requesting their comments or requirements. There was a comment received from the Police Department, which is attached as Exhibit C, and they indicated opposition to the closing unless the grade crossing at Tulare Street was opened. No other objections were filed. June 2, 1971, the City Planning Commission considered the request for vacation .... this portion of Inyo Street .... and their recommendation was to close Inyo Street, north of Truxtun Avenue, conditioned on the Tulare Street Santa Fe Railroad crossing being opened; and then, on July 16, 1971, the Public Works submitted a plan for closing of Inyo Street to Santa November 1, 1971, the City Council adopted of Intention declaring its intention Department Fe. the Resolution to close Inyo Street between 142 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 19 the north line of East Truxtun Avenue and the alley to the north. On November 22, 1971, the City Council approved the agreement, which is attached as Exhibit F. This was with Santa Fe Railroad Company for closing the Inyo Street crossing and for opening the Tulare Street crossing. And, also on November 22, 197'1, the City Council adopted a resolution to vacate that portion of Inyo Street as indicated.in Item 10. above. This is Inyo Street between Truxtun and the alley. A request was then submitted to the Council by the Public Works Department to vacate the portion of Inyo Street between the south line of Truxtun and the north line of the Santa Fe Railroad tracks. On September 19, 1972, the City Council adopted the Resolution of Intention declaring its intention to close Inyo Street between Truxtun Avenue and the Santa Fe tracks. And then, finally on October 30, 1972, the City Council adopted the resolution to vacate this portion of Inyo Street. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Hoagland, please. City Attorney Hoagland read the following report: TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: OPINION ON LEGALITY OF INYO STREET CLOSINGS On October 27, 1975, the City Council requested the City Attorney to render an opinion relative to the closure of a portion of Inyo Street adjacent to the properties of Sandstone Brick Co. On November 3, 1975, the request of the Council was augmented by a letter signed by Councilman Christensen setting out legal reasons why the original closure was illegal, invalid, null and void. A review of the Inyo closings has been made. For reasons set forth hereafter, the letter brief of November 3 lacks merit. In the first place the facts are wrong and in the second place, the legal conclusions are erroneous. To the letter of November 3 was attached minutes of the City Council of September 18, 1972, indicating Councilman Heisey voting for Resolution No. 881 on an intention to abandon a portion of Inyo Street. This is true. However, that portion of Inyo is south of East Truxtun Avenue. It's a small portion between the railroad tracks and East Truxtun Avenue. Sandstone Brick had no interest in that parcel of land adjacent to the closure set forth in Resolution No. 881. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 20 143 The closure of Inyo Street between East Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street occurred November 22, 1971, almost one year prior to the closure referred to in the letter signed by Mr. Christensen. The abandonment was requested by C. S. Curran, President of Sandstone Brick Co. In both the Resolution of Intention to vacate the street and the Resolution ordering the vacation, Mr. Heisey, an Officer of Sandstone Brick Co., indicated he had an interest in Sandstone Brick and abstained from participating in the proceeding and the vote. The minutes so indicate. "Mayor Hart requested that the record show Councilman Heisey is not partici- pating in debate or voting due to any real or imaginary conflict of interest." The act of Council ordering a vacation of a street is legislative in character and conclusive as to the necessity or convenience, absent fraud or collusion. Beals rs. City of Los Angeles, 23 C2d 381. Furthermore, and of significant importance to this inquiry is that the act of the Council in the closing of a street is a noncontractual act. It is not an act of the Council based upon a contractual obligation. Any attorney competent in municipal law would easily recognize the difference between a noncontractual act of the Council and an act pertaining to a contract. The conflict of interest laws of the State of California recognize the difference. Sections 1090 and following of the Government Code set forth the laws of conflicts of interestsrelating to contractual matters where the officer has a financial interest in the contract he is voting on. The law in respect to noncontractual financial interest is Government Code Section l120(a) (1971) and 3625(a) Government Code in 1973. In 1971 the law in respect to noncontractual financial interest read: Govt. Code Section 1120(a) "Members of governing bodies shall disclose any direct financial interest in any noncontractual matter coming before such governing body . " In 1973 Section 1120(a) was repealed and supple- mented with Section 3625(a) which reads: "No public official shall participate in, or in any way attempt to influence governmental actions or decisions relating to any matter within the responsibilities of his agency in which he knows or has reason to believe he has an economic interest." 144 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 21 The record in the closing of Inyo Street in 1971 makes it perfectly clear that Mr. Heisey was not in violation of any conflict of interest law then. nor would he have been in 1973. Further- more, there was no collusion between the other members of the City Council who voted for the closure and Sandstone Brick Co. The cases cited in the letter signed by Mr. Christensen are not in point and are inapplicable. Both the Stigall case and the Drinkhouse case related to Government Code Section 1090 which prohibits officers from being interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity. Both cases dealt with situations where the officers involved had an interest in a contract they were acting on. That is not the situation here. As said before, the vacation of a street is a noncontractual matter. The law pertaining to noncontractual matters is as set forth above and not as quoted in the letter. Any competent attorney would recognize the difference. A word should be said about street closures. Generally speaking, the abutting landowners own the underlying fee to the property which is burdened with a street easement. When the legislative body vacates a street they lift the easement on the property, thus allowing the owner full use of his property which he did not have while the street easement was in effect. There are many reasons for vacation of streets. Again, if it is not necessary to maintain a street or alley for public travel, it should be vacated, and the Supreme Court of California has so held. In City of Los Angeles rs. Superior Court, 51 C2d 423 it is said: "It is to the advantage of a city and the public to vacate a street which is no longer needed and thereby relieve the city of the expense and responsi- bility of maintaining it in proper and safe condition." Furthermore, when a street is vacated the property goes back on the tax rolls, thus relieving the taxpayer of the city of that much less taxes, however minute. To refer to the vacation of a street as a "gift" of public property to private individuals is erroneous and mere political rhetoric. The City never "owned" the property in the first place. The City impressed an easement on the property for a public right-of-way. The vacation of the street allowed the property owner full use of his own property, where such use is more beneficial to the general public than the street use. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 22 1-4 5 The fact that the property owner benefits from the vacation of the street is not a controlling factor. All street vacations benefit the adjacent property owner. Owners should benefit to the ful~ the use of their property if such use is not more necessary to the general public, such as street use or utility use. The claim that the closure of a portion of Inyo Street which was beneficial to Sandstone Brick is violatire of the law, because Sandstone received a benefit, is erroneous. In People rs. City of Pomona, 88 CA2d 460, the city vacated a street specifically for the purpose of allowing Fairbanks Morse Co. to expand its facilities. The court held that an abandonment of a street for industrial expansion was in the public interest. That the value to the city, as one councilman put it, was greater to the city closed than open. Where a street is not necessary and an industrial expansion is accomplished, the result is a benefit to the community in additional employment, lessening unemployment, more tax revenues, lessening to that extent the tax burden and relief from maintenance of the street. Can anyone seriously doubt that the closure of "~' Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street was not in the public interest, when without it the city would not have the Bank of America Building and the parking garage. Yet in closing "K" Street, both Bank of America and United California Bank benefited from such closure, and both those entities are corporations. Furthermore, if the downtown project becomes a reality, a number of streets will be vacated in order to accommodate the businesses which will be in the project. To label the closures as "gifts" and therefore bad, would effectively prevent any such project from ever getting off the ground or even started. The case of People rs. City of Los Angeles, cited in the letter signed by Mr. Christensen is readily distinguishable from the Pomona situation and the vacation of Inyo Street in that there was no benefit to be found to the City from the abandonment. It was a street of some importance and the City attempted to sell the easement with no consideration for the Public convenience. That case was in 1923 and has been distinguished countless times since, including the Pomona case. The problem contained in the letter signed by Mr. Christensen is that the law cited therein is not the correct law for the facts of this particular situation and is therefore misleading. Not only is the law incorrect but the facts themselves are misstated. 146 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 23 Another question posed in the letter of-November 3, questions the presence of Mr. Banks on the Planning Commission, relative to the present closure of a portion of Inyo Street. Mr. Banks is an employee of Sandstone Brick. In the present proceeding before the Planning Commission, Mr. Banks neither participated in the discussion nor voted on the recommendation to close a portion of Inyo Street. Proposition 9 which is now Section 87100 et seq. of the Government Code reads in the pertinent part: "No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence. a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest." Since the record indicates Mr. Bank's abstention from participation in the proceedings, the proceedings are not tainted with any illegality, because of Mr. Bank's presence on the Commission. Another question poses whether Mr. Bank's appointment was not itself unlawful. No reason was given for any illegality in the appointment and nothing in theappointment that this office is aware of would give rise to any question respecting the validity of such appointment. There is another inference in the letter relative to a key staff member owning shares in the E1Tejon Investment Co. The letter labels it Councilman Heisey's Investment Co. which is misleading and untrue. Mr. Heisey is a shareholder in the company along with numerous other parties. Mr. Bergen owned some shares in it for a period of time from May, 1973, to March, 1975. He did not own shares in the investment company at the time of the 1971 closure of Inyo Street nor does he own shares in it at the present time. And in any event it is a completely spurious question since there is no connection between the Tejon Investment Co. and the closure of Inyo Street, any more so than the closure of Sacramento Street, which was beneficial to the Pepsi Cola Co., which Mr. Christensen voted for, and his ownership of shares in the National Real Estate Fund or other funds in which he has an interest. Lastly, the letter requests to know what advice was given to the Council on these matters in 1972 and the Bank's appointment, by the City Attorney. The question is delusory. The question assumes that the facts and arguments put forth in the letter are valid when the contrary is true. The facts have been distorted and the law as applied is misplaced. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 24 147 Under. the circumstances, the only advice would have been is that which was done was proper. Nothing that has happened since has indicated any other course of action. In conclusion, it is the opinion of this office that any concern of the Council based upon the proceedings in 1971 or the letter of November 3, 1975, is unfounded. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Hoagland. Mr. Christensen. Christensen: Mr. Hoagland, is it true what the Californian printed that you didn't care to respond to the letter of November 5th which was mailed you, and I think you admit that in here because you say the November 3rd lacks merit for reasons set forth hereafter. Mayor Hart: Mr. Hoagland. Hoagland: Mr. Mayor, yes, that is true. If the Council wishes .... as the Council to the whole wishes me to respond to the November 5th letter, I shall be happy to do so. Now ..... Christensen: All right. I'd like very much to ask you-- I'm no lawyer and I don't plan to he a lawyer, and I'll admit that when I sought information in the City office I was misunderstood, anyhow the information came out wrong. I was wanting 18th because that's what I ran on was 18th and Truxtun. The other information was given me. Let's say it wasn't given to me inadvertently or let's say it was given to me inadvertently, it doesn't matter. I've apologized for that portion and that's the only portion that I apologize. I don't apologize for anything else, but you say that you do not care to answer these questions. I would like to ask you a few of them, accordingly, and in slightly revised and expanded form the questions on which I solicited your specific comments are as follows: Number 1. Was the 1971 Sandstone desire to remove an asserted obstruction to the full development of a new and modern plant any legal justification whatsoever for the City to make a gift to the Sandstone of the south one-half of Inyo at Truxtun? 14 5 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 25 see why You being a lawyer, I can readily see .... I can readily you would not want to answer that. Number 2 ..... Hoagland: Do you want me to answer that? Christensen: No, I want to go through every one of them. Number 2. Does the 1975 ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, a point of information, if I might:. Mayor Hart: Point of information, Mr. Christensen. It's a matter of personal privilege. Bleecker: So that the Council might better follow this continued garbage, would the Councilman acquiesce and give each member of this Council and the press and anybody else interested in this statement a copy of these statements he's making? Christensen: Well, I'm sorry you don't keep up with your literature. This was given to you in your box; and if it was removed by the City officials, that's another thing because I would like to ask certain ..... Bleecker: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. I'm going to look at my box. I haven't looked at it for the last couple days ..... Christensen: I was informed by the girls that all the literature in the box would be removed and put in the pouches. Mayor Hart: Please proceed Mr. Christensen; you have the floor. Christensen: for more space serve as any legal justification whatsoever for the City to now make a new gift to Sandstone of the north one-half of Inyo at 18th even in return for the narrow little alley which Sandstone so generously offers the City to take the place of the gift which Sandstone now seeks? I can readily understand why he would not want to answer that--a legal man. Number 3 ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor Hart: A Christensen. Please Number 2. Does the 1975 desire of Sandstone Mr. Mayor, a point of information, if I might. point of information; you can interrupt ..... go ahead. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 26 Bleecker: Mr. Christensen, did you put copies of--I hope you'll answer this question--copies of what you're saying there in the Councilman's boxes, in there in the Clerk's office? Christensen: If you would like to know who got copies, please listen carefully. Bleecker: Would you answer my question, Christensen: Mayor Hart: Bleecker: I Mayor Hart: please. Yes. Mr. Bleecker, ask him if he He's going to tell you who got copies, he's in the process. put them in the boxes in there ..... and I don't know where he put them. He may tell us if ..... Bleecker: He said he put them in the boxes, Mr. Mayor. Christensen: I want to inform you Mr. Bleecker ..... (unintelligible--three people talking at once) Christensen: I want to inform you ..... Mr. Bleecker ..... If you don't get a little more emotional ..... Bleecker: But I don't get any answers to my questions. Christensen: If you get real good emotional then I'll be able to answer you better. Mayor Hart: Let's wait just a moment here ..... Bleecker: Did any member of this Council get ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker, will you wait just a moment, Now I'm going to give this man a chance to answer your You want to know who ..... Bleecker: But he's not answering, Mr. Mayor. please. question. going to Mayor Hart: let him. Mr. Christensen: But he is going to try, and you're not Christensen would you please tell us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Thank you very much. I'd like to inform you that the letters were given to the following people: The Mayor and all Council members, the Kern County Grand Jury Chairman, the Kern County District Attorney:, the Bakersfield Californian, KERO, KBAK, and KJ-TV Channels. 150 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 27 Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, if I might. Mayor Hart: Please. Bleecker: I'm sorry Councilman; I misunderstood. I thought this was a new bunch of stuff that you're coming out with here. Is this your November 5th letter? Mayor Hart: Are these reference to? Isn't that right, Christensen: Whatever the letters that you have Mr. Christensen. The ..... letter your questioning was ..... Bleecker: Well, is it or is it not, Councilman? Is this your November 5th letter? Christensen: Is what my November 5th ..... Bleecker: What you're relating now to the City Attorney. Christensen: Certainly it is. Bleecker: Well, you can at least answer that question. Well then, Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that since Councilman Christensen saw fit to deliver his November 3rd letter to this Council at a public meeting, that any questions in the November 5tlh letter that were not delivered in such a manner--and I don't know that they should be allowed to be delivered now. We all have copies of them. I assume every Councilman has read them. I would move at this time that this Council take a vote as to whether or not the contents of the November 5th letter should be read again, in its entirety, to waste the time of this Council ..... Christensen: I want to point out to you, mister, it has never been read before the Council. Bleecker: ..... or should be read at this time. We all have copies of it. The City Attorney has copies of it; you have a copy of it; I have a copy of it ..... Christensen: It's with regret that you just informed me a moment ago that you did not have a copy of it. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 28 Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, I have to make a decision here. Please permit me to make it. Mr. Bleecker, you ask for a matter of personal privilege relative to the information that you have here. I'll not recognize the motion in as much as Mr. Christensen was speaking and has the floor and.you cannot interrupt him to make a motion unless it's a matter of personal privilege or' an attack upon you personally. I'll have to permit him to go ahead with his inquiry ..... Bleecker: Councilman, could you please attack me personally so that I can get on with what I'm trying to do here--somewhere down the line. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Please proceed, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: I have no desire to have you evaluated. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, please, if you will, proceed. We have gained nothing by this exchange. Christensen: Mayor Hart: Christensen:. So true. (unintelligible--two people talking at once) Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, thank you. In fact, it is my firm conviction that questions like this should be settled by the Council--or by the courts--and not by verbal barrage back and forth between non-legal men. Bleecker: Thank you. Mayor Hart: Please proceed with your questions. Christensen: Back to Number 2. Does the 1975 desire of Sandstone for more space serve as any legal justification whatsoever for the City to now make a new gift to Sandstone for the north one-half of Inyo at 18th ..... Rogers: Point of order, Mr. Mayor, and personal privilege ..... Christensen: ..... even in return for the narrow little alley which Sandstone so generously offers the City in place of the gift Sandstone now seeks. 152 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 29 You a point of information, and Mr. Rogers has asked you for one. sorry we didn't make it loud that you might hear it. Rogers: If I may, Mr. Christensen, just briefly. Mr. Hoagland very clearly, in his report, stated that, in his opinion, the lifting of the easement is not a gift to any company that owns the property adjacent to it. Mr. Mayor,! don't think it fair for Mr. Christensen to continue to ask Mr. Hoagland to answer a question about .... when it's phrased in the term of this gift, gift, gift. Now, he has made it very clear that his opinion is that it is not a gift. So ! think, in all fairness, that he should exclude that from his questions. Thank you. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Christensen, matter of phraseology. I leave it to your wisdom to proceed in whatever fashion you think best fits your situation. You have the floor, you do have a request from Mr. Rogers suggesting that you delete the word "gift" in as much as Mr. Hoagland's opinion has been that it was not a gift as such; but this is your presentation ..... Christensen: Well, I think the'courts should decide the word "gift." Mayor Hart: this is an assumption on my part; I'm not a legal mind either--that we should delete the word, perhaps, "gift," in the exchange or however phrase you want .... might attach to it. But as I say~ this Mayor Hart: I regret that I must interrupt you Mr. Christensen ...... Christensen: Number. 3 ..... Mayor Hart: ..... I'm sorry Chris. I must interrupt yon. can interrupt a speaker with the matter of personal privilege~ Well, until that time, I should assume only.-- is your presentation, Christensen: "gift" deleted in Mr. Mayor Hart: Bleecker: so will you please proceed. I would like very much to have the word Bleecker's report, all the way through. I think we are in the process ..... Mr. Mayor, I never used the word "gift" once. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 30 Mayor Hart: All right. Bleecker: Would you like to see my notes? This is a matter of personal privilege. I've finally been attacked, Mr. Mayor, and it gives me the opportunity to indicate to the Councilman from the Second Ward that the only time I ever used "gift," if I did, was in quoting something he said in one of his letters. Christensen: Now you said you never used it ..... Bleecker: If the Councilman's trying to befuddle the issue by indicating that I used the word "gift" .... If you'd like to call a recess, Mr. Mayor, he can go through all my notes here; and if the word "gift" is used, it's in reference to his own words. Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker, thank you ..... Bleecker: So I would like for the record to show that I did not use the word "gift" in my own words in any of the questions or statements that I made .... ~ Mayor Hart: Term of reference. Bleecker: ..... and that Mr. Christensen is erroneous in making that allegation. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Bleecker. Mr. Christensen, will you proceed please. Christensen: Your honor, I sincerely do not believe that any Councilman has a right to choose the words that another Councilman shall use. Mayor Hart: You're so correct. If you wish to exercise this ..... Christensen: I wish to exercise ..... Mayor Hart: It's only at the request or a wish by Councilman Rogers; and since you. don't see fit to abide by it, please proceed, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: All right. I'll start from the first again ..... Medders: Your honor, a point of inquiry. Mayor Hart: Point of inquiry. 1,54 Bakersfield,1 California, November lO, 1975 - Page 31 Medders: I want to know if Mr. Hoagland's on trial, and if he is, can he answer the questions that he wants to? Mayor Hart: Well, that's a point well taken. Mr. Christensen, however, wishes to read through the charges and at that time--or inquiries--at that time ask Mr. Hoagland to respond. I find it difficult to believe that he Will be able to retain it in its entirety unless he has a reference there in front of him. Do you have that Mr. Hoagland? The reference that Mr. Christensen is using in your inquiry? Hoagland: I have his letter of November $th. Mayor Hart: Thank you. So he will', then at that time, at Mr. Christensen's request, to the best of his ability, respond. Medders: Thank you. Mayor Hart: Please proceed, Mr. Christensen. Bleecker: A point of information, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: Then does the Councilman of the Second Ward indicate in that he is not going to say anything in this statement other than what he has said in his November 5th letter so that the City Attorney may be privy to his exact words and his exact request; because I'm going .... I'm not going to Mote .... I don't think ..... Christensen: That's good. Bleecker: .... for the City Attorney to be instructed by this Council to answer these questions. So it may be a moot question anyway. In fact, I may make that motion later on, particularly if the Councilman from the Second Ward strays one iota from the contents of that November 5th letter ..... Mayor Hart: Thank you. Bleecker: ..... in these so called questions he's asking the City Attorney at this point. Mayor Hart: Thank you. if you will sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Please proceed, Mr. Christensen:. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 32 Christensen: definition of one iota? Mayor Hart: Well, as requested ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, tiny bit. Mayor Hart: Christensen: Mayor Hart: presentation. Christensen: Right. be upset. I didn't start this; So that I might not err, may I have your I think he wants it word-for-word, that means not even just a little Okay. Could I please read between words? Well, I urge you to please go ahead with the I don't think Mr. Rogers needs to I was reading this when I was interrupted by one of Mr. Rogers' friends ..... Mayor Hart: Let's proceed. Christensen: Number 3. If there is no present nor prospective need or use for the north one-half of Inyo at 18th, what need is there for the little replacement alley which Sandstone is so generously offering? Number 4. If the City gives poor little Sandstone the north half of Inyo at 18th and accepts the narrow little alley in return who will be responsible for the future maintenance of the little alley? Number 5. Will the little alley be a public alley to be owned by the City and maintainedin perpetuity by the City or will this be a little private Sandstone alley? Number 6. Does the resolution now before the Council or anything else impose any enforceable duty on Sandstone to maintain the little alley in perpetuity? Number 7. Does a little alley for an existing fully improved full-dimension City street strike you as a fair exchange for the taxpayers of this City? I can readily see why the Attorney didn't choose to answer them. Number 8. In 1971 ..... 156 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 33 Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, a point of authority here ..... (unintelligible--two people talking at once) Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, a point of information. Mr. Christensen. Bteecker: Mr. Mayor, that is exactly what I was talking about. He is not reading from his text; he is making these asides which are intended to embarrass and malign the City Attorney, and I will not stand for it. Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker, what do you propose to do? Bleecker: I propose, Mr. Mayor, that it is your duty as the presiding officer of this meeting, according to Mason's rules, that these members of this Council are not suppose to malign the City staff by these asides. Mayor Hart: Let there be no innuendoes, no maligning of characters--and he's right--Under the circumstances, you must discontinue opinions as to the conduct of the office of the persons whom are the administration. Christensen: Honorable Mayor, you are a very honest man .... Mayor Hart: You better believe it. Christensen: ..... and I would like for you to reprimand the things--the very things that Mr. Medders set forth in his statement to begin with. Mayor Hart: Well, I think that we are speaking here now in reference to the persons on the staff, in references to personalities and ..... Christensen: Oh, it doesn't apply to Councilman. Mayor Hart: Well, the Councilman may make an exchange and, as you know, you have an exemption that you're not held responsible for any charges you might make--you make in here. Now if you feel that there is a personal abuse, then I will rule on that. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor-~--- Mayor Hart: One .... please .... one moment. Bleecker: Excuse me. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 34 1;37 Christensen: I think it's definitely personal abuse if one Councilman has the right to make statements against another Councilman and the other Councilman cannot retaliate in kind. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Whoa---Whoa---Just a minute. Let me continue to preside here. Now, I'll give everybody a turn to be heard. Mr. Christensen, as I pointed out in many instances, a matter of personal privilege .... you can interrupt any speaker and when you seize that opportunity, you say to me, "A matter of personal privilege," and you will tell me what you're objecting to; and at that time, if it is out of order, I will tell the person that is making the statement that it is a matter of order that you find objection to it, and I agree with him; but it is called "a matter of personal order," and that is how you gain the attention of the chair to protest a statement. Now, as a "matter of order" here, Mr.--the Vice Mayor has brought to our attention that he feels that it is an attack upon personnel of the administration of the City, and his point is taken. Now, I must ask you, Mr. Christensen, as a matter of form if you will please, I can find nothing there that says that you must adhere specifically to the statement that you have there before you. However, if you are going to ask the questions relative to that that you want our counsel to answer, I ask you to please, if you will, please, to refer to your notes that you do have there, that we might refer to them in making the decision that you seek. All right, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: Did I understand that you say that I can't correct to it to ..... Mayor Hart: You can do anything you want with that statement as long as you find that there is not an attack on the personality of those people. If you want to change the phraseology there, make it a note in the margin, if you will, so that we can correct ours. There is no way that they are going to restrict your debate here as long as I preside. As long as you remain within this code that we have established here. 15,5 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 35 Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, there's no attempt been made to restrict ..... Mayor Hart: I appreciate that, but I'm telling you that there will none be made ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, could I indicate why I brought that up ..... Mayor Hart: Yes, in just a moment. from Mr. Christensen. I've ask him for one. Bleecker: All right. Mayor Hart: Is that acceptable, Mr. have to abide by it because that's the way Christensen: All right. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Vice-Mayor. Let me get a response Christensen? We'll I want it, in presiding. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, the reason why I brought that up is very fundamental in public meetings, particularly of this type, where staff who are employees of the City of Bakersfield are involved. Mayor Hart: Right. Bleecker: A Councilman has every opportunity during or after a statement made by another Councilman to challenge anything that Councilman has said, according to these rules. Councilman Christensen chose not to do so. However, where members of the staff are involved, where they are employees of this Council, particularly the City Manager and the City Attorney, it cannot be tolerated that one Councilman will make disparaging remarks personally as to the motives, or whatever, of any member of the staff. It cannot be tolerated because they do not have the opportunity, as an employee of the City, to respond to these allegations, and that's the reason for it. Mayor Hart: I find that excellent reasoning, and it is the rationale that we'll abide by here. Mr. Medders did you have something you wished to add or shall we proceed? Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 36 me, not what he is. Mayor Hart: Christensen: Medders: it's all right with me. No, if he has something he wants to say about I was talking about what he said, All right. Number 8. Please proceed, Mr. Christensen. In 1971, would it have been lawful for the City Council, with Mr. Heisey sitting thereon but not voting, to enter into a contract to sell the south one-half of Inyo at Truxtun to Mr. Heisey's company? Number 9. In 1971, was it lawful for the Council, with Mr. Heisey sitting as a member of the Council, but abstaining, to make a gift of the south one-half of Inyo at Truxtun to Mr. Heisey's company? Number 10. Does the Government Code Section 1090 prohibition regarding conflicts of interest apply to contracts and/or sale of City property to the companies of City officials but not to gifts of City property to companies of City officials? Number 11. What ethical and/or legal significance, if any, does your office give to former Councilman Heisey's procurement of the Planning Commission appointment of Mr. Banks, an apparent executive employee of Mr. Heisey's company and the Planning Commission's subsequent recommendation, with Mr. Banks sitting but abstaining, that the Council now make a new and additional City street gift in return for a narrow little alley? And, Number 12. The last one. What ethical and/or legal significance does your office attach to the fact that the City Manager is an investor in one of Mr. Heisey's companies head- quartered at the Sandstone facilities that would benefit if the requested street gift is granted? Those were the questions I had in the November 5th letter directed to Mr. Hoagland; and at this time, now, I would like very much to make my report that I asked to, and as soon as I finish, I'll pass a copy out to each one of you so that it will be read-- as no doubt Mr. Bleecker would want. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 37 City Council Attention: Right Honorable Don M. Hart, Mayor Subject: "Local Control It Should Operate at the Highest Ethical Level" Gentlemen: Several months ago a well entrenched incumbent on this Council, whose candidacy for re-election had no opposition on the printed ballot, suffered a landslide defeat by a last minute write-in candidate who campaigned vigorously against con- flicts of interest in local officialdom. Key issues in that campaign were the investment of City Manager Bergen in one of Councilman Heisey's companies, and a gift of a portion of the city street to one of Mr. Heisey's companies. I was pleased to learn within the past week that City Manager Bergen apparently had the good judgment to understand the message of voters in their overwhelming rejection of that former Councilman. I compliment his sound, though belated, judgment Bleecker: before ..... Mr. Mayor, I bring up the same point I did (unintelligible--two people talking at once) Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, point of personal information request. I'm sorry; we have to honor it. Mr. Vice-Mayor Bleecker. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, the Councilman from the Second Ward is doing the same thing again in that he is impuning certain--- or proposing certain reasons why the City Manager did this or that. and it has to do with the staff. I feel what he saying is erroneous; and it is impossible, in the spirit of debate, for the City Manager to attack, at this public meeting, what the Councilman is saying. It's the same point I brought up before, and he should not be allowed to continue in that vein. If he wants to call me a dirty s.o.b., I don't give a damn; but he cannot, according to these rules, attack a member of the staff in that manner. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, the point is taken properly'. A member of the staff ..... Christensen: I would like to know if and when I called anybody an s.o.b.; I would like for you to prove it. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 38 ]61 Mayor Hart: It was a personal reference to what you ..... Christensen: And I want you to stand up so the crowd can see you so you can prove it .... prove it. Mayor Hart: I declare a brief recess. The Council recessed at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M. Mayor Hart: We'll reconvene. Councilman Christensen, I ask that you proceed, please, without the personal references to the staff, if you will.- .... Mr. Christensen, will you proceed, then, please. Thank you. Christensen: Just a moment. When the City records turned up "blank," that's your tapes, and when those who were embarrassed by the facts started striking back at me in tirades of vilification and righteous indignation and realization came even clearer to me that I had indeed touched a sensitive exposed nerve. My thoughts then largely turned away from Inyo Street to the broad and fundamentally important issues of which Inyo Street question is but a convenient example. As I see it that broad and fundamentally important question has to do with what is to be the ethical quality of local control of our local government. I pose the question thusly: If local control by local government is to hold the line or even turn the tide against state and federal control from Sacramento and Washington, D.C., is it not essential that local government display to the voters the highest possible ethical standard, or at least ethical standards of conduct far above the level which the voters see in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., politics? Because local government can be the closest to the people I philosophically prefer local government over Sacramento and Washington, D.C. But the assumption that local government is closer to and more responsive to the people becomes nothing more than fraudulent fiction whenever a local government is nothing more than a convenient tool under the dominating influence of powerful local special interest. When investment companies of City Councilmen quietly take in key city staff as investors, when employees of a councilman's ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, I make the same objection again because during this discussion it was indicated, and the Councilman has indicated in the statements he made in the newspaper that he's 162 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 39 referring to the City Manager, and I think his remarks are inappropriate and are meant to demean the City Manager, and I think they should not be allowed to continue making those types of remarks. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, please, proceed if you can, then .... well sir .... then we'll accept the fact that Mr. Hoagla.nd's responded relative to Mr. Bergen's investment there. We're aware of whom you indicate, so if you can, will you proceed without the reference. Christensen: Specifically, I suggest and urge that the time is ripe for this Council to enact a comprehensive set of ethical standards for our City Government which might hopefully come to serve as a model for local governmental entities throughout this State of California. I specifically urge that this Council authorize the Mayor to appoint a non- partisan broad-based Citizen's Committee to study and recommend to this Council a comprehensive "Code of Ethics for Local Government." I would hope that active leaders from all segments, races and cultural groups of the City would be represented on such a committee. Perhaps one of our local Superior Court judges would be willing to assume chairmanship of such a committee. Certainly the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor, the local NAACP, a leading Mexican-American organization, the ministry and our educators could be meaningfully represented on such a committee. I would urge such a committee to fully consider the advisability of "disclosure" requirements more comprehensive and detailed than those provided in the recently enacted Proposition 9 Initiative. I think we need conflict of interest standards more pervasive and detailed than those set forth in Section 1090 of the Government Code and other existing state statutes. I would urge such a committee to take a close look at what rules and standards might tend to give this City higher quality commission members devoid of selfish or biased temptations. I' have one other urgent specific recommendation. It is that this Council instruct the staff to at once prepare and submit to the Council a proposed local ordinance establishing procedures and criterias for all future street abandonment requests. I urge that such ordinances be con- siderably more comprehensive than existing laws set forth in the Streets and Highways Code. It should include requirements that any applicant for a street closing present detailed proof that there is no present nor prospective need for the street; that the interest of the public at large, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 40 as distinguished from only the interest of the applicant, will be promoted by the proposed closure. The applicant's request should include a statement as to the fair market value of the street easement and it should be accompanied by a cash offer to pay said value. Such an ordinance should require that copies of the application, with an attached map, should be personally mailed to a specified area of residents and business establishments within close proximity to the subject street. It is essential that we strive to improve the quality of local government because if local government is to hold the line or reverse the tide of outside control, local government must earn greater respect from the local citizenry. If not now, then when embarrassment, anger, fear and resultant righteous indignation has calmed and receded from the Inyo Street battle, I hope that this Council will see fit to act affirmatively upon these recommendations. I now yield the floor and the eager Inyo Street combatants ..... Bleecker: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: Does the Councilman from the Second Ward just make a motion? Mayor Hart: No, not as yet--a recommendation only. Please proceed Mr. Christensen. Bleecker: He said something about acting affirmatively on something. Mayor Hart: Do you yield the floor, Mr. Christensen? Christensen: I so yield ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Barton, please. Christensen: Yes, yes, you bet. Mayor Hart: Mr. Barton. Barton: I had a number of questions, being that we have started a court proceedings in the Council Chambers with any prosecuting attorneys and everything else. I've got some questions I'd like to ask of the staff in regards to some of the statements that have been made by other Councilmen and by staff. My first question, Mr. Hoagland, please. 164 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 41 Mayor Hart: Mr. Hoagland, please. Mr. Barton has a question of you. Barton: The question come up about gifts. Mr. Hoagland, during the condemnation proceedings where property is acquired through eminent domain, would the property acquired .... would that then become a deeded property to the City of Bakersfield? For street purposes, Councilman? If it was a street or vacant lot or whatever Hoagland: Barton: else to deed. Hoagland: When we have, Mr. Hayer, if I may respond. Mayor Hart: Please. Hoagland: When we have a street widening, such as on "Q" Street, whether it's by negotiation or condemnation, what we get is a street right-of-way. We do not get a deed to the property. The property always remains in the ownership of the person who owns the property adjacent to the street. We get the street right-of-way, and it remains on there until such time as the street is no longer considered necessary. Barton: If the street and ..... Hoagland: And when it's abandoned, it does go free of any encumberments to the adjacent property owner. Barton: Even if a ..... Mayor Hart: Councilman Barton, would you move the mike just a little closer so we can hear you. Barton: I'm sorry. If the a .... my point was that, for example, in a street project, one owner does not deed a right-of- way .... dedicate ..... Hoagland: He will deed a right-of-way, which is an easement over the property. It's not the fee itself. The owner ..... Barton: If he does not do this, then we go through the condemnation procedures. Does that change the .... then do we actually become the property owner? Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 42 Hoagland: Barton: Hoagland: No sir. Even through condemnation procedures? No sir. Barton: Okay. This would .... this doesn't work. Only on streets is where it goes on a fee basis. Property .... we went through a condemnation procedure for the police building site. Hoagland: Yes sir. We .... that would be on a fee basis. Where we do not take the fee is only in the streets and alleys and when we have subdivisions, for example, they dedicate those streets for right-of-ways, but they do not dedicate the underlying fee. Of course, when the City accepts it, it accepts it for all time until such time as they might wish to abandon it. Barton: Was this particular street in question--was it a dedication or through condemnation? Hoagland: It's a--it was through dedication on a subdivision way back when. Barton: You have searched this out, then you know it is a dedication? Hoagland: Yes sir. Barton: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to take any more time to do .... I'm .... feel a little bit disturbed that we had .... we've had more less of a trial here tonight of one Councilman. I believe it has lessened the dignity of this Council, and I won't continue anymore questions in regard to it. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Barton. Rogers: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rogers, please. First of all, I'd like to make a motion--and then I don't yield the floor--then I've got another comment to make after this motion, whether it passes or not. But, first of all, since Councilman Christensen sent copies of his November 3rd letter and November 5th letter to the Foreman of the Kern County District Attorney, I think report and opinion be sent Mr. Mayor. Grand Jury and also to the Kern County it only fair that a copy of Mr. Hoagland's to the same places, and I so move, 166 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 43 Mayor Hart: We have a motion ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, I would make a substitute motion. Mayor Hart: Substitute motion. Bleecker: In that not only should a copy of Mr. Hoagland's written response be sent to the Grand Jury and to the District Attorney's office, but a copy of these entire proceedings should accompany that also. Rogers: If I may respond, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: All right. Rogers: I think that's a good idea. I certainly accept that part of it; but, also, I would like to include the--a copy of Mr. Dale Hawley's report, too, which gives a chronology of the segments of Inyo Street. So if we can incorporate all those items into the motion, I would accept ..... Mayor Hart: I see no problem over that inasmuch as Mr. Hoagland's response was read into the record as well as Mr. Hawley's presentation and for exact reference we can incorporate reports in with .... as Vice Mayor's suggested in his substitute motion. For the minutes of the procedures, we have the substitute motion with the acceptance and the addition of Mr. Hawley's report. I'll ask that all persons in favor of that signify by saying "Aye." Council: Aye. Mayor Hart: Those persons opposed. (This motion was unanimously approved) Mayor Hart: Hearing no objections, so ordered. You still have the floor, Mr. Rogers. Rogers: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, the way you conduct these meetings is more than fair; however, my patience is just about exhausted on this particular item. Some of the accusations and innuendoes are, I think, as Councilman Barton says, are very much beneath the dignity of the Council; and I for one want no part of them. I think the critical issue here, tonight, is not whether or not we are going to close a portion of Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 44 167 Inyo Street, but whether or not we are going to continue to allow this Council Chamber to be used, and you Mr. Mayor, to be converted into a court of law. Now, we are not qualified and we are not set up to be a court of law. Christensen: Amen. Rogers: They've got court rooms across the street for this particular purpose, and anytime issues such as this come up, that we've debated tonight, I think that we should stop it immediately and refer the person--whoever brings it up--to take it across the street where it belongs. I suspect though, Mr. Mayor, one reason why it isn't done is because the people that bring these issues up know that they will not prevail across the street in a court of law, so they bring them over here and subject us to this waste of time. So I think that the Council should keep this in mind, and when these things come up again, let's put a stop to it before we waste an awful lot of valuable time and get on with what we were elected for and that to attend to the City's business. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Bleecker: Mayor Hart: Medders: I pushed it for me. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Bleecker, please. I pass, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Medders, please. really shouldn't have one down unless somebody No, that was a little earlier, and I perhaps neglected to release it. Mr. Sceales, please. Sceales: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to compliment Mr. Hawley and Mr. Hoagland for a report very well done. I think that the report answered, as far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, I think it also answered the letters of Mr. Christensen's ..... letter dated November the 5th. I think when the City staff or when they do a good job, I think they ought to be complimented, and I think you have done an excellent job this time. It certainly has clarified a lot of things that I had sincere questions about. Again, I want to compliment you. Thank you. Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 45 Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Sceales. Mr. Barton, please. Barton: My remark in regards to this Chambers turning into a court of law .... I was referring to the fact that we sat here tonight and, in some respect, trying not only a Council member, but there was accusations flowing backwards and forwards. I think it's the privilege and right of any Councilman on this floor to have answers to his questions, and I think this is a right that we are all entitled to. I would like to just make one comment in regards to Councilman Christensen's last letter, dated November loth, the one that we have just received. I believe it has .... the last portion of it where his request was for a committee by the Mayor to be appointed .... has merit. I believe that, and I would so encourage Mr. Christensen to make a motion to that effect, and I would support it. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Barton. Mr. Strong. Strong: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I certainly don't plan to prolong the proceedings. I've been somewhat amused and somewhat distressed at what's taken place, especially in terms of what my original question was. I'd like to compliment Mr. Hoagland on his report and also Mr. Hawley on his chronology; but they both raised another question in my mind in that the--Mr. Hoagland's report-- in my mind, doesn't really ask--rather answer--or address what it was that I wanted to know. Maybe it's just that I'm a little difficult to get to. I wasn't concerned, from the beginning, whether or not I should be concerned about what took place in 1971. ! had asked the question whether or not those proceedings were legal and the answer came back, you shouldn't be concerned about whether they are legal or not. this Council wants to accept, proceedings were legal or not, Now, if that's the question that instead of whether or not the then so be it. I take no issue witlh the fact that it has been blown completely out of proportion. The other thing is--that I think should be clarified-- and I'm a little foggy on it, that I've only been on the Council Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 46 the last 2½ to 3 years. Mr. Hawley's chronology goes back to 1967, and he cites as various exhibits the actual correspondence which apparently existed between the City and various other entities, such as the railroad. It was my understanding that Councilman Christensen wanted to hear, for himself, the level of participation of the various people involved. So he came into the Manager's office and he asked for the tapes of these proceedings; and they are taped; and I assumed that they are taped so as to provide a permanent record so as to remove from the staff that possibility of making an error or misquoting somebody; and that he was told that the tape of the 1971 proceeding had been destroyed. Then he proceeded to ask for the tape of the Planning Commission meeting which took place a few months ago and he was told that that tape had nothing on it. Now, if it is the policy of the Council and the staff, or whoever it is that makes the policy in regards to what's; destroyed and what isn't, and what's kept as a matter of record and what isn't, that the tapes of various issues or various meetings are destroyed after a certain length of time, I'd like to know about it; and if so, if that is set down in writing, by the staff, I'd like some reference to it. It strikes me as being a little strange, no matter how vehement some of these attacks are, that these tapes which deal with this matter have been destroyed or something has happened to the person who was taping the sessions, and they didn't know what they were doing, and that no mention should be made that these tapes have no record. I, for one, when I pay to go to a movie, I don't want somebody sitting there telling me about it; and I, for one, would like very much to hear these tapes so that I can determine, for myself, the level of partici- pation. Again, if it is the policy of the Council, if it is the written policy of the staff to destroy certain tapes I'd like to have that policy told to me now or shown to me now so that I'll know in the future that, four or five months after this meeting is over, they will have destroyed this tape; and I would offer that tapes of this sort must be pretty long. So, Mr. Mayor, if 170 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 47 I may ask one of the staff or any Council member for some response to that particular question. I don't know who is most qualified to answer. Mayor Hart: I think Mr. Hoagland would be the logical person, our counsel. Mr. Boagland would you want to respond .... all right, Mr. Bergen then, if you will. City Manager Bergen: I was going to ask Mr. Buell to respond to that because we have looked into this specifically and he has researched this for our records. Mayor Hart: Mr. Buell. City Manager Bergen: I'd ask Mr. Buell to respond to the comments there of Mr. Strong. Assistant City Manager Buell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Mr. Strong. I think two things need to be stated; first, of all, the tape recordings of these meetings are not the official record--they are used as an aid in preparing the minutes, which you approve and which become the official records of the Council; secondly, I'd like to quote the policy as laid down by the City Council. It's excerpts of the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on October 4, 1954: "Previous action of Council at meeting of September 27, 1954 rescinded, and proceedings of Council Meeting to be tape recorded. It was moved by Croes, seconded by Sullivan, that the previous action of the Council taken at meeting of September 27, 1954, be rescinded and that the proceedings of the Council meetings be tape recorded, with tapes to be preserved for a period of six months. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Carnakis, Croes, Schweitzer, Sullivan, Noes: Eveleth, Vest Absent: Collins" That's the policy that the City Clerk's office is currently operating under. Mayor Hart: Mr. Strong, are there other questions? Strong: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor .... I would ..... Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 48 171 Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, I would like to respond to some remarks and questions on ..... Strong: Just one second ..... Just one second. Mayor Hart: Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Buell. Strong: I .... if I may, I would like to ask Mr. Hoagland if he would like to respond to his last paragraph in his statement as to whether or not that means that the proceeding was legal, as to whether or not it was not legal ok like he says, the Council shouldn't be concerned with it. Mayor Hart: Mr. Hoagland, please. Hoagland: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Strong, I guess I should have said that. I thought that when I said, "under the circumstances," this was a question relating to my advice, and I had indicated that under the circumstances the only advice would have been--is that which was done was proper. But I'll say it for the record. From what I have investigated and found out, the closing in 1971 was perfectly legal. Strong: I have no further questions. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Strong. Mr. Bleecker, please. Bleecker: That's what I was going to remark on, Mr. Mayor, because it indicated, to me, even though the word legal may not have been used, that that's what the City Attorney was indicating. Also, I wouldn't think that there would be any doubt in anybody's mind, at this point, either on this Council or in the audience or whatever may show up in the Californian tomorrow, that the Clerk's office, not the staff, the staff doesn't pick which tapes are destroyed after six months--nobody does that--the staff cannot be put into that position of picking which tapes to save and which ones to keep part of and which ones to destroy. The Council policy as was set--and I had the same inquiry as Councilman Strong had on the same subject and I talked to the City Manager about it this afternoon about a quarter of five--is exactly what Mr. Buell read, that after six months then the tapes are used over again, and when 172 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 49 they get worn out, they are thrown away. Now, that's the policy and nobody is ever selective as to which tapes are kept and which are not kept. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Christensen, please .... Mr. Christensen, please .... you had a light on, sir. Christensen: A long time ago. Forget it. Mayor Hart: Thank you. I'm sorry. All right--shall we then proceed to the Council Action items, please. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1766 to 1851, inclusive, in the amount of $349,559.38. (b) Claim for Damages from Rhodes Appliance, 1815 Baker Street. (Refer to City Attorney) (c) Claim for Damages from James B. French and Jean C. French, 3201 Candlewood Drive. (Refer to City Attorney) (d)Plans and Specifications for construction of new patio for the Civic Auditorium. (e) Extension of Time for construction of Patriots Park Softball and Game Court Lighting - Contract No. 75-75 with Smith Electric Supply. 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: Councilmen Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton None None Ayes: Noes: Absent: Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Three Way' Chevrolet for six trucks for Public Works Department, and all other bids rejected. was accepted Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 50 Upon a motion by.Councilman Medders, authorization was granted to California Improvement Company to withdraw their bid for the new Police Building Vehicle Service Building; and low bid of Fred S. Macomber for construction of.new Police Building Vehicle Service Building, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Construction Change Order with Fred S. Macomber reducing the cost of the new Police Building Vehicle Service Building project by $12,177.00, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same; and Budget Transfer from the Federal Revenue Sharing Contingency Fund No. 56-510-6100 to the Vehicle Service Building Account No. 56-620-9200 in the amount of $15,210.00, was approved. Councilman Strong voted in the negative on this motion. New Business. Approval of Sale of Surplus Fire Alarm Boxes. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, sale of surplus Fire Alarm Boxes, was approved. Hearings. Hearings concerning the Noise Element and Seismic Safety Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, were continued earlier in the Council meeting until November 17, 1975. City Manager Bergen stated that the communication from Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc., requesting a rate revision for refuse collection will not require Council action until next budget deliberations and it may be just prior to that time before the staff makes a recommendation. City Manager Bergen stated that due to a legal holiday this week, and the length of the debate tonight, the Council Meeting minutes may be late. 174 Bakersfield, California, November 10, 1975 - Page 51 Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. MA o~of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CITY f erk of the Council of th~ City of BakerSfield, California ma Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 175 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., November 17, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mr. Lincoln Slaughter, 4th Ward High Priests Group Leader, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints. Present: Absent: The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker None Scheduled Public Statements. Mrs. Denise Oxford, 508 - 18th Street, addressed the Council regarding the Camp Fire Girls Annual Candy Sale and several Camp Fire Girls presented the Mayor and Council with boxes of candy. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, communication from the Kern County Public Works Department and Surveyor, dated October 13, 1975, regarding Kern County Solid Waste Management Plan, was received and referred to the staff for study and report back to the Council in time to make a recommendation to the County. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, communication from Bakersfield Airpark, Inc., dated November 5, 1975, requesting that the City accept the dedication of a runway, was received and referred to the Community Development Department for study and recommendation. A communication was received from the Kern Energy Education Program, dated November 13, 1975, inviting the Mayor and Council to attend a meeting in Sacramento on Wednesday, December 3, 1975, regarding nuclear energy. Council Statements. The following is a verbatim transcript of a statement made by Councilman Christensen regarding City Business Licenses: 17(; Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 2 Christensen: I have a problem I'd like to state direct]Ly to the City Manager. I regret that last week I received a phone call from one of the staff of the City, and he asked me what I did outside of being on the City Council; and I said I was 90% retired and that I sold, once in a while, a little bit of life insurance, that I was insured for it, and that I sold securities. He said, are you licensed for securities? I said, yes, I am. I hold a mutual fund license; but, I said, it's regrettable, I said, this year I have sold no mutual fund stocks whatsoever because, number one, I ran for the office and was busy, and number two, I had a heart attack, and number three, I haven't sold anything. I said, why do you ask? He said, well, he says, do you have a license from the City? I said, no, I said, I don't have any license, to my knowledge you don't need a license. He said, no, you don't need one for insurance, but, he said, your principal needs one for a-- securities. And I said, go after them. I said, you mean to tell me that I need a license for securities in the City of Bakersfield when I haven't sold any securities in the City of Bakersfield? Well, he said, we made an application for you. I said, why did you make the application7 He said, well, he says, we do that every now and then; he says, we make applications for people. So I hope none of you people out there have a license in your pocket for securities or insurance or a driver's license because the City is very apt to mail you a application. In the first place, I'm very much disturbed, Mr. Bergen, and I want you to know it. And I'm eyeballing you; I'd like for you to look at me. That's good. I would like very much .... I do not want to persecute the man that phoned me up because I think he's basically a very honest City employee. And if I name him, you probably know who he is, and I probably might as well name him, Mr. Frank Casey, but ask him. But he refused to let me know .... I said, why didn't you ask met I said, why, why be sneaky about it and why can't I know. I'm an elected City official; I should Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 3 177 know who the request was from. And, he says, I can't reveal it. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, point of order. Let the record show that the Councilman from the Second Ward accused a member of the City staff of being sneaky about something; and it's demeaning to a member of the sne .... of the City staff and that if that member of the City staff would care to come down here and get on that microphone, he has every right to refute that remark made by the Councilman from the Second Ward because he has not been heard and this is the opinion of one Councilman about a bunch of hearsay that he had over the telephone. Mayor Hart: All right. Christensen: All right. Mayor Hart: Please proceed, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: I did not refer to Mr. Casey as being sneaky. I referred to whoever did it .... was sneaky. I revealed his name. I told you that he was a very honorable man and what I hate to see is to see ..... Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Mayor Hart: Point of information. Bleecker: Would the Clerk please read back to the Councilman's statement in regard to sneaky? In reference to Mr. Casey in the Finance Department. Mayor Hart: If you can .... do you have access to that in shorthand or is it coming back off the tape? Assistant City Clerk Anderson: We'll have to back up the tape and replay it out loud, if you want. tape, Mr. statement Christensen: Mayor Hart: Christensen, I cannot hear you. She said that you would have to back up the and play it to get the replay of the as it was made. Rogers: Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: I have a point Rogers, before we proceed on this. that I want to make, Mr. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 4 As I've told most of you in the past, and on one occasion particularly, there is a phrase used calling "abuse of the privilege of the house;" and this is now in the process of being exercised. I think that when you find that this body is convened for the purpose of doing the business of the City, as such, that it is an abuse upon the privilege of the body when it gets into a debate in an exchange of--in heated tones--if you accept that expression; and I find, presiding as Chairman, that this is an abuse of the privilege of the house; and we will either cease and desist this now, or I will request a motion from a member of this Council that this debate cease and desist and we proceed to another item; and we will put it into effect in that fashion. Now, I don't want to do that. I have not done that in the six years that I've presided in this chair, but we can only go so far on these continued dissertation and angry exchanges by penalizing the rest of this group and those persons that are here for the express purpose of witnessing government in effort and effect. Also, under the privileges of the chair, it is my position that I might designate what is in good taste and what is not in good taste in this Chamber relative to demeaning an official or an employe~ and the Brown Act is so constructed that if there should be some charge made against an employee of this City we can convene then in Star Chamber Session and debate and determine what this Council will do. I don't want to ask for that under the circumstance, either. I would prefer to go ahead with this and stop the exchanges that demean one person or his position or his job. A qualification on the explanation of Mr. Christensen's problem I can accept. Mr. Christensen, phraseology that you use. Now, not the position of this chair in any fashion or any sense so of I ask that you refrain from some of the while I'm on this subject, it is to limit debate or restrict debate long as it bears upon the problems this City. But we're not going to permit continued excesses Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 179 in the way of debate and exchanges that have no bearing on anything other than what some persons may feel are vitally important but we find that there's not a chance for rebuttal or an exchange of ideas in a moderate tone of voice and in a regular fashion. Now, I didn't intend to make a speech, but I want you to know where I stand on this situation. Last week we had a situation where one of the employees, serving at the pleasure of this Council, was cited by name, in several instances, and finally we stopped that. I'm not going to permit it to go about again because, here again, exercising the wisdom of the chair--if you can call it that under the circumstances-- we can go into Star Chamber Session if we have a problem or if the person wants to be heard publicly in opposition to this situation. Now, I suggest that we get on what we must do. I asked Mr. Christensen to go ahead with what you have to offer, sir', please, in a fashion that you would like to be talked about in the eventualtry that you were the employee and the Council was bringing ..... Christensen: Thank you, your honor. Thank you, your honor. Your points are well taken and very meaningful, and I appreciate them and I hope they can be conformed to. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Christensen: I want to point that I do not think it's right, number one, for an elected official of the City of Bakersfield to be denied information by the staff, when personally requested. Number two, I resent the top echelon from choosing a subordinate down the field to use as a battering ram to carry out the things that they should have ask me directly. I hope that is very, very clear to Mr. Bergen. Thank you. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Rogers--you have something to say. Rogers: Yes, thank you, Mr. my desire Christensen. We have Mr. Mayor. Of course it is not to restrict freedom of debate on the Council, either. 180 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 6 But, i think it should be pointed out that it is not the Finance Department that requires a City license, but it's an Ordinance of the City that requires it. And, I don't think that anyone, if they are in a business that requires a Business License from the City, whether they are elected or unelected has nothing to do with it. And just being elected does not exempt any of us from the require- ment of a City License. And I don't think we should even consider that. Mr. Mayor, I'm just about .... my patience is about exhausted too. Every Monday night it seems like it's open season on the staff here, and I don't think it's fair. Now, you can disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you very much. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Bleecker, please. Bleecker: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since .... since the Councilman from the Second Ward brought up the question about the Business License, himself, I would like to ask him a few questions; and I hope that he might answer those questions succinctly, and yes or no perhaps, if he feels he can. Councilman, how many .... how many years was your company doing business in the City of Bakersfield without a license? Christensen: That you would have to write and ask them. If you would like to know, I operated here, in this City of Bakersfield, and my principal have the license and so forth; and when I left them, I changed to another company, and you would have to find out whether they were licensed or whether they are not licensed from the home office in San Francisco; and I do not need a license--the principal does. Bleecker: Well a ..... Christensen: If you want the principal to get a license, I'd be very happy to help you in it. If I wanted one, but I'm not sure I want a license because I'm retired, and the filing for an application is up to me not up to the City. Thank you. Bleecker: Now, Mr. Mayor, I have another question. Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Bleecker. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 7 Bleecker: Is it not true, Mr. Christensen .... I mean, since you brought this subject up yourself, and I want the Council to realize that no other Councilman brought it up .... that you are the representative of a certain firm that sells securities in the City of Bakersfield and that you have sold those securities for a number of years in the City of Bakersfield. Is that not true? Christensen: That is not true. Bleecker: You do not represent a firm that sells securities in the City of Bakersfield7 Christensen: I represent a firm, but I haven't sold any' to my knowledge. Bleecker: You have not sold any securities? Christensen: No. Bleecker: Then let the record show, Mr. Mayor, that whether a firm sells securities or not, in the City of Bakersfield[, if they are represented with a bonafide representative, which I assume that the Councilman from the Second Ward was, and that he is their only representative so far as anybody knows in this City of Bakersfield, and since that business is run .... had been run in the past years from his home, that it makes no difference where the business is, that if it is the type of business that should have license to do business in the City of Bakersfield--which this is, because I've looked into this myself, and I wasn't going to bring it up myself, but since the Councilman tries to make the staff look bad, for some reason or another, I felt it important that the facts be known .... that the type of business that he represents, whether he sells or not, does require a license, that it has required a license probably for a number of years, and that the firm that the Councilman represents has not--has never had a license in the City of Bakersfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Sceales, please. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 8 Seeales: Mr. Mayor, I'm tired of this whole subject, and if you need a motion to move on to the next item on the agenda, I'm certainly willing to make that motion. Mayor Hart: Well--we could, by the will of this Council, do just that; and if you put that in the form of a motion, I'll act on it ..... Sceales: Mr. Mayor, I put that in the form of a motion. Mayor Hart: We do have the motion, by Councilman Sceales, that we conclude any further pursuit of Council Statements and move on to Reports. Please call the roll, Mrs. Anderson. Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: None Mayor Hart: Motion is carried and so ordered. Mrs. Anderson, reports, if you will please. Reports. Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 16-75 regarding Salary Resolution Changes, as follows: During the past few months several personnel changes have occurred in the City's Finance, Building and Public Works Departments which have created vacancies due to promotions, retirements and resignations. Prior to filling these vacancies the staff studied departmental needs and recommended the following changes to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee: 1. Eliminate the vacant classification of Buyer I; 2. Create the classification of Purchasing Officer; Building Inspector III, Building Division, moved from Management Unit to Supervisory Unit; Internal Auditor, Finance Depart- ment, moved from Management Unit to Supervisory Unit. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 9 The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has discussed these changes in detail with the staff, and since all of the positions are presently open, we concur that these positions should be filled. We, therefore, recommend Council approval of the attached changes in the Salary Resolution which, in effect, will implement the following: Create the classification of Purchasing Officer at a monthly salary level of $1116 to $1359 to be placed within the Supervisory Unit, and approve the attached job specifications; 2. Eliminate the vacant classification of Buyer I; 3. Building Inspector III placed in the Supervisory Unit; 4. Internal Auditor placed in the Supervisory Unit; 5. Approve the attached job specifications for Engineering Technician II. Councilman Barton questioned the status of one of the positions which was clarified by Assistant City Manager Russell. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Report No. 16-75 of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding Salary Resolution Changes, was accepted. Adoption of Resolution No. 72-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 42-75, setting salaries and related benefits for officers and employees of the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 72-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No. 42-75, setting salaries and related benefits for officers and employees of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 10 The (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (J) (k) (1) Consent Calendar. following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: Allowance of Claims Nos. 1852 to 1934, inclusive, in the amount of $62,057.64. Request of V. P. Iacopetti for 30 days authorized leave without pay. Claim for Damages from Bessie Marie Bilyeu, 10421Meacham Road. (Refer to City Attorney) Grant of Easement from Fairway Land and Develop- ment Company providing a portion of the right- of-way necessary for widening of Calcutta Street between South "H" Street and Chadbourn Street. Grant of Easement from Josephine Hubbard, Pauline Patton, Gemella Herring, Cecelia Moncrife, Gladys L. Sanford, Melba Hall Stowers and Daniel H. Norton providing portion of right-of-way necessary for widening of Calcutta Street between South "H" Street and Chadbourn Street. Application for Encroachment Permit from Mrs. Jane Galatas, 1414 Richland Street, Bakersfield. Application for Encroachment Permit from Mossman's Catering, 1810 "R'r Street. Application for Encroachment Permit from Haberfelde Building Limited, 1706 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield. Map of Tract No. 3756 and Contract and Specifications for improvements therein - located south of Planz Road and east of Wilson Road. Map of Tract No. 3505 and Contract and Specifications for improvements therein - located north of Ming Avenue and west of Ashe Road. Map of Tract No. 3698 "B" and improvements therein - located on the easterly end of Wendy Avenue which lies south of University Avenue and east of Columbus Avenue. Request from Jean B. Curutchague, Albert Friedly and Tenneco Realty Development for abandonment of pedestrian easement between Lots 53 and 54 in Tract No. 3363, located on the south side of Las Cruces Avenue between Los Nietos Court and E1 Tovar Court. (Refer to Planning Commission) Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 11 (c), Consent Ayes: Noes: Absent: Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1) of the Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker None None New Business. Approval of request by Public Works Department to declare a portion of the City's Landfill area as surplus property. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, request of the Public Works Department to declare a portion of the City's Landfill area as surplus property, was approved and the Finance Director was authorized to advertise for bids, with a minimum bid of $300.00. Referral of Memos from the City Manager and Assistant Finance Director regarding Workmen's Compensation Self-Insurance Program to the Budget Review and Finance Committee. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Memos from the City Manager and Assistant Finance Director regarding Workmen's Compensation Self-Insurance Program, was referred to the Budget Review and Finance Committee. Hearings. This is the time set for continued public hearing concerning the Noise Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. This hearing has been duly advertised. Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that the City adopt a Noise Element of the General Plan. The proposed Noise Element, which is the subject of this hearing, was approved by the Planning Commission, after a public hearing on October 15, 1975, and recommended for adoption by the City Council. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 12 pation. portion of the hearing was action. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 73-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting the Noise Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for continued public hearing concerning the Seismic Safety Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. This hearing has been duly advertised. Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that the City adopt a Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan. The proposed Seismic Safety Element, which is the subject of this hearing, was approved by the Planning Commission, after a public hearing on October 15, 1975, and recommended for adoption by the City Council. 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 Rogers, Resolution No. 74-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting the Seismic Safety Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: None Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- No protests or objections being received, the public closed for Council deliberation and Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 13 This is the time set for public hearing on an appeal by Carl W. Smith to the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment denying his application for a Conditional Use Permit for the purpese of permitting the operation and maintenance of a Day Care Nursery for six (6) children in an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone, affecting that certain property commonly known as 2701 - 3rd Street. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. Eleven property owners residing within subject block either spoke, submitted letters, or signed a petition opposing the day care nursery. Many other property owners residing within the neighborhood signed a petition opposing the granting of the application. Based on the overwhelming number of objections expressed[ by the neighborhood, the Board of Zoning Adjustment denied the request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a day care nursery'. A letter has been received from Patricia and Bernard Lamas in favor of Mr. Smith's request for the Conditional Use Permit to operate a day care nursery. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participa- ~on. The following persons spoke in opposition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to Mr. Carl W. Smith: Mr. Donald C. West, 2715 - 3rd Street (submitted statement and petition containing 103 signatures from residents of the area) Mr. Don Barker, 305 Myrtle Street The following persons spoke in favor of granting Conditional Use Permit to Mr. Carl W. Smith: Mr. Bernard Lamas, resides at Palm & 4th Streets Marie Lang, Licensing Supervisor of the Kern County Welfare Department Mrs. Patricia Lamas, resides at Palm & 4th Streets the Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 14 Mr. Carl W. Smith, 2701 - 3rd Street (applicant for the Conditional Use Permit) Mrs. Vera Smith, 2701 - 3rd Street (applicant for the Conditional Use Permit) After a lengthy discussion, Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Bleecker requested that the City Attorney contact the County of Kern regarding the Welfare Department issuing licenses to operate a Day Care Nursery in R-1 Zones in the City of Bakersfield, without the permission of the City, which is contrary to the City's ordinances. After further discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Zoning Resolution No. 247 Denying 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 2701 - 3rd Street, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Barton, Bleecker Noes: Councilman Strong Absent: None The following is a verbatim transcript of the hearing regarding the proposed closing of Inyo Street: Assistant City Clerk Anderson: This is the time set for public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 909a of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of Inyo Street lying between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street, in the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly posted. A petition of protest against any further closure of street known as Inyo, and narrowing of alley ..... Mayor Hart: Mrs. Anderson, we are finding it difficult-- I'm sorry--until these people have cleared the Chamber~ we'll ask you to pick up where you left off. We're with you that far. All right, will you please proceed. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page Assistant City Clerk Anderson: A petition of protest against any further closure of street known as Inyo, and narrowing of alley connecting same, containing 19 signatures, has been received in the City Clerk's office. Mayor Hart: This being the time set for public hearing, I'll declare this portion of this public--this meeting--open for public statement and ask if there are persons here, in this audience, that will speak in opposition--that will oppose this vacation of a portion of Inyo Street lying between Truxtun Avenue and E. Persons here that will speak in opposition .... will you come forward, sir, and identify yourself for the record that we might make it a permanent form. Jack Winter: My name is Jack Winter. Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Winter. Jack Winter: I .... the reason I oppose it is because since the .... the closure of the other half of the street has caused, a number of times to myself and I know of a number of others, inconvenience of starting down through there then you find the place closed--gates--either day or night. You've done the same thing with Sacramento Street, up there, for Pepsi Cola for Lindsey. There's just a number of things like that--the closure of streets-- that I think is--is causing an imposition, a slow down of freedom of movement, particularly on the Sacramento Street to Lindsey. You can walk in and out, and you got to go to the equivalent of about four blocks in order to cut through off of 21st Street south. Lindsey has .... or Pepsi Cola has used those streets and alleys down there, blocked them, even blocked you in. I've sat there for 25 minutes before the City donated it to the .... or closed the street. I don't know whether you want to call it donate or closed the street for Lindsey. With Truxtun in front of me and in back of me, I couldn't get through. Now, I do business with people down in there, and I go through there lots of times to get around traffic snarls on Union Avenue, which helps you to get around through there quite a bit without a ten-minute delay. 190 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 16 Street. Mayor Hart: Mr. Winter, it's ..... Jack Winters: The same way .... the same way on Inyo Mayor Hart: Thank you. Jack Winters: This is the same darned thing on Inyo Street. And I think that you people are the trustees of the City streets and alleys of the City of Bakersfield. You closed the street up there for Mercy Hospital, which is a community project and it serves a number of people. The closing of Inyo Street and Sacramento Street is done primarily to benefit private interests, regardless of the inconvenience to the general public. I don't think that you people are .... been properly acting as trustees for the people of this community by closing these streets. I think it has been kind of--kind of reckless. Thank you. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Winters. Are there other persons here that will speak in opposition? As a matter of form, sir, will you please identify yourself? Bill Poteet: I a .... Mr. Mayor and City Councilmen .... I want to put in opposition to this street for the simple reason ...... Mayor Hart: May we have your name, sir, as a matter of form. Bill Poteet: My name is Bill Poteet, owner of O.K. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Poteet. Please proceed. Bill Poteet: I .... the reason that we don't want this street closed .... by closing the first part of it and closing the railroad has caused considerable trouble for people trying to get into our business and also employees trying to get back and forwards across Truxtun Avenue, which Truxtun Avenue has a signal at Baker and then they have the overpass going over the 99 Highway, and when those people leave the Truxtun signal, at Baker, they don't think anything about anybody else between there and down to that overpass. about is how quick they can get down to trying to get across-- All they are thinking the main part of Bakersfield. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 17 191 So you can look at property has east part of done through Council had anything it on the side of the people. Our dropped in valuation from 30 to 50% by closing the 18th Street where it joins onto Truxtun, which was nobody of the City Council or no one of the City to do with that. That's one of the things that happened, and I want you to understand that I'm sincere about it. I think a little bit of consideration from the City Councilman and help from the City Council that that portion that was closed and barricaded off, on 18th Street going into Truxtun, could very easily be opened again and take that barricade down. Let the traffic turn to the right going east, and it would render a lot of hazards and it would work from the signals going north and south. In that way, the traffic would be judged by the signals and they could get across Truxtun, and that would help out some of the people on 18th Street. Now, in referring back to the closing of Inyo Street ..... that is itself .... that would be south of 18th Street and going into the alley .... is very unconvenient trying to get a truck of any size that you have to buy materials today in order to compete against competition. Now, the small businessman has an awful time competing against corporations anyway, because they cannot buy like Sears & Roebuck or Sandstone Brick or any big corporation. So what you're doing .... you're putting us down in the flesh and forcing us down to a small way of getting materials delivered to our business, and it's hurting people in that area. It's cost myself, personally. I offered $6,000.00 for the property at 420 - 18th Street. The property was sold for $3,000.00 after the street was closed at Baker and 18th. Now, that was sold by a great man of our era that was here, lived here; he's the Justice of the Warren, and he's a great man. And I know that each and everyone of you men that's in this City Council would not do anything to hurt any individual, and I can't see where .... what you have already did can be corrected without a lot of arguments and a lot of misunderstanding and a lot 192 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 18 of feelings hurt, and I'm not here to hurt anybody's feelings. I'm strictly here to ask you to consider the 19 people, including myself, that signed that petition asking you to consider us, if there is any possible way, to give this a lot of thinking. Don't vote on this tonight until somebody has studied it out and can see what we can do to help all the people and not one individual corporation or one individual person. That's all I have to say, and I thank you. Mayor Hart: Thank you, sir. here then that will As a matter of form, Are there other persons speak in opposition--that will oppose this? sir, please identify yourself. Robert Pike: Mayor Hart: Robert Pike: My name is Robert Pike. Thank you, Mr. Pike. Mayor Hart and honorable members of the Council, I happen to own the property which is two lots from the corner lot of Inyo and 18th, which Sandstone Brick now owns. Sandstone Brick has the idea of closing that street off and making a small alley there. Sandstone Brick has a notorious history, now, and I have it here, documented, of taking streets from the City of Bakersfield. I'll start with Sonora Street. Sonora Street .... Sonora Street originally went through to Inyo; it doesn't. All Sandstone did was leave it like it was, put up a fence there which they don't use and use it as their own personal yard. Now whether ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Pike, as a matter of clarification .... I don't mean to intrude or interrupt your presentation, but doesn't Sonora and Inyo run parallel to one another, north and south? Robert Pike: Mayor Hart: Robert Pike: Mayor Hart: Excuse me, it's--a--Eureka. Thank you. Where Eureka goes into Sonora. Thank you ..... Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 19 Robert Pike: Eureka has been closed. Also the alley that's between Eureka and 18th Street use to continue all the way through. Sandstone Brick has managed to have that closed. I wil]L give you pictures of that. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Just give them all to Mr. Bleecker if you will. We'll distribute them for you, Mr. Pike. Thank you. Robert Pike: Sandstone Brick has had the south side of Inyo closed. They had a big article in the Californian about the big lights that they put up there. Those lights are never on, but they're there, I'll admit that. On Sonora Street, Sandstone Brick put up a new building there, and for their own convenience, they just put the parking right on the street. I have pictures here to prove that. Mayor Hart: If you will, just hand them to Mr. Bleecker, the Vice-Mayor. He will distribute. Robert Pike: You will notice that those car .... that car. there is parked right on the sidewalk and is marked out for parking. According to the building laws of Bakersfield, when you put up a new building, if 25% of the lot is covered, you are required to put up curbs and gutters and sidewalks. Sandstone Brick has managed to eliminate that by making their whole area as one piece. They have put up a couple of new buildings there--no sidewalks, no curbs. I have a picture here of the new building that they put on the existing part of Inyo. I couldn't take a picture of it, but the next block from Inyo down where they have their little rent tool place. They have a place where they rent cement. The road there is completely ruined with rocks and stuff that falls off their trucks from haul-your-own cement. That has never been touched. The sidewalks on Truxtun Street .... it's convenient for Sandstone to park their trucks there, by that little place that they have of Sonora on the corner of Sonora .... a car rather on the corner and Truxtun. You will notice the car parked there. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Pike. 194 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 20 Robert Pike: Inyo Street was closed--the south half of it .... the south half has continuously been opened since they closed it. There is a gate there; they leave that gate opened continuously. The north half of it .... they keep that gate closed. All that is used for is their own private street. People can enter from Truxtun, which has been no handicap to them but it has cut off my property from using Truxtun. These pictures are from the Californian as my shots weren't good, and you will notice that they park and use Inyo Street--the part that they closed off-- just as a street; no other reason. They are not using it as part of a building area. They are not using it for a limited thorough- way. They are using it as an entrance to their business with cars parked on both sides of it, with no access for anybody else but Sandstone Brick. I have here a copy from the Kern County Library on Vacation of Streets. Not being a lawyer, I could only take extracts out; and I may be .... have to be corrected; but this has the number 8320, Note 7. On the case where People rs. the City of Oakland, a public--and that was the ruling--"a public street cannot be vacated by city as being in the public interest in order to give the vacated portion to a private corporation for its use," and that's the case .... vacation of part of street, an instance of abutting property owner and convenience was authorized, where public conveyance was prompted, and that was the City of Oakland. Then, the City of Los Angeles, in the case of Webb the City of Los Angeles, the ruling was "Municipality could not vacate a portion of street for sole benefit of private individuals or corporations, but might do so in interest of safety, convenience and public welfare.'t This here closing will be just a continuation of the self closing. It will be strictly for the convenience of Sandstone Brick and will not convenience me in any way or any of the other people in the area. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Pike. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 21 195 Robert Pike: That is all I have to say, and I want to thank you gentlemen for your indulgence. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pike. other persons ..... Bill Poteet: Mr. Mayor, I've got to say ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Poteet. Bill Poteet: Mr. Mayor and City Councilmen, I got to say one thing that I forgot all about. Now, it's very important. Mr. Birthstone--we ask him to sign with us, and he said he could not sign the petition to keep from closing the street because he owns both sides of the street between 19th and 21st and he himsell! is going to turn right around and come down here and ask you to close that street. So I want you gentlemen to know we got some that wants to close. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Poteet. Are there other persons that will speak in opposition .... that will speak in opposition? Ma'am, as a matter of form, please identify yourself for the record. Arlene Pike: Mayor Hart: Arlene Pike: Arlene Pike, wife of Pike Plumbing. Thank you. I--I do not work at the shop constantly; Are there I do go down there once in a while. The only way I could get down there is to go down East 18th and make a U-turn to get at Inyo to go back in front of the Pike Plumbing Shop. My car is a long car; it's a wide car--it's a Plymouth--and the only way that I could make the U-turn is to go into that .... Inyo to make the U-turn, and it takes that whole street. When Pike Plumbing does get a delivery of a huge semi-truck, it does go through the alley. It has a hard time. We have a gate in the alley. When it gets out of the alley, it takes the whole street to make the turn from the alley into Inyo to go out. And I thought that would be a bit of information for you men here. 196 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 22 Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mrs. Pike, for appearing before us. Are there other persons here in this audience that will speak in opposition .... in opposition? Please identify yourself for the record. Orpha Poteet: Mr. Mayor, City Councilmen, I am Orpha Poteet; and by request, I am the one who ask permission from the City Council's office to protest and petition against any further closure of Inyo Street. We are all neighbors, including Sandstone Brick. I am very upset and distressed that this protest has caused so much unpleasant exchange of debate and argument. Our only intelat was to get the help of you Councilmen. As I stated in the protest, the closure of streets from Truxtun has caused hardship to the small businesses, their customers and the people in the area. The access to and from this area is difficult and dangerous. Business has declined. We do not have the drop-in trade we had. The value of our property has decreased considerably. As you gentlemen know, we are a government of laws. The writing on the Supreme Court says "Equal Justice Under Law." This we should apply in our daily lives. The reason Sandstone Brick gave for closing Inyo Street was "expansion of a growing business." If we, who have had our business here 38 years, placed a request for the closing of the street next to our property, would you gentlemen grant us the same privilege that Sandstone Brick would have if you honored their request for closure of the expansion? Please, as Councilmen representing this Citys of this City, search your consciences before you vote. If you don't believe in the "Equal Justice Under Law," then please discontinue or dispense with opening prayer before these meetings of this Council because false prayer before God is a mockery. Thank you. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mrs. Poteet. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker has a comment. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 23 197 Bleecker: Mrs. Poteet ask this Council ..... Mayor Hart: Mrs. Poteet, here by the lectern. Thank you. Bleecker: Mrs. Poteet, Inyo and 18th Street? Orpha Poteet: 418 East from ..... Bleecker: Is that on the Orpha Poteet: No. We're the north side. Bleecker: On the middle of Orpha Poteet: Yes. I would like to respond to a question that would you wait for a moment your business is on corner of 18th Street. We're a block down corner of Inyo and 18th Street? in the middle of the block on the block on the north side?' Bleecker: Okay. Then you ask if this Council would accord you the same treatment as what Sandstone Brick has asked for here tonight. I'll tell you what, I think they would .... think they would. If the need can be shown for an expanding business or a group of businesses, because the way I understand it, that is the law. That it is in the public interest to close certain City streets for the purpose of business expansion. Mrs. Poteet: I thought ..... Bleecker: So, if your business and others in that area ..... Mrs. Poteet: I thought ..... Bleecker: ..... came to this Council and request to close certain City streets and this Council felt it was the best interest to do so, I'm sure they would. Orpha Poteet: Well, may I ..... Mayor Hart: Please. Orpha Poteet: ..... also state please that the streets are for the benefit of all people, not just one individual. Mayor Hart: Thank you, ma'am. Orpha Poteet: Thank you. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 24 Mayor Hart: Are there other persons here in this audience that will speak in opposition? Hearing no further requests to speak in opposition, I'll ask then if there are persons here in the audience that will speak in approval--that will speak in approval? As a matter of form, please sir, will you identify yourself and whom you represent. Harvey Means: Yes, my name is Harvey Means. I'm an attorney, 1107 Truxtun Avenue, and I represent Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company. I would like to point out to the Council, at this time, and to put in proper perspective the ownership of the Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company and the operation of that corporation.. During the last few weeks there have been a number of statements published that are without merit, without trut~ and undoubtedly many people have been left with the wrong impression, including perhaps some of the members of this Council. The corporation was formed in 1886 by James Curran and was originally established to manufacture brick. In 1963 the business was incorporated under the laws of California, and since its inception, Sandstone has continued to enjoy a constant growth in sales and in dollar volume and today stands as one of the leaders, in this area, in the sale and distribution of all types of building material. Now, Bakersfield is not a one-man operation as some people would lead you to believe. But it is a corporation that has 13 shareholders, and no shareholder owns over 22% of the stock. There's a Board of Directors which consists of James Curran II, Walter F. Heisey, Gordon Foster, Bill Steele and Charles Curran. The officers are James Curran II, President, Walter Heisey, Vice- President, Gordon Foster, Secretary and Bill Steele, Treasurer. Now, I have here a--your honor--some two or that I would like to introduce at this time. The one directed to the Mayor and Members of the City Council; the Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company. three letters letter is it's from Should I read this or ...... 199 Bakersfield, California, Novembsr 17, 1975 - Page 25 Mayor Hart: I think not. I believe that we all have copies of that particular letter. Harvey Means: This is a different letter. Mayor Hart: Oh. This one that I have is dated September 25th. Harvey Means: This one is dated November 17, 1975. Mayor Hart: All right, Mr. Means. If you wish to read it into the record, you do that. Harvey Means: It's directed to: The Honorable Mayor Hart and Members of the Bakersfield City Council Subject: Closure of the North Half of Inyo Street Between Truxtun Avenue and 18th Street Gentlemen: Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Co. feels that the closing of the north half of Inyo Street between East Truxtun Avenue and 18th Street is extremely important to our firms long range expansion plans over the next several years as well as being beneficial to and in the public interest of the City of Bakersfield and its citizens. Sandstone Brick Co. has been in the same location for 89 years and has enjoyed continual growth in both sales and dollar volume and today stands as a leader in Kern County in the sale of all types of building materials. Sandstone presently employs 56 people and hopes to increase this number substantially over the next several years throughout a vigorous expansion program. Our retail and contractor sales have increased 140% in the past ten years and if this pattern continues, and we have no reason to believe that it won't, the plant expansion we will require necessitates more land adjacent to East 18th Street than we presently have. Our firm envisions our requirements to be in the neighborhood of 10,000 more square feet of storage buildings and retail selling area which would necessitate additional off street parking for at least 25 more automobiles. Our present expansion plans appear that our capital outlay including buildings, inventory and additional equipment will amount to approximately $500,000.00. 2OO Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 26 Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Co. considers it a privilege to have served the citizens of Bakersfield and Kern County over the past 89 years and looks forward to many more years of being an integral part of our community and an active participant in the expansion and development of the area east of Union Avenue and North of East Truxtun Avenue. Sincerely, Gordon K. Foster Corporate Secretary Mayor Hart: Would you give that to Mrs. Anderson please:, Mr. Means. Thank you. Harvey Means: I have another letter, your honor, addressed to: November 17, 1975 Honorable Mayor Hart and Members of the Bakersfield City Council Subject: Closure of the North Half of Inyo Street between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street Gentlemen: I am the owner-operator of Chet's Phillips 66 Service at 231 East 18th Street in Bakersfield. My service is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of East 18th Street and Sonora Street. I have operated this service station for the last 30 years except for a brief period in 1966 and my business has increased along with the growth of Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company. In the operation of my business I have found that when Sandstone is closed there is such a decrease of traffic in the area that my business is so negligible that I can't afford to stay open. In effect, I operate essentially during the period that Sandstone is open for business. Sandstone has expanded its business operation during the years I have operated my service station and I have benefited from this because of increased traffic in the area. In the event Inyo Street is closed from 18th Street south to the alley and Sandstone continues to expand its business operation I will continue to benefit from increased traffic coming into the area to do business with Sandstone. I am in favor of the closing of Inyo Street south of 18th Street which will be before the City Council tonight. Very truly yours, Chet Candelaria 201 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 27 Now, Mr. Mayor, there is another letter, I believe, that is in the .... was in the Clerk's file on this matter .... the one dated September 25, 19757 Mayor Hart: Yes .... Yes. Harvey Means: And that letter .... is it necessary to read that? Mayor Hart: No, please don't, inasmuch as it will not add anything to what you have already offered, and we have copies in our possession. Can you ..... Harvey Means: Right ..... fine. I would like to make a short comment concerning the attachment to that letter. You will notice that there were statements by individuals who had signed the protest, which is also on file. These people were circulated by a member of Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company. On Friday of this week I had another individual go around and check with these people to see if they still felt the same way because, as you can see, most of the people withdrew their objection to the vacation of Inyo Street. But I thought, because this letter was approximately six weeks old, that perhaps it would be a good idea to check this out. And in so doing, we talked with just about everybody who was interviewed. We didn't speak with the people at Summer's Furniture. We didn't speak .... I don't believe we were able to find Mr. Hashim or Mr. Fambrough, so we assume that the manner in which they were quoted is correct. We did check with Mr. Pike, and Mr. Pike had indicated that he didn't say what he was quoted as saying, so I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding as far as the Council is concerned on that. Also, in checking with Mr. Thorpe, who operates the Evans Electric Service, it's my understanding that he said that "Well, I don't think I said exactly that." I will leave the letter of September 25 and the Council's review. So with this caveat, the attachment for 2O2 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 28 Your honor, it's my understanding that this matter was presented to the Planning Commission initially and the vacation of Inyo Street, north from the present closure to 18th Street, was approved by the Planning Commission. Is that correct? Mayor Hart: Mr. Hoagland. Harvey Means: And is that in the record, your honor? Mayor Hart: It's in the record, I should assume, of the meeting of that particular commission. Harvey Means: It's my understanding that the Public Works Commission also has indicated that apparently there would be no problem with this closing as far as any of the City or public vehicles are concerned and that there is no objection to the vacation of Inyo Street. speak of Mayor Hart: Mr. Means? Harvey Means: Mayor Hart: From that department. Is that what you I beg your pardon. Is that .... you say there is no objection to the instance, closing of Inyo Street from the Planning Department. Harvey Means: Planning or Public Works. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Harvey Means: Now, I would like to say, your honor and gentlemen of the Council, in the first that there's no question about it that apparently a number of people are somewhat upset about this proposed vacation of a portion of Inyo Street. But the fact remains that there have already been five closures on Inyo Street starting back as far as 1949, and the last one, which I understand was in 1972 when the area south of East Truxtun was closed around the railroad tracks. This would be closure number 6. And I think it's important here that .... to keep in mind that the south half of this street has already been closed. There is no real present need for this street, at the present time or in the future. All this street is now is an Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 29 extension of an alley. As a practical matter, it's not used as a street. It's used by people going into the alley, or I know that some people apparently make a right-hand turn to go south or, if they're coming west, to make a left-hand turn and start down Inyo and they find themselves caught down at the end where it's closed, so they make a U-turn and back out to 18th Street and they're on their way. And I think that it should also be kept in mind here that Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company, and there are letters on file to this effect, will deed to the City of Bakersfield whatever they feel is necessary to create an alley going off of East 18th and connecting on to the present alley. We've had some checking as to how much land would be used or would be needed to accomplish this, but I think, in the long run, the proper way to handle that is to leave it up to the Public Works Department and whatever they feel would be necessary. That would be the amount of land that would be available to create the alternate route after the closure of this particular street. Now as the court .... rather as the Council knows, generally speaking, there should be some public benefit or some necessity for the closing of the street; and in reading the cases--interpreting Streets and Highways Code Section 8323, and there are some other sections involved, also, where some of the pertinent cases are found. There are many reasons that the City Council can take into consideration in coming to their conclusion and performing their legislative acts, in either vacating a street or refusing to do so. But as far as vacating the street is concerned, we have a benefit to the public, a definite public interest. The street vacation here, which would add some 80 feet to the tax rolls .... it's true the street itself was only 51 feet wide, but the other 29 feet consists of easements on both sides of the curb. So we have quite a large amount of property which would be returned to the tax rolls, and as a result, there would be additional taxes paid to the City of Bakersfield. There would be no further 204 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 30 maintenance requirement for the City of Bakersfield in maintaining the portion of Inyo Street which is now open. The confusion which can result by cars turning into this street at the present time, intending to go on to Truxtun, who would then have to make a U-turn and come out .... traffic congestion or traffic confusion .... this would be eliminated. Plant expansion in the vacated area .... expansion of a business .... has given as a reason in the Pomona Case for approving the vacation of a street, and in this particular case, the plant expansion which they have in mind is the construction of certain buildings on this vacated area. This again would result in additional real property taxes which the City of Bakersfield would receive and again lessening the tax burden of the other citizens. The size of the additional tax is not important. The fact that there are additional taxes paid, this is the factor that the courts consider. In addition thereto, there will be additional inventory:, lumber in these buildings. Again we have additional unsecured personal property taxes payable to the City of Bakersfield. The expansion also means more jobs at Sandstone Brick Company. There is no question about this, as well as the other items, being a benefit to the public and definitely in the public interest. One other item which is to be constructed, along with this expansion plan, is the additional off-street parking which will be required. It's my understanding it will be to the east of the present parking area on 18th Street as, primarily, the retail sales at Sandstone are geared to entry from 18th Street. This additional off-street parking will have the effect of decreasing congestion in the streets and relieving the traffic problem there. This again is also a benefit to the public and in the public interest. I might say in passing that as far as a street that might have been necessary, presently or in the future, for public street purposes which was closed .... I don't know just when the closure took place, but of course, we all know that it's closed Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page S1 .... and that's "K" Street between Truxtun and 17th Street, where the bank .... between the Bank of America and U.C.B. Here is a street that for many, many years was very heavily traveled, and it was a particular location that everybody knew of; but nevertheless, this street was closed. And we heard of no objection or no complaints from the City or any of the citizens at that time. In making some reference to some of the items of complaint, that were voiced by the opposition because they were unable to go down InFo Street now to East Truxtun, if my memory serves me correct, the street, one east of InFo is .... north and south .... I believe is Truxtun or Tulare. Is that correct? And, as I recall, Tulare Street goes onto East Truxtun, and what is the street running north and south, one block east of that? Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley: Sonora. Nayor Hart: Sonora is at the western extreme of the ...... Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley: Curran. Harvey Neans: Is that Curran? Curran, also ..... to the south .... can't you go on to Truxtun from Curran Street? You can. That was my understanding. Also, one block west of InFo Street is Sonora Street which also enters into Truxtun Avenue, so ..... Nayor Hart: Nr. Pike, please. I ask that you show this gentleman the same courtesy that he showed you while you were talking. Harvey Neans: So I fail to see the reason for the complaint, expecially in view of the fact that the south half of InFo Street's already closed. They can't go through that area now and reach East Truxtun Avenue. There are plenty of areas there .... other streets which can be traveled to reach East Truxtun Avenue. I don't think that it is placing a hardship on anyone concerned. Now, there was also a comment here about the new buildings, and all of that would cause a problem with parking. Well, as I've indicated, part of the expansion program is to provide 20 ; Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 32 additional off-street parking; and I think that we're all aware, here in the City of Bakersfield as well as in other cities in California, that with the development and growth that we're having, we all have parking problems. It seems that every time an area becomes somewhat popular and new buildings are constructed, why, there's a parking problem. Sandstone certainly intends to take care of that as much as they can by adding additional off-street parking in their particular program. I think that that's all the comment I have to make as far as the particular argument is concerned. I do have some cases that we have uncovered in our research that I would be glad to refer the Council to, if they feel that it's necessary; but the Pomona case .... there are a number of other cases where alternate routes were supplied, and on this basis the closing and vacation of streets have been upheld. In this particular case, we're willing to do that, supply the property for the alternate route. There's ample public benefit in this closing from the items that I listed for your consideration. And with that, I thank you. Mayor Hart: question of you, sir. Barton: No, I don't. privilege, Mr. Mayor. I'd like beginning of the hearing on the in our minutes. Mayor Hart: Thank you. no questions of you at this time. Thank you, Mr. Means. Mr. Barton has a I have a point of special the entire proceedings from the Inyo Street be also in verbatim Thank you, Mr. Means. There's I'll ask if there's other persons here in this audience that will speak in approval ..... Mr. Poteet ..... Bill Poteet: Mr. Mayor, since we have ..... I want to make another statement now since Sandstone Brick has sent an attorney and we don't have an attorney here to prove our part. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 33 207 It is a very unconvenient deal. In 1942 I had 45 men on my payroll. I did Minter Field out here. I served three years. in the United States Navy, and I was one of the leading shops in this town. In fact, I'm one of the first men that started a vacation deal in this town. I'm one of the men that stood up for labor in this town. I've instructed and taught over a hundred and some men in this trade. I'm a graduate of the trade of the University of Sheet Metal in Los Angeles. This attorney here has made a statement here that somebody made a false statement on the start of the closing of those streets. Mr. Heisey, himself, I didn't want to bring this up, has come and went around, to his renters .... and I talked to Mr. Bleecker last Wednesday .... telling him that they did not have those streets properly posted. In the meantime, on Thursday afternoon, the Public Works moved over there and added four more signs to that street, which there was only two. Now I didn't want to get excited over this on account of this heart condition. My business has slowed down considerable, and I will expand back gradually. I'm figuring, right now, as many jobs as some of the big sheet metal shops in town are doing; it's taken at even place. But right now, in the next year, we'll be working 36 men out of that shop alone, because I have the contract right now signed for over 96 houses in this town. I don't pay as much taxes, and I don't own property from .... Sandstone Brick does from Truxtun Avenue clear to. California Avenue with one block. I don't own from Sonora to--down to Inyo Street, and I haven't been in business 89 years, but I've been here almost 39 years, and I've been an honest citizen. I've stuck up for the City and I did everything I could to help the City. And we definitely ask you to think about this real serious and don't vote on this tonight until you get the Public Works, which are good men in that Public Works, to show us that the man that's across the street from us can get in and out from his place and a drawing 20, Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 34 is made of it so that you can prove it and know it in your hearts that you are doing the right thing. And I'm not going to tell any of you gentlemen how to vote or why to vote, but I'm going to ask you to please consider us over there in that area and what it's did to our property. And that's all I can say. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Poteet. Mr. Bleecker.- .... Mr. Winters, now I'm going to stop this debate from the floor right now. I think everybody's had the chance to say what they think, and I think all the facts are before us here. Maybe some of them are not there in their entirety, but we can keep this thing up all evening because these people that are voting in approval have every right to have as much time as those persons opposing here. Now if you have something new to add that we haven't had heretofore, we're most anxious to hear you. But if you've nothing new, if you're going to reiterate something somebody else has said, then Mr. Winters, we'll not take the time to hear you just now. If you will. Jack Winter: (Could not hear answer--was not at microphone) Mayor Hart: All right sir ..... Jack Winter: One more suggestion .... suggest that the City Council buy back the south half of Inyo Street that they donated over to Sandstone Brick for public convenience. This gentlemen here says for public convenience. That would be a big public convenience because that street was well used and heavily used by through traffic. Mayor Hart: All right. Thank you, Mr. Winters. Mr. Bleecker, please. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, I'll pass for the time being. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Are there any further requests to speak in approval? Hearing no requests, I'll close the public portion of this meeting and turn to the Council for comment and action. Mr. Christensen. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 35 Christensen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a statement here .... three and a half page statement .... that I'd like to please read to .... it's directed to you, and I'll furnish copies to the Council after I finish. I hope that you will honor me the privileges under the First Amendment. Attention: Donald M. Hart, Mayor Gentlemen: I for one am singularly unimpressed and wholly unpersuaded by the undated five-page opinion of City Attorney Hoagland which advised this Council last Monday that he thought it was perfectly legal and ethically commendable for this Council to make a gift of a City street to the company of a City Councilman. Rogers: Point of order, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mayor Hart: Point of Order. What is your point, Mr. Rogers? Rogers: Mr. Hoagland did not say it was proper to make a gift to Sandstone Brick. Now if Mr. Christensen is going to read something, at least let's let him quote Mr. Hoagland correctly. Mayor Hart: Would you correct the record for what Mr. Hoagland offered. He said it was within the law .... was that Mr. Hoagland's statement or it was legal? Christensen: What .... what ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Hoagland do you have the statement before you that we're making reference to here in Mr. Rogers' conversation. Hoagland: No sir, I don't have it here. It's a matter of record. I did not make such a statement, however; I'll say that right now. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Christensen. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Mayor Hart: Point of information. Bleecker: Since the Councilman from the Second Ward had this statement all prepared and all, before he came in here tonight, and it's going to be very difficult for me .... of course, I would think he probably wouldn't want to make it easy for me. However, 210 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 36 I think this is a matter of courtesy to the Council, since this is a prepared statement, that the Councilman might furnish each of us a copy of it as he reads it, since he has indicated that he is reading a prepared statement. It would be much easier for us to follow it; we would have a copy as he goes through it. And I would certainly request, Mr. Mayor, just a matter of almost common decency with the Councilman from the Second Ward would let us go over his prepared statement as he reads it. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, that is your decision to make, sir. If you so see fit, we would ask that you pass them out. If not, we proceed without that. - .... Thank you, Chris. Will you proceed please, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: I am not an attorney but I can read and understand English quite adequately. When I read the case of Stigall rs. the City of Taft, I find that in that case Mr. Black, who had been a member of the Taft City Council, resigned shortly before the City Council unanimously voted to award a City plumbing contract to a private corporation in which Mr. Black held only a 3 percent stock ownership interest. There was no assertion that Councilman Black's company was not the low bidder nor that the contract was not fair and beneficial to the City. Nevertheless, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the contract award violated the Government Code Section 1090 prohibition against conflict of interest and that the contract award was therefore unlawful, null and void. Similarly, when I read the case the County of Kern rs. Drinkhouse, I find that it is there stated and held in very plain English that Section 1090 also makes it illegal for a county to sell tax lands to any group in which a county official has an interest regardless of whether the sales price is fair and beneficial to the county. In that those cases make it clear that the City can neither award a contract to nor sell its property to a private company in which a City Councilman has as little as a 3 percent stock ownership interest, even if the City Councilman goes so far as to actually resign before the contract award or the sale of the property, I can find no semblance of logic nor common sense in Mr. Hoagland's incredible assertion that it is perfectly okay for the City to make an outright gift of City ..... Rogers: Mr. Mayor, point of information ..... Christensen: property to a Councilman ..... Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 37 2! ! inquiry Mr. Rogers: Mr. Mayor, if I may .... point of information. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, you must yield to an for a point of information. Christensen: All right. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Rogers: Now, here again, Mr. Mayor, Christensen makes another untrue statement; in all fairness, and I don't think it proper to .... for that tonight. Mayor Hart: What is the statement to, Mr. Rogers, please? Rogers: Can I read this? Mayor Hart: Christensen: Mayor Hart: Christensen: Mayor Hart: Rogers: He statement to be allowed to be made here you have reference nor common sense in Mr. Hoagland's incredible assertion that it is perfectly okay for the City to make an outright gift of City property to a company in which a City Council has a substantial owner" ..... Now, Mr. Hoagland'did not make that statement. That's a lie, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Well, we're back here again to the point now that we must remember that an opinion is not necessarily a fact. His opinion is an opinion and an interpretation here by a lay person involved in the interpretation by a lawyer of the legal processes by which the City governs itself .... I don't know that it is right then that it be pointed out here that this is not accurate. Mr. Hoagland's interpretation is acceptable as far as I'm concerned .... his understandings of the laws that govern the City. Mr. Christensen, I'll have to ask you to refrain from charges saying that Mr. Hoagland and the phraseology, "it's an Yes. Yes, be good for you to. I can try ..... It's perfectly okay. He ..... Mr. Christensen, please. says, "I can find no semblance of logic 2]2 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 38 incredible assertion that it's perfectly okay for the City to make an outright gift of City property." I don't know that that's exactly the way his response was rephrased, so please, if you can:, Mr. Christensen ..... I have two other lights here before you proceed. Stay within the constraints, please, of good taste, if you will. Mr. Strong. Strong: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I merely wanted to point out, I think exactly what you just mentioned, that in my opinion it's a .... Mr. Christensen is expressing an opinion, and I think it's improper for this Council to sit here and nit pick and attempt to restrict what his interpretation of Mr. Hoagland's responses were. If he gets one meaning from reading Mr. Hoagland's responses and some other Council gets another meaning, I think that's perfectly with his right as a Councilman. And if its .... it .... if we do have the privilege of expressing an opinion here on the Council. Mayor Hart: By all means ..... Strong: I certainly wouldn't want to see Mr. Christensen's privilege abridged, you know, because some Council disagrees with him. Mayor Hart: I have no desire to abridge his opinion. If it's stated as an opinion. If it's a reflection here, though, on the integrity of the ability of Mr. Hoagland, then I can't find that only in the sense of .... you have to have a paralleling knowledge of the law before you can criticize it, in my interpre- tation. Now let me point out to this body again tonight and those persons that are interested. Any time I make a decision in this chair that you feel is unfair, it is subject to appeal by that person .... those persons on this Council who feel that it is unfairi: and I can step down from the chair while you come to a conclusion or make the decision whether I've been fair or not in my ruling relative to the conduct of this Chamber. Now, I would like Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 39 Mr. Christensen to be permitted to go ahead with what he has to offer here. I would ask him again to refrain from a demeaning statement about the qualities of the abilities .... you have every right to every opinion, but I don't think the abuse of a man in his office is included in that right. I'm not restraining you under the First Amendment of the Constitution, "Freedom of Speech." I'm restraining you under guidance of this Council that has established the rules of procedure and those procedures that we follow in the .... the book that we're using as a reference for parliamentary procedures. I didn't intend to make a speech. Mr. Rogers, please. What did you have to offer7 Rogers: Well, I was just going to say, Mr. Mayor, that it's pretty obvious to me that this a very thinly veiled attack on Mr. Hoagland, and I'm not going to sit here and let it happen because it's not fair. And I'll tell Mr. Christensen this, that if he .... if he makes .... reads another statement like that I'm going to call him on it. hearing. Mayor Hart: Christensen: · Mayor Hart: All right. And what do you want to do about it? He has a right .... he has a right for a Strong: Mr. Mayor, may I .... may I ..... Mayor Hart: Yep. Strong: May I just ..... Mayor Hart: All right, Mr. Strong, p~ase. Strong: I certainly didn't .... didn't mean in my statement to infer that the chair had been unfair and biased, because I've found numerous occasions, 30 in fact, that I think that the meeting's run most fairly and that the chair is most considerate of everything that any Councilman .... any opinion that any Councilman would want to express. But here again, I would like to emphasize the fact that, in my opinion, Mr. Christensen is only expressing an opinion; and how he chooses to express that opinion, I don't 214 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 40 think, should be determined by a Councilman or this Council as long it is within the limits of decency as opposed .... as imposed by the rules which govern this body. Mayor Hart: Mr. Strong, thank you for the clarification of your intent there. I appreciate that fact. In Mason's Legislative Manual, by which we abide to perform in this Chamber, on page 106, Section 121, 4, it gives me the right to determine an "abuse of the privilege of the house." An in .... also, in addition to determining the right of the abusive privilege of the house, that if I feel that I'm not competent in making this conclusion or decision, then I can throw it to the body for a general conclusion by them by vote, wherein I can ask them to determine where Mr. Christensen should be allowed to proceed in this manner or by wherein he may be denied to continue his expression. Now that's the rules that we abide by, and I'm going to ask once again .... Mr. Christensen is going to proceed in a moment. Mr. Bleecker has the light on. Let's try to get along with this thing because I know we're anxious to conclude it, and let's do it in the sense of decorum and good taste. Please, Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. On this .... I think your points are well taken; however, the statement made by the Councilman from the Second Ward about .... where he says, "Mr. Hoagland's incredible assertion that it is perfectly okay for the City to make an outright gift of City property to a company." What Mr. Hoagland said was, "to refer to the vacation of a street as a gift of public property to private individuals is erroneous. The City never owned the property in the first place." And I'm saying so how could they make a gift if they never owned it. "The City impressed an easement on the property for a public right-of-way. The vacation of the street allowed the property owner full use of his own property, where such use is more beneficial to the general public than the street use." Now, Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 41 :215 that's what Mr. Hoagland said. I just happen to maybe to have anticipated something here tonight and just brought along what he said. And that's a far cry from the Councilman from the Second Ward saying, "Mr. Hoagland's incredible assertion that it is perfectly okay for the City to make an outright gift of City property." Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Bleecker that we have. I'm going to point out again to question of abuse of the privilege of this house has priority over all motions except that one to adjourn. And I'm still exercising that an abuse of the privilege of the house. I ask Mr. Christensen to continue within the sense of decorum and good taste. Please, if you will, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: Your honor, maybe we should take a vote to see whether this Council Mayor Hart: Well, that they do believe in the Christensen: they do ..... Bleecker: Mr. for the clarification this body that the Mayor, I move that the Council vote to support States. the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United I would so move. Mayor Hart: We do have the motion. All those in favor by signifying .... signifying by ..... (All Ayes). Is there any person here that opposes the First Amendment? All right, Mr. Christensen. Please proceed, sir. Christensen: Guess I'll have to start over. With all the interruptions, it's very doubtful that anyone knows where they were. Mayor Hart: I it boiled down to where, lawfully sell a City street to a think you have taken us along .... and have "It is simply absurd that a City cannot Councilman's company." We ..... believes in the First Amendment or not. I'm reasonably sure, Mr. Christensen, First Amendment, otherwise, we ..... I'd like to take a vote to see whether 21(; Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 42 Christensen: I do not believe that the law is that ridiculous and absurd but that is precisely what Mr. Roagland suggests when he asserts that Section 1090 of the Government Code applies to contractual trans- actions but not to so-called noncontractual transactions. I submit that Mr. Hoagland's memorandum is a good deal less than candid when it infers that the City does not own its streets and street easements. Rogers: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Point of order. Mayor Hart: Point of order, Mr. Christensen. Mr. Rogers finds fault with that statement and phraseology involved, I believe. Rogers: Mr. Hoagland did not infer that the City does not own its streets. He did not infer that in his statement. He inferred .... in his statement he made it very clear that the City does not own the property, that the ownership out to the center remains vested in the property owner--the adjacent property owner. Mayor Hart: Please proceed, Mr. Christensen. Christensen: I do not believe that the law is that ridiculous and absurd but that is precisely what Mr. Hoagland suggests when he asserts that Section 1090 of the Government Code applies to contractual trans- actions but not to so-called noncontractual transactions. I submit that Mr. Hoagland's memorandum is a good deal less than candid when it infers that the City does not own its streets and street easements. I submit that Mr. Hoagland, ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen ..... Christensen: ..... and any competent attorney ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen, that was the part that Mr. Rogers objected to. Would you refrain, please .... here again privilege of the house is reflected when somebody is .... conduct of censure of officers or members of the staff, and it still has the priority. So I ask, please, that you refrain from censure and proceed with what you have to present. And I believe in the First Amendment. Christensen: I submit that Mr. Hoagland, and any competent attorney, well knows that the City is the absolute and exclusive owner of its public streets and all public street easements and that these ..... Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 43 217 Rogers: Point of order, Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart, point of order ..... Christensen: ..... streets and street easements are property of the City ..... Mayor Hart: We have a point of order from Mr. Rogers. Rogers: I'm not going to let him say it Mr.- .... or rather I ..... of course, I don't have that power; but it's not fair to let him repeat statements like that that are not true. Now, he can read a statement ..... any statement that he wants to, but I'm not going to sit here and let him read lies into the record. Bleecker: minutes. Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn for a few Mayor Hart: Well, I don't know that we can adjourn for a few minutes. If we adjourn, we adjourn in full. So, if you will move for a recess, I'll accept that. Bleecker: Well, whatever the proper terminology used, Mr. Mayor; I'll accept your idea that we recess for a few minutes. Barton: Point of privilege, please--privilege, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: We have a motion before us. Go ahead, Mr. Barton. Barton: I've read through this document to Mr. Christensen, and I gather from the whole .... language of the whole paper here, which is three and a half pages long, that is .... Mr. Christensen's opinion and his statements as he believes them .... and he is making a statement, whether it be accurate or inaccurate depends upon whoever's reading it .... and I believe that the .... and the other Councilmen sat on this Council up here has made statements that have been accurate and inaccurate, depending upon however the rest of us felt about it. And going through this, I can't really see where any member of the staff is being criticized, slandered or anything else. So .... really, talking about points of law and Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 44 interpretation of points of law and actions taken by the Council and by Council members, which I believe is nothing more than an opinion of Mr. Christensen. I think he should be allowed to read it in its entirety without interruptions, and let's get this over with. Rogers: Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Barton, let me--let me add something here, Mr. Rogers, before you respond to Mr. Barton. As I pointed out as we started this a little earlier, that if there appears to be a necessity of a member of this Council attacking a member of the staff, who does serve here, then, at the will of the--this Council, it should be handled in closed Executive Session, and the Brown Act permits us to do just that. And this chair will entertain a motion to go into Executive Session that we may hear this out in detail .... these attacks on our counsel .... and act on it since it's a matter of personnel and we're covered by the Brown Act under this side. Now, if this is what you want to do, we'll do it in that fashion. We'll stop the delay; we'll hear the thing out and determine under the protection of the Brown law, because the Brown Act we are embraced under. Christensen: Mayor Hart: Christensen: Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Christensen. May I point out that I've observed in this Council the right honorable Vice-Mayor made a most vicious attack, as I sat in the audience, against a staff member. Castigated him to no end. It's a matter of record; his name was Don Elling, and he was never reprimanded for it. I'd also like to point out that Mr. Strong, in his discussion with men over a very hot subject .... a worthwhile subject to debate .... he made the statement that they might be actors but he would not award them Oscars unless they were wooden Oscars. And I regret that certain members of this Council cannot face up to a man's opinion and honesty; and if they refuse to let me read this, I suggest the Californian publish it Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 45 21 9 in detail. because I But I would like the privilege to finish reading it think it has worthwhile content. I'm going to have to a ..... And this is not based on rumor, Thank you. I have equally as good support other members here have on their side. Mayor Hart: Mr. Christensen ..... Christensen: Now, if you want to abandon .... if you want to abandon the use of the Council here, I'd like the a .... personal privilege to finish this. Mayor Hart: Christensen: Mayor Hart: You want to waive the rules? Waive what rule? The rules that we control this Council under; and we'll not have the traditional form of parliamentary procedure, but we'll just have ..... Christensen: If that is necessary to adhere to the First Amendment, I would say yes. Mayor Hart: Well, we're adhering to the First Amendment, Mr. Christensen. We're not denying you within the reasons of decorum as specified by the rules that we operate under. I ..... Christensen: I'm setting forth my opinion, your honor. Mayor Hart: Yes, thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Christensen. I don't wish to deny you your opinion as long as it's in good taste. We have an inquiry from Mr. Rogers that I'll have to honor. Rogers: Well, I was just going to say, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Barton must have a different letter than the one I've got, because I can certainly see some things in here that are more than just opinion. There are definite statements of what Mr. Hoagland said which I know he did not say, and Mr. Hoagland, being in the position he's in, does not have the freedom to challenge these gossip, as the Mayor Hart: Christensen: banter or hearsay. Mayor Hart: Christensen: 220 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 46 .... these incorrect statements, and I'm using a kind word when I say that, that Councilman Christensen has in his letter. And not fair for us to sit here and let him get by with it's just it, and I 'm not going Mayor Hart: Christensen: Mayor Hart: to do it. If we stay here all night. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. I would just like to inform Mr. Rogers ...... Mr. Strong. Rogers: And it's not a popularity contest, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Mr. Strong and then you. Mr. Strong. Strong: I would just like to say this, that if Mr. Hoagland feels very strongly about what the Councilman just said, he can go out and get himself elected. I feel very strongly that I don't want any member or this Council censoring my opinions, and I think we're talking about something very basic here. I don't think that a .... whether this is true, whether Councilman Christensen's statements are true or untrue, I think we all sit here as intelligent people to make up our minds on the basis .... on the basis of what's before us to be considered. And I don't think it's the .... I really don't believe that it is the approl~iate position of this Council to .... to challenge what I consider a basic right of any one of the Councilmen. And I've been here for the last 2~ to 3 years, and I certainly didn't even .... I've never even seen this kind of thing challenged before, except in my own case and except in Mr. Christensen's case .... Mr. Christensen's case .... and I don't think I'm going to be .... that the only .... I think would impress me most is if this Council decides they going to sit here and attempt to censor what I know is an opinion, and I .... I resent this very much. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Strong. Mr. Bleecker, please. Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 47 Bleecker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I would .... I would be much more amenable, as one Councilman, to a .... to a .... let the Councilman from the Second Ward read this bunch of garbage if .... if I were assured in some way that .... that when it came my turn to attack these allegations that are here that he would answer my questions. Because I think the Council will recall that I asked the Councilman from the Second Ward a number of questions last Monday, relevant to certain public statements that he had made in the press and certain statements that he had made in writing that he handed to the press, and that he refused to answer one single question that I asked him, claiming am I on trial here. Well, I maintain that the Councilman is putting other people on trial by certain false allegations that he has made, moor the staff, City Commissioners and employees of the City of Bakersfield; and I think that it would be almost untenable for the presiding officer to allow certain erroneous statements to be made again, when the Councilman from the Second Ward perhaps has no intention whatsoever about entering into any debate afterwards or about answering any questions asked of him. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Sceales: Mr. Mayor, I have Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sceales, please. to go to the restroom, and I move for a recess. Mayor Hart: Christensen: two-hour recess. Mayor Hart: I declare a brief recess. (10:55 P.M.) Your honor, I'd like to make that a Well, we already have a recess declared. We'll call it .... reconvene in a moment. Christensen: All right. Mayor Hart reconvened the meeting at Mayor Hart: Will you please proceed, I think it's the area in the second paragraph where "Mr. Hoagland certainly knows that if the City did not own ..... " 11:00 P.M. Mr. Christensen. 226 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 48 Christensen: Mr. Hoagland--Mr. Hoagland certainly knows that if the City did not own Inyo Street and if the City desired to acquire a public street ease- ment over Sandstone Brick land the City would be legally required via condemnation proceedings or by contract to purchase such a street easement and to pay Sandstone Brick the fair market value of such a street easement. No one will dispute that in some situations where there is no present nor prospective need for a given City street easement it is in the public interest to vacate and abandon the same. Such clearly was the case with the Sacramento Street closing to which Mr. Hoagland's memo refers. Such clearly is not true in the case of Inyo Street between 18th and Truxtun. I might also note that no member of this Council was an executive owner of the Pepsi Cola Company which requested and benefited from the Sacramento Street closing. Neither was any Pepsi Cola Company employee a member of the City Planning Commission and presumably neither was our City Manager an investor in any company based in the Pepsi Cola headquarters. When former Councilman Heisey's company procured the 1973 closing of the south one-half of Inyo Street between 18th and Truxtun it is indisputable that that street was then being regularly used by the public as an access to and from Truxtun Avenue just as Sonora Street and Tulare Street between 18th and Truxtun to the immediate west and east of Inyo were and are regularly used as public access to and from Truxtun. Thus, the legalese in the 1973 resolution to the effect that there was no present nor prospective need for the south one- half of Inyo between 18th and Truxtun was nothing more than a bald-faced falsehood. To now attempt to use the unwarranted 1973 closing as justification for a proposed 1975 further closing merely aggravates the 1973 falsehood. I repeat that Mr. Heisey's company should as a display of good faith and community interest voluntarily deed back the south one-half Inyo gift which it procured while Mr. Heisey was supposed to be serving the interest of the citizens as a whole, as distinguished from the private interest of his private corporation. I cannot commend Mr. Heisey for his silence and absence at the time his company procured the 1973 closing. On the contrary, I charge that had he been truly representing the citizens as a whole rather than his own selfish interest then he should have vigorously spoken out against and voted against the 1973 gift to his company. Moreover, the present and future need for the north one-half of Inyo Street between 18th and Truxtun did not disappear with the unwarranted 1973 closing. On the contrary, even Sandstone itself has partially recognized and admitted Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 49 this fact by its offering a little alley as a substitute for the existing north one-half of Inyo at 18th. I note that Mr. Hoagland's memorandum carefully ignores this point and most of the 12 questions posed in my 11/5/75 letter to him. I still want to know why the alley if there is no need for the street and who will own and be obligated to maintain the alley. Of course, it would not surprise me if the offer of the alley was not withdrawn in a hypocritical effort to avoid its clear implications for the continued need for the street. I am fully aware that there are at least three and possibly four members of this Council who will eagerly accept Mr. Hoagland's transparent legalese which, after all, is nothing more than a self-serving vindication of the 1973 resolution which his office prepared and which contained the factually false statement that there was no need for the south one-half of Inyo at Truxtun. But I for one remind this Council that although Sandstone and Mr. Heisey may have the votes on this Council to get its way, regardless of the public interest, there will shortly come a day when the public in future City Council elections will have an opportunity to pass its judgment on those who would vote to make this new gift of City property to Mr. Heisey's company. At a minimum this Council should defer any further public street gifts to Sandstone Brick until the Council has adopted a uniform and comprehensive street closing policy and ordinance of the type suggested in my 11/10/75 letter to this Council. I would like to note one thing, your honor, and that is in the resolution tonight, it's in the back of these notes regarding Inyo Street .... in that resolution, there is no mention, whatsoever, of an alley. I would also like to mention that in the Planning Commission statements, on August 5th, so forth, Mr. Schulz reviewed the requested abandonment and recommended approval with the condition that a 25 foot alley be dedicated as depicted on the map on file with the City Engineer. So I would like to propos~ your honor .... I move to refer the resolution to the City staff for preparation of a new resolution that conforms to the Planning Commission's recommenda- tions. Thank you. Mayor Hart: You have a motion before this body. Mr. Hoagland. 224 Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 50 City Attorney Hoagland: Mr. Mayor, after consultation with the Department of Public Works, I have a resolution which sets out the requirement of the alley, rather than that resolution. Mayor Hart: Thank you. City Attorney Hoagland: That was prepared today in anticipation of the meeting tonight and the possible action of the Council. Mayor Hart: Thank you; Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: So then the resolution, then, is taken care of already ..... City Attorney Hoagland: I can distribute this resolutic, n to the Council presently. Bleecker: Then are we still voting on this resolution, Mr. Mayor, or do I have the floor? Mayor Hart: Well, you have the floor; the a ..... Bleecker: All right. Thank you. Having sat here and listened to what I maintain are a lot of false allegations all over again, and we'll probably continue to get these kind of false allegations .... I made some notes here, Mr. Mayor during the .... I didn't come with a prepared statement; I made a lot of notes while I was listening. It's quite obvious that the Councilman from the Second Ward knew what he was going to do before he came in here, regardless what anybody might say at the public hearing or whatnot, because he had it all prepared. But that's really beside the point, and I won't belabor that. But I would like to make these points, Mr. Mayor. Talking about a comparison between the proposed Inyo closing and the Sacramento Street closing would indicate the following: The Sacramento Street closing, accomplished but a few weeks ago, left an alley in existence between Sonora Street and Union Avenue. The Inyo Street closing would leave an alley between Tulare Street and Inyo Street, except the proposal indicates an alley will be provided parallel to the closed portion of Inyo Street. No Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 51 businesses are located on the Alley in the InFo proposed closing, although businesses on 18th Street take deliveries through the alley. On Sacramento Street, a. sheet metal business is located on the alle~ and access to this business can only be gained, for deliveries, from Union Avenue with no egress except through the alley to Sonora or from Sonora to Union Avenue. There appears to be less detriment in the closing of InFo Street, if there is any at all, than Sacramento because of the business located on the alley in Sacramento closing which makes egress and ingress somewhat difficult. I would remind the Council, all political considerations aside, that this Council voted to close Sacramento Street, and it was unanimous, including the vote of the Councilman from the Second Ward. And that both of these closings --the proposed one and the Sacramento Street closing--are in his ward. Now, Mr. Mayor, I can only conclude that the Councilman from the Second Ward would oppose the closure of InFo Street only for political reasons, perhaps to pay off a political debt at the expense of the public good, and probably also because it is quite evident he has ignored appropriate case law and all pertinences to the question before this body and has done nothing but vilify members of the staff, a former Councilman and members of the Planning Commission in his effort to prove unprovable points by making unfounded allegations against honorable men. He does a disservice to this City, but, most of a11, I deplore his tactics. Let me say this, Mr. Nayor. When bonafide conflicts of interest may arise, whether it may concern staff, City employees, Commission members or the City Council itself, I will be the first to demand that the situation be corrected forthwith, whether it includes firing, reprimand, resignation or any other appropriate determination by this Council. But I will not sit here night after night and allow to go unchallenged the efforts of any elected official to divide this City by making unfounded allegations never intended to be proven anyway. 22O Bakersfield, California, November 17, 1975 - Page 52 Thank you, Mayor Bart: Bill Poteet: Mayor Hart: Mr. Mayor; and I move that we adjourn. A motion to adjourn takes priority over ...... Mr. Mayor ..... Can't, Mr. Poteet, please. We have a some fun. vote Aye. motion to adjourn, here, which The wisdom of this Council be enacted, shall we have by the Vice-Mayor? Please call the roll: Christensen: No. Medders: Aye. Rogers: I don't know. I don't know whether Sceales: Aye adjourned. takes priority over other business. the motion I was just beginning to have I want to go home or not ..... I'll Strong: Aye Barton: No Bleecker: Aye Mayor Hart: Motion is carried. The meeting stands The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. ATTEST: MAY~y O~ield, of the City of B~ersfield, California ma Calif. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 227 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., November 24, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of AiLgiance and Invocation by Mr. Max Jacobs, 7th Ward High Priests Group Leader, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen Absent: None November 17, Minutes of the regular meeting of November 10, 1975 were approved as presented. Mr. Junior League Junior League, Bicentennial Calendars. 1975 and Scheduled Public Statements. Sid Sheffield, Community Advisor for the Bakersfield and Mrs. Fred Carlisle, President of the Bakersfield presented the Mayor and Council with Kern Heritage Mr. Ray Pettit, representing Bakersfield's Bicentennial Committee, invited the Mayor and Council to participate in an American Issues Forum Program on Tuesday, December 2, 1975, 7:00 P.M., at the Downtown Center of Bakersfield College. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, communication from Mrs. James H. Pensinger, Jr., 3048 Jacaranda Drive, requesting that refuse collection service not be interrupted on holidays, was received and ordered placed on file. Council Statements. Councilman Medders made a motion that the hearing on the proposed closing of Inyo Street between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street be continued until December 1, 1975. Councilman Rogers stated that it became apparent, in the discussions regarding the closing of Inyo Street, that the barriers on the east end of 18th Street presented a problem and also crossing Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 2 Truxtun Avenue, especially from the north side, making left turns during the rush hours difficult. Councilman Rogers requested that the Traffic Division of the Police Department study this problem and report back to the Council on December 1, 1975. Councilman Medders' motion to continue the hearing on the closing of Inyo Street between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street until December 1, 1975, was unanimously approved. Councilman Medders requested that the citizens that use Real Road near Palm Street adhere to the speed limit of 25 m.p.h. as this is a residential area. Councilman Bleecker stated that there have been numerous items on television and in the newspaper, etc. regarding the closing of Inyo Street and read an editorial from the November 19, 1975 issue of the News Bulletin, as follows: "Truth in Politics" Since Watergate (and before) public officials have been subjected to the harsh glare of public questioning. This is necessary for prevention of abuse of power. But the Watergate Affair, and all that went with it, has also created a public willingness to believe accusations made against public officials without supporting evidence being offered. By the time the "truth is out," so are the accused, despite their vindication by evidence and fact. Often, also, the truth is never disclosed, because resignation from public office will have closed the incident and tarred the accused with guilt. In our city, today, we are being subjected to a rash of accusations, "questions," and what appears to be a game of politics about the closing of Inyo Street. Charges not specified but implied include misconduct in office, abuse of the public trust and personal greed. If the charges, in whatever their form-- including the destructive form of "questions"-- have any basis other than a shoddy form of politickin', then they ought to be presented to a proper body for investigation, either the courts in a taxpayer suit or the Kern Grand Jury. Or the "questioners" should publicly, in open council, specify where the conflict of interest took place and how. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 3 229 We are told that the city has made a "gift" of a portion of Inyo Street to Sandstone Brick Co., of which its vice-president, Walter Heisey, served two terms as councilman for the Second Ward. First, to be truthful, the city could not have made such a "gift," for it never had ownership, only an easement through private property for the purposes of public convenience. The city can only abandon its easement so that use of the property reverts to the adjacent land owners. Second, beginning in 1949, the city began closing portions of Inyo Street, of which the part between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th St. was the last portion. Sound city engineering studies, beginning in 1961 and having apparently sufficient weight to impress the California Public Utilities Commission, dictated that the Inyo Street crossing of the Santa Fe railway be closed-- due to the high costs of installing automatic cross guards at that site--and the Tulare Street crossing, one block east, be opened. This action was approved by the PUC, the police department, planning commission and others in full public view with no objections being filed. As a deadend street, Inyo Street--already segmented--became available for further closings--if such closings could be proven to be in the public interest. Officers of Sandstone Brick Co. thought so, and asked for the closure of the southern portion which adjoins their property. Their request cost them nearly $4,000, for the company agreed to share the cost of the Tulare Street railway crossing with the city. Evidence indicates the city would have had to construct the crossing, anyway, whether Inyo Street would have remained open or closed at Truxtun Avenue. The City Council Monday was due to hear a request for closing the north portion of Inyo Street between Truxtun and East 18th Street, leaving open a diminished and transplanted easement further east to serve a diminished public need for easement in that area. The results of that meeting are not available at press time and are not essential to these comments. Unsubstantiated charges have been made and implied. The reputations of public figures have been tarnished. If there are foundations for such charges, they ought to be expounded for the public benefit. Also questioned has been the ownership of stock by the city manager and a member of the redevelopment agency in a company which buys and sales first and second trust deed mortgages, which leases office space from Sandstone Brick Co. 23O Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 4 It is proper that the conduct of this company be reviewed and participation of public servants questioned, but what must also be revealed is whether or not any conflict of interest resulted. City Attorney Kenneth Hoagland addressed this question and ruled that, in his opinion, no conflict existed and that no relationship existed between the investment company and closure of Inyo Street. Mr. Heisey, with whom this publication had editorially disagreed on a number of occasions while he was councilman, has to all appearances, devoted many years of effort to the hetterment of the city and its citizens. If his reputation is to he injured in an arena where laws of libel do not to any great extent exist, let it be done so without the tactics which smack of the great communist witch hunts of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Councilman Bleecker read a prepared statement regarding Council Meetings Rules of Procedure, as follows: Mr. Mayor and Council members: Because of recent events that have occurred here during the past few weeks, I propose an addition to Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code which governs the procedure of Council meetings. This would be an addition to the Council procedural ordinance governing Council meetings. The addition reads as follows: "No Council member shall make any personal attack or bring any charges against any officer of the Council or any employee of the City except in an executive session allowable by law, if such attack or charges, whether written or oral, allege or allude to incompetency, conflict of interest, dishonesty, or any like matter which could make said officer or employee subject to disciplinary action." The purpose of this rule of procedure is to protect the officer or employee from unfounded or serious charges and attacks made in public where there may be no basis in fact and the accuser has not been sworn to tell the truth and, therefore, not liable for perjury. If, however, in executive session, the charges are found to have merit, proper disciplinary action will be taken. Charges without merit will be so decided. In either case, the executive session determination will be reported in public session when the Council reconvenes. The aforementioned rule is explicitly provided for by Section 54957 of the Government Code which is a section in the Brown Act. Such section has been sanctioned by the Attorney General in 33 A.G. 32 opinions for precisely the reason stated here. The Attorney General stated: Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 5 "The purpose of section 54957 is to protect individual public employees and officers from unfavorable publicity, and to permit private inquiry into the employees' activities, or investigation of charges against such employees." The rule I have quoted above would be Section 2.08.095 of the Municipal Code. I move that this be the first reading of the ordinance adopting such section. Councilman Rogers stated that in light of recent develop- ments and changes that this addition is very necessary, at this time, and he would support the motion. Councilman Strong stated that he is disturbed by this proposed ordinance, primarily because he views it as an attempt to censor Councilmen and, to some extent, prohibit the expression of one's opinions. Councilman Strong asked if the ordinance will contain language which specifically explains what is meant by a personal attack and charges against an officer; if not then who will be interpreting what is considered a personal attack or charges against an officer. Councilman Bleecker stated that it would be up to the presiding officer to interpret whether or not a member of the Council is in violation of the rules of procedure. If, as the Nayor has stated previously, the Council feels that his ruling is not satisfactory, then the Council can ask for a vote to support that ruling and the will of the Council would prevail. Councilman Strong asked if other cities have been polled to see if they require this type of ordinance to conduct meetings; and if the City Attorney has researched the language thoroughly to determine that this ordinance is not in conflict with the basic right of freedom of speech. Councilman Bleecker stated that he drafted this ordinance, and there is nothing contained in the proposed procedure to prohibit debate between Councilmen; it deals specifically with employees of the City of Bakersfield. It has not been researched with other cities except that the City Attorney, in his opinion, has stated 232 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 6 that it is commensurate with the Brown Act. The Brown Act provides for executive sessions for the explicit purpose, according to the Attorney General of the State of California, o~f protecting individual public employees and officers from unfavorable publicity and to omit private inquiry into the employees' activities or investigation of charges against such employees. Councilman Strong stated, for the record, that any attempt to censor an opinion by any Councilman or to restrict his responses in any way, form or fashion will be opposed, by me, as long as I sit here. Councilman Rogers stated that in Councilman Bleecker's report, it states~"In either case, the executive session determina- tion will be reported in public session when the Council reconvenes;" and if the Council adopts the proposed ordinance, that wording should be included. Councilman Sceales stated that he has not enjoyed the last two Council Meetings as this Council has not conducted itself in a business-like manner, and perhaps this ordinance might be a step in the right direction. However, since tonight is the first time the Council has seen the proposed ordinance, he would like to reserve the right to support or oppose it at a later date. Councilman Christensen commented that he thinks this is a beautiful gag rule and would like to have the privilege of asking Vice-Mayor Bleecker if he feels that he can live up to this gag rule. The reason he asks that question is because of the terrible demeaning tear-down that he gave to Bob Elling, a City employee, right in the Council Chambers. The following is a verbatim answer to Councilman Christensen's question: Councilman Bleecker: "I'm really glad you brought that up, Councilman, because I was going to bring it up if you hadn't. The situation about Mr. Elling .... It's true that he was a City employee, at the time, and it's true that he was in this Council Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 7 Chamber, at the time; but it's also true that he was running for the City Council. And when he does that he puts himself into the political arena and, as far as I'm concerned, he's fair game. And the remarks made were aimed toward a leaflet that he passed out, during his campaign, and I checked into the facts of what it said there, and I thought they were a bunch of lies, and I said so. I think there is some distinction between maligning an employee for something he has or has not done or some allegations of dishonesty and so forth and so on when that employee is doing his job here in the City; but when that same person becomes a political candidate for a seat on this Council, I fully intend, if that should happen again and I should disagree with his remarks and/or his literature, and he's here in these Council Chambers or not in these Council Chambers, to say pretty well whatever I feel is proper. But I think I can live up to it. I don't think I've violated it, and I would intend to live up to it. It's my own rules. I don't think it's a gag rule at all in any shape, fashion or form. I think commensurate with State law. In fact, I know it is. So if that answers your question .... if it doesn't, I'd be happy to .... whether it's fair." Christensen: "I would like for his statements to be made a part of this rule so there will be no misunderstanding and we'll know that it covers political people and so on and so forth. And I would also like every member of the Council and the people of Bakersfield, the City I love, to know that in no way could I act or vote against the First Amendment. Thank you." Councilman Barton asked the City Attorney if the first reading would prohibit amendments to the proposed ordinance next Monday night. City Attorney Hoagland replied that it would be proper to make amendments next week. 234 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 8 First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakers- field amending Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code by adding Section 2.08.095. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, first reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code by adding Section 2.08.095, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Bleecker Noes: Councilmen Strong, Christensen Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Barton Reports. Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, read Report No. 9-75 regarding Workman's Compensation Self Insurance Program, as follows: As a result of a very significant increase in the City's workman's compensation insurance premium from $340,000 for 1973-74 to $650,000 for 1975-76, the staff recently met with the Budget Review and Finance Committee regarding the possibility of the City becoming self insured for workman's compensation insurance. The staff has studied this problem in detail and through discussions and visitations with other communities has found a number of advantages to a program of this type, such as lower administrative costs, better claims control and an improved cash flow. Attached to this report is a memorandum from Philip Kelmar, Assistant Finance Director, to H. E. Bergen, City Manager, which more thoroughly details the findings of the staff. If the City is to go self insured a tentative goal has been set for July 1, 1976. In order to meet this goal it is necessary to arrive at a complete comprehensive financial analysis to determine the feasibility of a self insurance program. The Budget Review and Finance Committee is of the opinion that this program should be pursued in more detail, and in order to gain the necessary information to make a complete analysis, we are requesting Council authorization for the staff to prepare bid specifications and go to bid for the claims administration and excess Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 9 insurance coverage portions of a self insurance program. The claims administration will be handled by a private organization on a bid basis. The bid will be for a three-year period and will require the administrator to have a Bakersfield office. Disability and medical payments will be made by the City, and the administrator will also assist the City with a safety program and provide us with injury analyses on a monthly basis. The excess insurance would relieve the City of any costs of an individual case which exceeded $100,000. This is the minimum amount now available in the insurance market. It would be on a bid basis for a three-year period. When a financial analysis is prepared, this Committee will review the information, and if the program appears feasible a recommendation will then be forthcoming to the Council as to whether or not the program should be initiated. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Report No. 9-75 of the Budget Review and Finance Committee regarding Workman's Compensation Self Insurance Program, was accepted and the staff was authorized to prepare bid specifications and go to bid for the claims administration and excess insurance coverage portions of a self insurance program. City Manager Bergen read a memorandum regarding Functions and Responsibilities of the Community Development Department, as follows: It has come to my attention that there have been a number of comments and some confusion in the public's mind between the Community Development Department and the block grant program funded by BUD. Hopefully, this report will clearly distinguish between the two efforts. In May, 1974, the City Council approved the establishment of the Community Development Department. The major reason for the creation of the new department was to bring together, on a coordinated basis, the activities of planning, building inspection, and redevelopment which, up to that time, had operated independently of each other. This reorganization allowed for the major developmental activities of the City to be performed by two major departments--Public Works and Community Development. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 10 This report divides the work of the Community Development Department into four general areas: 1. Current Planning 2. Advance Planning 3. Building Code Enforcement 4. Redevelopment The goal of the Current Planning effort is to assist the citizen, builder, and developer with land subdivisions, development standards, and land use proposals consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Current Planning processes subdivision maps, provides zoning service, makes environmental assessments, and does the drafting and graphics for the Council, Plannlng Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment, and staff. The goal of Advance Planning is to assist the Planning Commission and City Council in the development, maintenance, and coordination of general and specific plans, policies, and strategies which provide the basis for community preservation and orderly growth. Advance Planning prepares and processes with City Council, Planning Commission, and Redevelopment Agency approval the following general plan elements: Environmental Impact Reports; specific plans and studies, such as Downtown Parking, Airpark Study, Beach Park Study, Medical Area Studies, Mount Vernon Off-Ramp Study, etc.; specific ordinance, such as the Sign Ordinance; annexations; and development of an overall policy plan. The goal of the Building Department is to insure the citizens of Bakersfield that buildings and structures are safe to occupy. The Building Department is dedicated to reaching its goal with the least amount of "red tape" and the greatest amount of assistance to the builder. Besides issuing permits, checking plans, and making construction inspections, this department has been deeply involved with housing code enforcement--demolition or rehabilitation of substandard housing. The goal of the Redevelopment Agency is to pursue the charge of the City Council, which is to act in behalf of the City Council in fulfilling the State Redevelopment Act in downtown Bakersfield which is to convert areas with declining assets into new, more productive uses. The entire department staff works in concert in this effort. The major effort is the intricate and complicated Griffith Project, and the lesser projects (hotel, new bank, and parking) which are necessary in order to make the Griffith Project economically feasible. Gene Jacobs is the consultant on this project; Community Development staff works very closely with him. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 11 It is also fair to state that the efforts of any city's community development department more than pays for its existence through increased city revenue. The increased tax base created by the combined efforts of planning and contractors, building permit fees, and the reversal of the declining downtown tax base through redevelopment are indicative of these efforts. This brief review should help in delineating the differences between the Community Development Department and the specific block grant program. It is perhaps unfortunate that the legislation establishing the block grant program was designated as the "Community Development" Act instead of "special revenue sharing" as originally planned. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, memorandum from City Manager Bergen regarding Functions and Responsibilities of the Community Development Department, was received and ordered placed on file. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 1935 to 2095, inclusive, in the amount of $191,153.55. (b) Sewer Line Easement from Tenneco Realty Development Corporation providing for a 20 foot width easement for the Gosford sewer main between the future Ming Avenue and Quailwood Drive, north of Stockdale Highway. (c) Application for Encroachment Permit from Berchtold Equipment Company, 330 East 19th Street. (d) Application for Encroachment Permit from Jesus Abarca, 2900 St. Marys Street. (e) Application for Encroachment Permit from Ben Sacco, 1033 Chester Avenue. (f) Application for Encroachment Permit from Masonic Temple Association, 1920 - 18th Street. (g) Map of Tract No. 3767 and Contract for the improvements therein - located on the south side of Sunny Palms Avenue between Thunder- bird Street and Pebble Beach Drive in the Kern City area. (h) Plans and Specifications for construction of an Attendant's Restroom at the 17th Street Parking Structure. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 12 Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Medders, Bleecker, None None Rogers, Seeales, Strong, Barton, Christensen Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Sale through 30, in Block "J" of Sunset Tract, portion of the east side of South Haley Street between Wolfe and Potomac Streets, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Quitclaim Deed. Upon a motion by Councilman Seeales, low bid of Specialized Spray Service for Weed Abatement, was accepted and all other bids rejected. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of George Cundiff Associates for construction of a Sanitary Sewer along 58 Freeway between Houchin Road and Oleander Avenue, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Surplus Real Property to Pleasant View Missionary Baptist Church for all of Lots 24 City menration of Community Development Block Grant for 1975-76, follows: Adoption of Resolution No. 75-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, providing for specific projects for the first action year in respect to the Community Develop- ment Program Block Grant (No. B-75-MC- 06-0510) under the provisions of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Manager Bergen read a memorandum regarding Imple- as Deferred Business Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 13 Attached is a progress report from the Community Development Director on the block grant program for the first action year. It is important to emphasize the following points included in the report. The current projects for the first year are those that were approved by the City Council on March 20, 1975 and HUD on June 4, 1975. Prior to March 20, the City Council received considerable input from citizens and the Planning Commission regarding their views on how block grant funds should be allocated for the first year. The planning and storm drain projects are already underway. The other projects require City Council approval of specific locations and procedures before they can be implemented. One of the most important aspects of the City's block grant program for the first year is that the funds allocated for planning will provide the City with important information upon which to determine future capital improvement priorities for all city funds including general funds, gas tax funds, revenue- sharing funds, etc. Another factor that must be stressed relates to the housing code enforcement and blight eradication (spot blight removal) projects. These programs will be operated on a revolving fund basis. This will allow the City and its residents to benefit from such programs long after the block grant funds terminate. The resolution before the Council tonight contains the specific processes and procedures necessary for staff to begin implementing the curb and gutter, housing code enforcement, and blight eradication projects. The resolution has been revised to reflect comments and changes requested by the City Council. With City Council approval, the staff can proceed immediately to implement these important projects for community development. Dr. Don Ratty, representing the Downtown Business Association, read the following prepared statement: My name is Don Ratty and I represent the Downtown Business Association. It is my task tonight to convey to you the Downtown Business Community's concern: (1) about the fate of the Community Development funds and (2) the discouraging actions of the Council during its last two public sessions. First, in regard to the Community Development funds, the downtown community feels these funds are 240 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 14 good, good for the whole city and not just downtown - for a number of reasons. (1) These funds are our citizen's tax dollars being returned to its community - it is our money. (2) If the funds are not used in this city they will be used (not saved or returned to us in the form of lower taxes) but used by other communities to solve their problems. (3) These funds are preambled to help eradicate some of the worst problems in our city, and we feel this is good and proper. The amount of monies over the years - literally three to four million - whether plowed in on a one time basis, used on a shared basis, or put in revolving funds is a matter for the city staff and Council to decide. The downtown business community's concern is not that we are the first area to receive some of the benefits of these funds or an unfair share. Our concern is that the funds are returned to the city and used in the priorities that Council's and staff's wisdom recommends, and (4) it is our feeling, after meeting with the Community Development Director and his staff, on several occasions, that we have faith in their abilities to execute the Council's desires in the use of these funds. To get to the heart of the second matter, three weeks ago you gentlemen saw fit to defer action on the resolution involving these funds. This change of heart, so to speak, concerns us because it is in our humble wisdom the City Council's politics and dissentions among your- selves that are deciding the issue, and not, I repeat not the program's worth. The Council's actions during the last two sessions has given the whole city concern over the manner in which their business is being conducted. As an example, the vote on water bonds is passed in minutes and involves tens of millions of dollars, and the next two hours are spent in acrumonious and heated exchange over issues and allegations that have no place in these chambers. It is not the downtown business community's intent to lecture the Council, but to briefly point out what you already know. The city is watching and is concerned in the manner you are deporting yourselves. What we would like to see is that you put aside non-essential and political issues and get back to city business. I have personally talked with several of you gentlemen over the last two weeks and have found it a very rewarding experience. I have found honest men of good conscious and it is my hope, as well as the business community and city as a whole that mutual trust and understanding will prevail within the realms of this council. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 15 241 THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Ratty. Mr. Bergen, relative to the balance , this is under deferred business. You have staff here prepared to answer questions and inquiry by members of the Council? City Manager Bergen: Yes, Mr. Sumbardo and Mr. Foster are here. I might add that there's a number of attachments that were with my memorandum, that one was a Progress Report from the Community Development Department, there was a Summary of past actions of the Community Development Department up to date, and there was an estimated timetable for the completion. It's very short, and then we had some suggestions .... or some application deadlines as they affect next year, and then there was a .... this specific projects that we have suggested for this particular year. Some of them, like I pointed out before, have been approved with general location control, such as the storm drains .... some of them ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker has a question of you or your staff. Mr. Bleecker, please. Bleecker: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. In .... one thing I think we should--we should decide first here. In the .... this Item 3 (a), Deferred Business, the explanation of the .... what the resolution means and then down at the motion it says, Action: Be motion to adopt. Well, that's fine; but Mr. Bergen, doesn't this resolution also set the Council policy as to how all the .... these federally funded Community Development Projects and Block Grants are to be handled now and in the future? City Manager Bergen: I think I'd better let Mr. Sumbarde answer that. Mayor Hart: Mr. Sumbardo, if you will, please. Deputy City Manager Sumbardo: I think the main purpose that the staff presented the resolution to you in the first place was to set out the procedures and methods by which these projects 242 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 16 could be accomplished. The projects themselves were, of course, approved by the Council last March and by HUD the first part of June. But I think the basic intent was to have the Council establish the policies, methods and procedures to carry out these projects. Bleecker: Okay because ..... Deputy City Manager Sumbardo: question? question. Bleecker: Was the answer yes, Deputy City Manager Sumbardo: Did that answer your Mr. Sumbardo? Would you rephrase the Bleecker: Is the answer yes? Deputy City Manager Sumbardo: Would you please rephrase the question. Bleecker: Just let me read what it says here. It says, referring to the resolution before this body right now, "A Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, providing for specific projects for the first action year in respect to the Community Development Program Block Grants Number," so and so and so and so, "under the provision of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974." My question was, isn't this more than just approving certain projects for the first action year? Is it not a resolution also setting the Council policy as to how all Community Development Projects and Block Grants are to be handled now and in the future? Deputy City Manager Sumbardo: No, that would be subject to what the City Council decided to do if it wished to submit an application for the second year. This is just for the current 75-76 year. The City Council next year may wish to have none of these projects; they may wish to have all new projects or whatever the City Council shall so deem necessary. So I would say that the resolution is really directed at the current 1975-76 year. If these .... if you determine next year that you want to continue some of these projects, then the procedures in here may be applicable for next year. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 17 Bleecker: Sumbardo: Bleecker: action year. Sumbardo: resolution, Bleecker: or the year after? Sumbardo: Bleecker: Sumbardo: Bleecker: Or will be or may be. May be. In other words, this is just for the first No sir. Policies. No sir. Okay, thank you. Mayor Hart: Are there other questions or comments at this time from the members of this Council. Bleecker: I have some questions, Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Mr. Strong has one. Mr. Strong, please. Strong: No, I don't .... I don't have any questions, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to make a comment .... comment. Mayor Hart: It's more than acceptable. Strong: I a .... I still feel like .... if I might say that tonight, maybe I won't be able to say it after tonight, so I'm going to say it now, that I think the Council is .... I mean the staff is playing games, and all this talk is just sort of a play on words. There hasn't .... there hasn't been any real changes made in the resolution, especially in terms of the various allocations that were made for various projects. There were some misunderstandings in some areas which perhaps were cleared up as a result of some of the questions that were made by me and perhaps Mr. Bleecker. But a .... I think and I just want to say here and now that I just don't think that the staff is addressing the need which is so blatant. The law is perfectly clear as to the intended use of these funds and the mandates are set forth so clearly in the preamble that there should be no mistake. And any mistake or any purported mistake to me is This is the resolution and .... like any you can change that any time you so desire. This is not meant to set policy for next year 244 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 18 deliberate. And I think the staff is somewhat arrogant, if I mi$ht say that tonight. I don't mean it in any other sense other than the fact that they have just refused to abide by what they know are the guidelines that are set down by HUD for the use of this money. And that if this Council sits here and support them in their recommendation to buy trees and old buildings with this money, then I think it's an open invitation to the Federal Government to come in and perhaps usurp the right of local people to make local decisions which affect themselves. And I think if the Council sit here and does that, that a they shouldn't complain when the Federal Government does come. Rather than stash it .... just hook itself .... hook its nose up to the ring of the Federal Government and just follow along quietly. Mr. Bergen said something a little while ago about the community involvement, citizen participation and this kind of thinly; but I don't think that anybody on the staff can show me any influence that the lay public has had in making these recommendations. I don't think they can show me that. I know they can't show me that. I don't think that the public would recommend buying trees and old buildings with this money. So .... and while I'm on the subject .... I may as--I may as well bring up something else in terms of some of the meetings that were just opposed that .... I don't know who was responsible, but somebody felt so guilty about these recommenda- tions that they saw fit to have police protection at proposed Community Development meetings. And it turned out that nobody showed up. What's frightening about that, of course, is that whoever decided that police was needed didn't know much about the community and the people that they were planning to talk to; otherwise, they would have known that the police wasn't necessary. As a matter of fact, they would have known that the public had so little confidence in the fact that they would have had some meaningful input into these meetings .... they would have known that the public wouldn't have shown up. So it just goes to prove one Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 19 245 thing, that the public knows the staff a lot better than the staff knows the public. Mr. Bleeeker brought up a very good question, and I've looked and searched in this overall general plan and this update on the Community Development Programs and Projects for some .... some hint of how this second grant .... this second year's grant money should be spent or will be spent or some recommendations, which would set my mind at ease or to some extent set my mind at ease, as to whether or not the staff was showing good faith in making these recommendations. What I don't see anything and because of that I'm very very suspicious .... very suspicious. I--I really believe that the Federal Government will come in to monitor Bakersfield before it releases these funds, if not the first year, the second year, because I don't think that what's been recommended here was designed and had .... there was little desire on the part of whoever made these recommendations to do something about the blight and the slum which this program should address. And I don't think that that fact is a .... I mean I think that fact is so blatant. It stands out so much that whoever comes into this area to monitor the program is going to see that, and I don't believe that the staff, no matter how many games they play, are going to be able to justify that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to reserve the right to say something else if I may. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mr. Bergen, do you think that we have somebody in our midst that could help this overriding P.A. system? Do you think it might be turned up a little too much; it's picking up some others or we've got the volume off a little. Mr. Rogers, please. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Strong's comments brought a question to my mind. I noticed on the chronological schedule of events regarding the Community Development Program, and I might direct this question, I guess to Mr. Foster or Mr. Sumbardo. 24(; Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 20 Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster or Mr. Sumbardo, whomever should respond, please Mr. Rogers' statement of question. Rogers: I noticed here between December 17, 1974 and January 14, 1975 that the staff met with eight different community organizations, and I just wonder what type of response or turnout you received. Were you boycotted by all eight organizations or did someone show up for some of the meetings? Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster. Community Development Director Foster: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rogers. There was no community organization until we attempted to put something together. We met with the existing .... eight major existing community organizations, and by major, I mean that covered the full gamut. In starting something like this you have to use a lot of judgment and ask a lot of folks. The eight organizations represent everyone in the City; we made sure of that. Took the problem of coming up with something that would .... could be a program .... we actually eventually after talking about the act and what it could do .... we put together a series of programs that would do all kinds of things, and we put $625,000.00 worth of programs and listed them all out, and at the final meeting, after meeting with all these groups .... they, with us at the board .... they telling us, sitting around the tables .... what they thought the best program with the limited amount of money would be, and they said this program, that program, until they added up to $331,000.00. So we took that as a kick-off kind of program and presented it to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. We recognize that that was the best we could do with the .... with only a couple of months head start in this program. established is something that we will beginning of next year's application, with you on that in the coming year. Rogers: We think that the system look at as we go into the and we certainly want to work Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 21 Mr. ask. Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Rogers. Rogers: Thank you. Mayor Hart: Other comments, Bleecker: Bleecker: Mr. When .... when this questions, actions. Yes, Mayor, I have a few questions I'd like to first .... when this program first started and we started doing some research .... I say we, the staff started doing some research .... there was a rather lengthy summary of facts and figures having to do with the City of Bakersfield and certain areas just outside the City called the Bakersfield Community Development Plan, and in that .... this plan .... there's a plate or a map on .... near the front of it called Plate 1. In looking that over I noticed that all parts of the City are not included in the study area boundaries designated by the Community Development Department, where these block grants will ultimately be spent, and .... in other words, certain parts of the City have just been left out of the study area. But substantial areas in the County, where it abuts the City, have been included in the study area boundaries. I guess I should direct this to Mr. Foster. Why were certain areas of the City left out of the study area boundaries, Mr. Foster? Foster: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster, please. Foster: Councilman Bleecker, that area was designated .... it was almost a rectangle and easier to make the studies in. The purpose of the study was to find all the things, all the issues, everything that was possible to study. The universe of needs were found within that area. Any .... any of those needs found in any of the other areas of the City could be easily identified with the same thing found within the target area. So it's not a matter of identification. We know where it is; it's what it is and to the degree and how you handle it for the cure of it. So that would be the study necessary so that it can happen throughout the whole City if necessary. 245 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 22 Bleecker: Well, Mr. Foster, there must have been some reason why .... I mean somebody decided .... what I'm really getting at, Mr. Foster, is this: Would it not have been more appropriate for the Council to have decided whether or not certain areas of the City should have been excluded from the study area? Foster: That was part of our original proposal that we .... that we presented to you, as a Council, and you approved. Bleecker: Okay. Okay. I have another question, Mr. Mayor. On page 3 of the resolution .... by the way in looking through here, I find many things are ongoing .... it cannot, in my opinion, just be a resolution that approves the first year's projects, unless somebody tells me something different than what I've heard here tonight. There's no way it can, because it goes .... for instance, on .... under Part II on page 3, capital B, Project Description. It says, a total of $121,000 is budgeted for the Planning Project in the first action year. But is not that $121,000 cover the research done by Quad Consultants for the whole three-year program? Sumbardo: Mr. Mayor, can I answer that? Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Sumbardo, if you will please. Sumbardo: The purpose of the target area plan which Quad Consultants is assisting the City with is to develop long, intermediate and short range plans. Long range plans mean something over five years, intermediate five to ten, and the short, one to three. So, it's true that this plan is a plan of more than just the immediate year. One point we tried make in the memo here was that the plan, regardless of what happens to the Community Development Program down the year, the plan is still .... we hope will still be valid in that it will allow the City to implement and plan better in the future. Bleecker: Whether we have Federal funds or not, whatever,. Sumbardo: Correct. Right. Bleecker: So this $121,000.00 does cover the cost for the .... at least the three-year period that we're talking about right now. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 23 Sumbardo: Right, but there's no .... this is a $121,000.G~0 for the first action year. Bleecker: Right. Sumbardo: And it says nothing here about additional planning monies for any year past the first action year. And I might also say that in the resolution title again on the third line it says, for the first action year. Bleecker: Okay. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Sumbardo. Bleecker: On .... Mr. Mayor, at any time if another Councilman has a .... any comments or questions .... I have several, and I'm certainly .... defer it for anybody else. Mayor Hart: All right. With that in mind if somebody has something at this time that they wish to bring forth .... Mr. Rogers. Rogers: Yes, revolving the a or .... regarding this housing improvement, let's see if that's the one, but the one where certain areas are slated for improvement and there's a .... what, an interest free loan .... how is this to be financed? I looked through here, and I'm not--it's not clear in my mind exactly who puts up what amount of this fund to finance improving real estate in the target area that's selected. Mayor Hart: Mr. Sceales, do you want to answer that one or do you have a question later? Sceales: Oh no, I'm sorry. Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster, if you will, p~ase. Foster: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rogers. The way it is intended to happen, according to the resolution, is that the normal code enforcement process that is ongoing .... now, when we give a notice and order to repair or rehabilitate a house, there is along with that, knowing that the owner occupant is unable to finance the improvements on the home, there'll be an offer to get a loan for that individual. Make a loan. Once we get the contractor's Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 24 estimate for the owner, the owner then would apply to the City on a loan application for a loan to do just exactly that work required by the notice and order. Once that's been approved then the loan would be issued .... or it would be paid directly to the vendor, the contractor or the subcontractors, whatever the case may be, and then it would be on file as a loan from the City Were you more interested in the precise ? Rogers: Okay. Then the money comes institution, is that right? Foster: Rogers: Foster: Rogers: Foster: Rogers: from some financing .... is that or .... where Foster: Rogers: Foster: Rogers: Foster: Rogers: Mayor ..... It comes directly from the City I see. The Finance Department. And is that interest free? Interest free with a ..... So in effect then, a correct statement or is do these funds initiate? It is from the Block Grant. From the .... okay. Right. All right. Instead of a Grant, it's a loan. Okay. Now .... another question, to the individual. City funds are used .... or will it funds from the Block Grant if I may .... Mayor Hart: Please. Rogers: Regarding a curb and gutter projects. If have a street that does not have curb and gutters or driveways the area is selected for this type of project, how is this financed? Foster: The a .... that's financed directly by Community Development Block Grant Funds and that again is after all the folks on the street sign up for the curb and gutter. They have a note now and the City Department of Public Works orders the annual you and Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 25 contractor to put it in. Once it's in, property owner pays it back to the City, outlined in the resolution. Rogers: Does the .... if I may, Mayor Hart: Please. then we have a note and the through the process Mr. Mayor ..... Rogers: Foster: No. Rogers: .... back. Foster: No. It a .... it pays back $2.00 per front foot or the equivalent of about 22%. I think our Public Works Director prepared a ..... Rogers: Foster: Does the property owner pay 100% of those costs? City does contribute a share. The City contributes the paving and also the engineering, the legal, the administration, printing of bonds and so forth, under a normal Public Improvement District. Under this particular grant program, the City would pay for the street repair, the engineering, legal and administration; and this would amount to 29% of the cost, the total cost. Rogers: Approximately what .... if I may, Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Please. comment ..... Mayor Hart: Yes, Hawley: Under a please. A point of clarification. normal Public Improvement District, the Okay and who pays the other 78%. Okay, 22% of the total .... like an assessment district .... 22% of it's paid for by the property owner, 49% is paid for out of the Community Development Grant and 29% is paid by the City, and that's in engineering, legal, administrative fees. Rogers: Well, 29% then is the responsibility of the City taxpayer. Foster: The same as .... I believe the same as an assess- ment district ..... Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley: If I might 252 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 26 Rogers: Approximately what percent does the City pay for now in just a regular Public Improvement District? Do you have a .... Hawley: Approximately 40%. Under a normal Public Improvement District the property owner pays would pay for 40%. Rogers: Hawley: for 60%; the City So actually ..... Under this particular program, the property owner would pay 22%, the City 29% and the Community Development share would be 49%. Rogers: Okay, thank you. That's fine. Mayor Hart: Fine. Mr. Sceales, please. Sceales: Mr. Mayor, there's one thing I want to get cleared up in my mind. Councilman Strong brought it to my attention. If I may, I would like to direct my question to Mr. Foster. Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster, please. Sceales: This application that you sent to HUD, it had the six projects in the application. Is that correct? Foster: Yes. sceales: Did they .... do they have to approve the application before you get the money? Foster: Yes. Sceales: Is HUD the Federal Government? Foster: Yes. Sceales: Well then, apparently to me .... I don't what our big problem is because they have already approved where you are going to spend the money. Is that right? Foster: Sceales: Foster: Sceales: for drains ..... Foster: In the a .... the areas. The areas .... Not location sites, not streets ..... In other words, you can spend that much money Right .... Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 27 253 drains. Sceales: .... but they don't tell you where. Foster: Well, that was approved specifically, the storm Sceales: Well .... but the other projects weren't? Foster: The curb and gutter wasn't identified as to streets; the rehab loans were not identified as to address; and the spot blight removal wasn't identified as to address either. But all the rest were spelled out specifically. The planning, exactly what we would do, and so on. Sumbardo: Can I just add to that. The application that was approved by the City Council on March 20th, was approved without any change by HUD on June 4th, for the projects included in this resolution. Sceales: Thank you. Mayor Hart: Thank you, Mr. Sceales. Mr. Strong, please. Strong: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask Mr. Hawley another question now. We're .... we were talking about $2.00 per ..... first of all, I don't know why we spending this much time on this because in this resolution there's no money allocated for code enforcement anyway. I have an old house out there that $7,000.00 wouldn't even start to fix up, so it's no point in spending a whole lot of time on something which really does .... which is irrelevant to this discussion. Of the $331,000.00, I thinks it's well to let the public know that all of this rhetoric is just sort of designed to circumvent the issue. That's part of the problem. We're only talking about $7,000.00 for code enforcement. That's what's so ridiculous about the entire proposal. The other thing is, is that some mention was made that the $2.00 that the resident would be paying for curb, gutter and sidewalk .... or curb and gutter, I'm sorry, represents 22%, which means that a foot of curb and gutter would cost about $9.00. Is that what we're led to believe? That if a person had a hundred front feet that it would cost him a total. of $900.00 to put in curb and gutter? Hawley: Mr. Mayor .... 254 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 28 Mayor Hart: Yes .... Hawley: If I might answer. Normally on a .... on a improvement of this type, not only would you have the curb and gutter along the frontage but you would also have curb and gutter along the side streets, and in addition to that, you would have cross drains and also the paving repair. Also the curb and gutter would cost more than the $2.00 per foot. So it does figure $9.00 per front foot, of frontage along the street, but that would .... there's a lot more footage of curb and gutter than just the frontage along the street. Does that answer your ..... Strong: No, not really, because a .... are you saying now that the Public Improvement Districts that have been approved and are in existence in this City cost about five times or four times as much as the property owners pay? Hawley: Under a normal .... a typical 50-foot lot .... under a normal Public Improvement District, the cost would be around $580.00. The property owner would pay for 50 foot of curb and gutter, plus a portion of the side street frontage and also for a driveway. The City would pay for the street cross drains, the alley cross drains, the paving, the engineering, legal, administration, bonds and so forth. So this would mean that the property owner would pay $350.00 and the City's share would be $230.00 for a total of $580.00. Strong: Now, if I may, Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Please .... please proceed, Mr. Strong. Strong: In other words, now that's under this present proposal? Hawley: Strong: Hawley: Strong: No sir. That's under a normal ..... Under a normal ..... ..... Public Improvement District. Yes sir. I see .... and would care to speculate then on the .... this proposal, the $15,000.00 that's allocated for curb and gutter work put in .... approximately how many curb and gutter? Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 29 255 Hawley: Strong: Hawley: Strong: Hawley: Strong: Hawley: About 3~ blocks or 4. About 3~ blocks ..... Or 4 ..... Lineal blocks? Yes sir. How could you explain that? Well, in addition to the $15,000.00, the City contributes the engineering, legal, administrative, the street paving. The $15,000.00 would only be the Community Development share, and the property owners .... property owners share. It would not include the City's share. Strong: I know, but it's my understanding that $15,000.00 is there for the purpose of .... what, loans? Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster. Foster: No, not .... not loans. The Community Development Grant, the money .... $15,000.00 will be spent going right down the block putting in curbs and gutters and driveway approaches and cross gutters and so on. The folks that live there would pay $2.00 a foot to go .... that would go back into the Community Development Fund so that we could go a little further on the next block. Strong: Okay. Mayor Hart: I think Mr. Strong wants to know if they don't have that money to put in there, do they have a source that they can go to and apply for their share of that fund? Foster: It becomes a trust deed against the property and payable at a later time .... but the .... it ..... Strong: It's like a ..... Foster: Like a loan ..... Strong: Just a regular Public Improvement District. Foster: No, it a .... except it wouldn't be collectible with taxes. It .... it'd be collectible when it became an estate or when the property sold or if they made payments, it .... with their regular taxes. 256 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 30 Strong: Foster: Strong: No, I meant .... I meant ..... Three ways ..... Mr. Foster, if I may, under your plans, how do Grant, offset gutter. you plan to get the money .... under your plan, the way you have it outlined here in the resolution. Foster: Okay. They will be billed October 15th and April 15th of each year. So it would be a three-year pay back with six payments. Fifty-foot lot, $100.00 divided by six ..... Strong: What will he be paying back? That's what I'm trying to find out. Foster: Exactly $2.00 a foot. Strong: Okay. Now then the amount of money that's going to be available for them to borrow, or are you saying that the $15,000.00 that .... that's in question here, is going to be the amount that you set aside from the Community Development Block right? To augment the cost .... rather, I'm sorry .... to the cost of putting in $9.00 a front foot for the curb and Foster: $15,000.00 would be used to go right down ..... we'll just take an example .... we'll go right down the street from point A to point B, which would be $15,000.00 worth of curbs and gutters and street work. Strong: All right. Foster: Okay. Then the property owners that got curb and gutter in front of them would each be billed $2.00 a front foot, which would bring back to the Community Development Fund a .... what .... 1,400 and .... three times about 4,000 or better dollars, which would go back in to do some more curb and gutter. So it's a declining revolving fund .... is what they call it. Strong: I have no further questions. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Bleecker: Mr. Mayor ..... Mayor Hart: Yes, Mr. Bleecker. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 31 257' Bleecker: Maybe it could be cleared up this way, Mr. Mayor. If you take a typical 50-foot lot on King Street, the total cost to put all this in would be 450.00. It would cost the homeowner $100.00, the Community Development Grant shares would be $250.00, and the City's share, out of tax revenues or, would be $130.00. Now that's what it would cost. The homeowner, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Foster, can borrow that $100.00, is that right? Foster: That's right. Bleecker: Out of this $15,000.00 is it ..... Foster: That in effect is what it is .... yes, interest free. Bleecker: All right. Does that explain it? Strong: No .... no .... most definitely not, Mr. Bleecker. I didn't think the 15 .... how are you going to take $15,000.00 you say you are going to spend this money going from point A to point B. Now where are going to have any left? Foster: It .... it .... in effect is a loan. Bleecker: Oh, I see ..... Foster: You sign them up in the first place; they sign the deal asking for curb and gutter. Bleecker: But they don't have to have a loan ..... Strong: I don't have any further questions. Bleecker: They can pay the money if they want ..... Foster: Right. Bleecker: Okay .... $100.00 ..... Foster: Right, they will be billed a $100.00 ..... Bleecker: So if you have a 50-foot front, you're getting: the curb and gutter all the way across with all the other amenities, the ..... Foster: Drive approach, cross gutters ..... Bleecker: Driveway approach and so forth and so on for a $100.00. Foster: Right. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 32 Bleecker: another question. Mayor Hart: Christensen: Thank you. Mayor Hart: Mr. Bleecker. Bleecker: Allocation Project. I understand that all right. Now, I have Mr. Christensen wanted to ask one. No. My question has been answered. Fine. Thank you, Chris. Please go ahead, Okay. On page 4, item 3 .... it says Resource It says this program will identify the priority needs of the community and develop a process for the allocation of community development block grants in future years. Now would it be all right, Mr. Foster, if that said this, "This program will identify and recommend the priority needs of the community to the City Council and develop and recommend to the City Council a process for the allocation of community development block grants in future years?" Mayor Hart: Mr. Foster ..... Bleecker: Could it just as well have said that? Foster: Yes, only I didn't catch your wording .... was good. Bleecker: Could it also say, "It will be the explicit prerogative of the City Council to approve any and all allocations of funds associated with the Community Development Block Grants," right after that, as another sentence? Foster: Yes, Bleecker: I Mayor Hart: that's the intent. see. Do you want the proper phraseology that Mr. Bleecker used in the first question he ask you. Did I under- stand you, Mr. Foster, to say that you didn't get the phraseology he used? Foster: Well, I'll catch it. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 33 Bleecker: This .... the references and changes I think are appreciated by the whole Council all the way through here where the Council has mentioned as .... as and maybe that's covered somewhere else. Perhaps it is. Okay now, on page 4, item 3 .... talking about "Housing Improvement Projects" where the objective of the Community Development Project is to .... at Block Grants is "begin steps to secure decent, safe and sanitary housing in residential neighborhoods by providing financial assistance to eligible homeowners to bring dwellings up to City requirements." Is there any intention .... since it's .... it's not mentioned here .... but is there intention to put the City of Bakersfield into building public housing with any of these Federal Funds? Foster: No sir. Bleecker: Would .... then if that's not the intention, would it be all right to put in there, "The City of Bakersfield, however, does not .... does not itself intend to build any public housing under any Community Development Programs now or in the future"? Foster: We could put that in there, but it's illegal according to the Act. It says right in the Act you cannot construct housing. Bleecker: Oh, it does. Foster: It does. Bleecker: You cannot build houses then ..... Foster: ..... of any kind. (Unintelligible--two people talking at once) Bleecker: Thank you. That saves a lot of time there. Okay .... I think I ask this question last time, but on page 6, I'd like to have it clarified one more time. Number 5 .... up at the top of the page ..... it says, "Monies from said fund may be used for purposes consistent with the objectives of the housing improve- merit project or to make any payments by voucher duly authorized by the City Council for the owner-occupant which may preserve continued 26O Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 34 occupancy or ownership, under section." Would you explain, please, again, Mr. Foster, what phrase "any payments" means. Foster: That's .... this is you start defining specifically what the conditions set forth in this that a catchall because as soon as you can pay, like we did here, there's always that one thing that comes along that wasn't covered here and yet is necessary in order to complete the project. We pu'h it because of your concern .... I think you were all concerned about it .... we put in there by voucher duly authorized, so that there wouldn't be superfluous things or things that were way out of the ordinary go through. But there always seems to be, when you're constructing something or trying to do something, one little thing that has to get paid or you can't .... you can't do the work. An old P.G. & E. bill, therefore, they won't turn on the power in order to run the power pole, for example. Bleecker: Okay. Now on .... Mr. Foster, on this .... well let me find the right section here because it has to do with this 86 .... $86,000.00 for blight removal. Rogers: Page 8. Bleecker: Is that page 8? Okay. Rogers: Yep .... middle of the page .... last paragraph. Bleecker: Okay .... Project Description doesn't recommend any specific site here, but it has been indicated to me that .... that this $86,000.00 would probably be used to buy the old .... old Elks Building and do something with that. Foster: Yeah .... I would like to .... that .... that was on our first-year project. We did identify that as towards the purchase of an old Elks Building, and believe me, to be honest with you, that's the best we could do at this time. We knew that we had to come up with a specific address or a specific thing that had to be done in spot blight removal; and with all the information and input we got from the community and from what we could see, it seemed to be the best thing we could recommend at this point; and Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 35 261 we are, at this time, not even recommending that we define the project now, because if .... if that were to be the old Elks Building, we couldn't give you enough information on it. We really don't know what the price is or what we .... if we can develop it at a future date. In the application it spells out the process by which we would come to you with a specific address for your approval and then do it. Right now we just said let's look towards that; we have nothing better to offer in the expense .... expenditure that .... at this time, there's a lot of blight in the community. We understand that. We know many places that could go. But with the constraint of time and staff, right at this point, we can't .... we .... the best we can offer is .... is lending it to the Redevelopment Agency so that they could use it in .... in the purchase of the old Elks Building for creation of parking. I could bring you an update on that, bul I don't think that there's enough information to really discuss it outside of the fact that the .... we don't specifically want to identify the project at this point because we have nothing concrete. Bleecker: Well .... if I might continue, Mr. Mayor .... Mayor Hart: Please. Bleecker: But all of the other expenditures of funds are now associated with specific projects, is that not correct? Foster: That's right, we ..... Bleecker: Every one of them, except that $86,000.00. Foster: Right. Bleecker: But then .... then what you saying, Mr. Foster, is it's just too difficult to come up with a project, at this time, Council would know now where that $86,000.00 is that .... where the going to be spent. Foster: No .... I'm trying to be honest with you. I don't have enough information right at this point .... I don't think any of us do .... to make a specific recommendation that it be that for sure. 2 ;2 Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 36 Bleecker: Okay .... so then the .... the alternative is for this Council to approve this resolution which would in effect turn that $86,000.00 over to the Redevelopment Agency to decide what to do with it, right? Foster: No .... no .... Bleecker: No7 Foster: That's not .... that's not our recommendation. Bleecker: Well, what is it then? Foster: The recommendation is that when we bring a project to you, for your approval, then this is the process by which it would be .... we would do it. The details, the process of spending the money and what it can do. Now if you wanted to eliminate some of the possibilities here, it would narrow down further .... closer .... what that project could be, specifically. Sumbardo: Excuse me .... I think the intent of the .... of this project, on page 8 under B there, was that the money could be used for two purposes: One, either to purchase vacant, deteriorated or blighted properties and to clear and resell them for develop- ment and .... I suppose .... and/or to loan funds to the Redevelopment Agency or Parking Authority for land acquisition purposes in accordance with City Council approval in the procedures outlined below. But in either case, the staff would not move toward purchasing any property until it received the concurrence and the approval of the City Council. Bleecker: Okay. Well then .... but .... but .... let me pursue it just a little further then. Let's talk about this Elks Club because to me it doesn't .... I mean the Elks Club Building .... because to me it doesn't subtract, and when I say that I can see where we're going to have to get some money from somewhere else in order to make a .... a viable project out of tearing that building down. And I've talked to you about this before, Mr. Foster; I just wondered if you had anything new to offer because if you take Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 37 $86,000.00 and you take $55,000.00 from that to tear down and make the property ready--which is the best estimate we have now of what it would cost--that's right, isn't it? Then it leaves you $31,000.00 to buy the Elks Building with. Now, I believe you indicated to me at one time that .... that HUD has two prices; one price if a private firm wanted to buy the old Elks Building and a cheaper price if a City were interested in using that building for .... to tear down and develop something for the needs of the City. Is that right? But in either case we don't know what that price is right now, right? Foster: That's correct. Bleecker: Okay. They won't tell us, will they? Foster: I talked to ..... Bleecker: What they'll sell it for, will they? Foster: I talked with them this afternoon again and they agreed to accept our offer of $20,000.00 for the building. Now that .... I couldn't do that until we had our program approved or the Council approved even the concept, but we're still talking with them so that I could have some update on the kind of dollars we're talking about. Is that ..... Bleecker: So they did say they'd sell it for $20 ..... Foster: No they didn't .... they said that they would .... you know if .... if the City decided to go ahead with the project that we should say that we would pay them $20,000.00 within .... after acceptance of it and .... and they would then respond to that $20,000.00, and this goes back and forth and that's why we can't say how much it's going to sell for. But that would take it .... the $20,000.00 with the $55,000.00 demolition would bring it somewhere around $5.00 a square foot, which is about right for property in that area. It's a good low price to start with. Bleecker: So you think they might sell it for $20,000.00 in a way .... way ..... Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 38 Foster: I don't see how they're going to get any more than .... because if the City doesn't buy it, if they don't negotiate with HUD, then it .... some months, maybe a year later, it goes out to bid to the open market and the highest bid gets it; and I don't who would bid more than $5.00 a square foot, less demolition. So it would be a fair bid. Bleecker: So that looks like a ball park figure. Foster: Right. Bleecker: Well then, if you have .... if you can buy it then for $20,000.00, that would leave you $11,000.00 left over to play with, right? Foster: Yeah, this a ..... Bleecker: Starting with 86, I mean ..... Foster: Right. Bleecker: Okay. Then .... the best you know now then if .... if .... if we use this whole $86,000.00 for that purpose, I say if .... if the Redevelopment Agency recommends that, so forth and so on .... 55 for tearing it down, that leaves 31, take 20 off, that $11,000.00 left over .... then do we have anybody .... what .... what would we sell that for? What .... that cleared property to build something on, what would we ask for it? Foster: That's point number two. In my concern, because I don't .... I personally don't believe that we should be buying property until we have a specific use for it. Not just for the fun of having it. We are currently working with three developers. If they can put something together and the timing is right, here then there would be a possibility of purchasing the land and selling it back to them, and the .... whatever we paid for it back into this fund. This is a revolving fund the way it's set up here. Bleecker: We would own the land after we'd cleared the building, wouldn't we? Foster: Yeah, but we would sell it to the developer ..... Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 39 Bleecker: Yeah, but for how much, is what I'm getting at? What ..... Foster: We didn't sell it to them for a .... market value, which would, in our case, supposedly what we paid for it. We'd have to at least get what we paid for it. Bleecker: Which would be say a .... okay. You mean we'd have to sell it to them for $20,000.00? Foster: No, we .... we would have paid $75,000.00 for it. Bleecker: Including the demolition charge. Foster: Right. Bleecker: Okay. That what .... so we'd sell it for $75,000.00. Is that about what it would appraise for if it were cleared? Would you say. Foster: That is what we're saying to HUD .... and that's our .... that would be if we .... if you approved it, that's the way we would go. Bleecker: Okay. Foster: Consider it to be that price. Before we sell, we would have to have it appraised, and we have to sell it at that appraised value. Bleecker: Well .... well then since we feel that we can buy it for 20 and 55 to tear it down and we have 11,000 left over, maybe sell the property for $75,000.00, then why can't we sell that to somebody right now. I mean the idea that this is what we can do, we think. Why can't we do that without putting it into another arm or agency of the City and leaving it there and fooling around with it for maybe ever and ever or something like that? Foster: We could; however, the HUD can only sell it to the City this way, and it's a matter of negotiating, so if the City or the Agency purchases it and sold it to another one, that's the same thing. But the object is to have the money in a land bank or spot blight removal fund that continually rolling over so that we can be removing blight .... spot blight, whether it's a gas Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 40 station on California or Chester or whatever. The concept is to first find the developer, find someone who wants to develop that parcel, buy it, clear it, subordinate to them so it makes a more feasible project for them. That's the intent of the fund. In the absence of having staff out there right now, we tend to be leaning towards recommending its len .... lending it to the Agency so they can do something like this if they can come up with the right figures. Bleecker: it for $75,000.00. again, So when we get the 75 .... let's say we sell When we get that back, do we use that money is that right? Foster: That would be another project. Bleecker: And that 75 wouldn't necessarily have to go back into buying another building; it could go into any approved community development project, could it not .... that's allowable by HUD? Foster: Interestingly enough, once Community Development funds are lent to the Agency .... I don't know another word for laundered .... but the money's laundered; it's washed, then it can go .... when it comes back to the City can be used for anything. Christensen: Do they send it to Mexico? Foster: If the City so desires. Bleecker: What if .... oh, I see .... okay ..... Foster: But if it's .... it stays in a Community Develop- ment Project, it must stay there and stay there and stay there and stay there forever. So one way of .... that's one .... recommending it .... lending it to the Agency. Bleecker: In other words, if it stays with the Redevelopment Agency, then it can only be used for Community Development Projects? Foster: No, no. All these other funds must stay in a Community Development revolving fund. Any monies lent to the Redevelopment Agency .... when that money is paid back, the City may Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 41 put it back into the same fund or can spend it for anything, so it gives the City a greater flexibility of future use of these funds by lending some to the Agency. The intent here, though, is to get it back into the land bank; but then there are no controls whatsoever in the land hank. The City has free option to use it for any kind of projects it wishes. Bleecker: Then the Agency can't use it for anything except to buy property with, is that right? Foster: It would .... for whatever the Agency .... if the Agency asks the City to borrow .... asks for a loan .... it would have to be for what they ask it for .... yes. Bleecker: So they'd have to specify what they wanted to do with it at the time we loaned them the money? Foster: Well, I'm sure you'd want to know, yes. Bleecker: It's doubtful they'd get the money otherwise. Foster: Right. Bleecker: That answers my questions. Mayor Hart: All right. Mr. Strong, please. Strong: Oh, I just didn't want to forget, Mr. Mayor, to take some formal action to respectfully ask the Council or the staff to record the minutes verbatim and distribute the minutes I don't know whether that requires a formal to each Councilman. motion or not. Mayor Hart: Yes, you mean relative to this particular matter that we're now discussing. Strong: Right. Mayor Hart: Thank you. Mrs. Anderso% relative to this matter then, would you see that it is a verbatim report. Okay. What's your pleasure, gentlemen? Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 75-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, providing for specific projects for the first action year in respect to the Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 42 Community Development Program Block Grant (No. B-75-MC-06-0510) under the provisions of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen Noes: Councilman Strong Absent: None New Business. Approval of Annexation Boundaries designated as White Lane No. 9 Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Annexation Boundaries designated as White Lane No. 9, located north of White Lane and westerly of South Chester Avenue, and known as Tentative Tract No. 3722 and containing 12.6 acres of uninhabited territory, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFC. Adoption of Resolution No. 76-75 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field endorsing the Program of the Greater Bakersfield Bicentennial Committee. Councilman Rogers read the resolution into the record as follows: WHEREAS, the Fourth of July, next, represents the 200th Anniversary of the signing of America's Declaration of Independence; and WHEREAS, the American Resolution Bicentennial Administration has declared that months leading up to this historic date, and an appropriate period following, should be a period of rededication to our Nations' founding principles and a period to develop a renewed sense of national unity and commitment to meeting the challenges facing America today and in the future; and WHEREAS, three themes have been established for Bicentennial celebrations and activities: Heritage '76 - projects which remind us of the inspired origins of our great Nation and the sacrifices involved in the struggle for Independence; Festival USA - activities which appropriately celebrate the American people's history, traditions, cultures and hospitality; Horizons '76 - projects which raise the consciousness of our citizens to the Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 43 269 individual responsibility we all share in preserving the sacred liberties of a free people; and WHEREAS, the community of Bakersfield has been properly recognized as a National Bicentennial Community; and WHEREAS, the Greater Bakersfield Bicentennial Committee has been established to allow Bakersfield to participate in the national Bicentennial program; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Committee, as stated in its Charter, is to encourage our citizens to rededicate themselves to the principles upon which our Nation was founded and to stimulate renewed patriotism and participation in our community; and WHEREAS, the Program of the Committee is designed to improve the overall image and quality of life in our community through its own activities and through activities of community groups and municipal departments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Bakersfield hereby endorses the program of the Greater Bakersfield Bicentennial Committee and encourages all citizens of our community to support and participate in the Committee's activities and events. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Resolution No. 76-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield endorsing the Program of the Greater Bakersfield Bicentennial Committee, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Bleecker, Christensen Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barton Hearings. 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. 4," 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. 27O Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 44 Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the hearing on the annexation of "Kern River No. 4," was continued until December 22, 1975, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barton Abstaining: Councilman Christensen 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 December 22, 1975, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Bleecker Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barton Abstaining: Councilman Christensen City Manager Bergen stated that the Christmas Tree Lights on Truxtun Avenue used to be turned on at Thanksgiving Time, but due to the Energy Crisis, the last couple of years they have been turned on the first part of December. The City plans for this year are, starting December 12th through 18th, they will be on from 6:00-9:30 P.M., and December 19th through 25th, from 5:00-10:00 P.M. Bakersfield, California, November 24, 1975 - Page 45 271 Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. ;ity of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CT I Y ~LERK and E~Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of B~kersfield, California ma 272 Bakersfield, California, December 1, 1975 Minutes of a regular meeting o£ the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 8:00 P.M., December l, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Donald A. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Rogers. Present: Absent: None Council Statements. Councilman Rogers commented on a letter that was sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development by Councilman Strong, which resulted in a monitoring that will be conducted by HUD into the City of Bakersfield's Community Development Block Grant Program, and also on the amount of Capital Improvement Project funds that have been spent in the First Ward during the past three years. Councilman Rogers asked the City Attorney if the City's Community Development Program is stopped, by HUD, would the funds that have been expended have to be repaid. City Attorney Hoagland stated that his office has been trying to find out the answer to that question without too much success, however, there is a possibility that the U.S. Attorney General could sue the City for repayment of funds and then the City would have to go into court and justify the program that was submitted. The City would have to honor the present contracts whether the Federal Government supplied money or not. Councilman Rogers made a motion that no additional funds be obligated on the Community Development Block Grant Program until after the monitoring, by HUD, is completed and the City knows exactly where it stands. Councilman Barton asked how much of the funds are en- cumbered and what the nature of those funds are at this time. Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 2 Community Development Director Foster replied that about $129,000.00 are encumbered at this time. The City has planning contracts to the extent of $121,000.00, plus, of the $25,000.00 allocated for reimbursement of City staff, approximately $8,000.00 has been expended. Councilman Barton asked if there has been a notice of bid on the storm drain facilities. Community Development Director Foster replied that it has not gone to bid as yet. After discussion, Councilman Rogers' motion that no additional funds be obligated on the Community Development Block Grant Program until after the monitoring, by HUD, is completed and the City knows exactly where it stands, was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: None Councilman Strong responded to Councilman Rogers' state- ments and read into the record the communication from HUD Area Director Roland E. Camfield, Jr., as follows: Honorable Vernon D. Strong Councilman, First Ward City of Bakersfield 828 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 Dear Councilman Strong: This is in response to your letter of November 5 regarding the community development program in Bakersfield and the grave allegations made by you in that letter. Our approval of the City's application for grant assistance under the Housing and Com- munity Development Act of 1974 was based primarily upon apparent compliance with regulations concerning program development, project eligibility, a Housing Assistance Plan, and the submission of assurances and certifi- cations that covered critical and legally binding items. Included in the assurances are statements regarding compliance with Title VI o£ the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL. 88-352); 274 Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 3 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (PL. 90-284); Section 109 of the Housing Act of 1974; Section 3 of the Housing Act of 1968; Executive Order 11246; Executive Order 11063; and citizens' participation requirements. Furthermore, the assurances provide that the community development program: (a) gives maximum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low or moderate-income families, or aid in the prevention of slums or blight; (b) contains activities designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency which are specifically identified and described in the applicant's Community Develop- ment Plan summary and community development program. This Department, by virtue of Section (104 d) of the 1974 Housing Act, is required to conduct such audits and reviews as may be necessary or appropriate to determine whether the grantee has carried out or is carrying out a program substantially as described in its application and whether that program complies with appli- cable laws. It is our intention to conduct an extensive monitoring mission in the City of Bakersfield some time in January 1976 to make such a determination. The City will, at that time, be required to provide access to all records and procedures concerning the Block Grant Program. Our findings and recommendations will be made known to the City immediately upon completion of the monitoring session. If necessary, appropriate actions will be suggested to correct any notable deficiencies in the program with the expectation that any problems will be resolved prior to a second year of funding. We are required by regulations to forward a copy of your letter as an attachment to our own, expressing any concerns we may have to the grant recipient. Our letter is attached hereto for your information. Upon receipt of a reply, we shall contact you immediately. Please be assured that the Area Office Representa- tive, Mr. McMillen Hopkins, will be reviewing the Bakersfield program on a continuing basis. If you have any additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Hopkins at 213-688-5853. Sincerely, Roland E. Camfield, Jr. Area Director After further discussion, upon request of Councilman Sceales, Councilman Strong read into the record a letter written by him to HUD, as follows: Bakersfield, California, December 1, 1975 - Page 4 27.5 November 5, 1975 Mr. Roland E. Camfield, Jr. Area Director of Los Angeles Area Office U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90057 Attn: Mr. McMillian Hopkins Community Planning & Development Representative Gentlemen: I am the duly elected representative of Ward I in the City of Bakersfield where the highest concentration of low income citizens reside. The area is further characterized by gross unemployment, lack of adequate housing, the total absence (in some areas) of curb, gutters and sidewalks, dilapidated buildings, high crime including illegal drug traffic and obviously much drug addiction. Because the approved application submitted by Bakersfield administrative staff does not address any of the above problems as evidenced by the enclosed proposal resolution, I along with numerous concerned citizens both in and outside of Ward I do hereby respectfully request that the City of Bakersfield be enjoined from expending any of the funds allocated to it by your department in Grant Contract No. B-75-MC-06-0510 dated May 21, 1975 pending further investigation and evaluation by your department. We further submit that in regards to equal employment opportunity, the City of Bakersfield has no affirmative action program for itself nor does it require affirmative declarations from the business firms it deals with. In fact its employment practice has been the subject of constant criticism and reviewed by the F.E.P.C. for the past two years. We believe that such hostile and blatant resistance in those cases clearly violate the spirit and purpose of the Community Development Act. We fully understand, however, how your depart- ment would not hesitate to approve an application where all of the required surveys were made, most of the public hearings held (although one such meeting was held after council action) and the required dialogue engaged in with selected groups and organizations. But we are constrained once again to have you review the manner in which the priorities were established. We believe that you must concur in our conclusion that such conformance on the cities past was meant from the beginning to circumvent rather than comply with the intent of the act. Finally because of this cities history we anticipate that the long term goals as reflected by Bakersfield's ongoing planning process will reflect the same bias policies. Bakersfield, California, December 1, 1975 - Page 5 Enclosed please find copies of two newspaper articles concerning the subject of Community Development, a copy of the resolution discussed at the last council meeting, November 3, 1975, and a cassette taping of that council meeting. We stand ready to come to your office at your convenience to offer additional testimony to support these facts. We hope you will find it in your discretion to honor this urgent request. Thank you in advance. Respectfully submitted, Vernon O. Strong Councilman Ist Ward City of Bakersfield VOS:cg CC: Governor Brown Senator Cranston Senator Tunney Assemblyman Ketchum Evelyn Robb, Equal Opportunity Specialist Considerable Council discussion followed the reading of Councilman Strong's letter to HUD. Reports. Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 17-75 regarding Staffing for Communications Center, as follows: The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com- mittee recently met with the staf£ regarding personnel for the new police and fire communi- cations system. During the past several months the staff has studied other systems throughout the State similar to this City's new center, and based on these studies Chief of Police Robert Price has made the following recommenda- tions: Create classifications of Communications Operator I and II and Senior Communications Operator; o Provide three additional positions within the communications center bringing the total complement to 16 authorized positions; o Transfer the Communications Operators from the Fire Department to the Police Depart- ment by January l, 1976; Eliminate the classification of Communica- tions Sergeant and reclassify to Senior Police Officer. This action does not affect the salary of present personnel Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 6 277 and would allow the Chief of Police the flexibility of placing the four officers now holding the classification of Communi- cations Sergeant into service positions more commensurate with the needs of the department. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has studied these recommendations of Chief Price and we are in concurrence with him. Attached to this report is a memorandum from Chief Price and Captain James Ware which provides more details regarding these suggested changes. In order the implement these changes the Govern- mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee recommends Council approval o£ the attached salary resolutions which will accomplish the following: Create the classification of Communications Operator I and 12 positions at a monthly salary range of $623 to $759; Create the classification of Communications Operator II at a monthly salary range of $655 to $798. Appointment to this classi- fication shall be considered a merit increase upon the department head's and civil service board's approval after an employee has served one full year in the 5th step of Communications Operator I; Create the classification and four positions of Senior Communications Operator at a monthly salary range of $723 to $880 and placed in the General Supervisory Unit; Eliminate the classifications of Police Communications Sergeant, Communications Operator - Police, Communications Operator - Fire and Communications Operator. Reclassify the four existing positions of Communications Sergeant to Senior Police Officer which is the same salary range; Approve the attached job specifications for Communications Operator I and II and Senior Communications Operator; Transfer the Communications Operators and funds from the Fire Department to the Police Department by January l, 1976. During the 1974-75 budget sessions the Council went on record supporting the A.D. Little study which recommended the combination of the police and fire alarm systems. At that time two Fire Alarm Technician positions were recom- mended to be phased out and will be accomplished by December 31st of this year. In addition to the phasing out of these two positions the Police Chief has recommended the downgrading of l0 vacant Senior Police Officer positions Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 7 to regular Police Officers and three vacant Clerk Stenographers to Clerk Typists. The savings the City will accomplish from these transactions and the savings in the alarm system overtime account will nearly offset the cost of additional personnel. The staff has estimated a transfer of $9,000 from the Council's Contingency Fund would carry them through the remainder of the 1975-76 fiscal year. This Committee is in agreement with this transfer and would recommend Council approval. Assistant City Manager Russell answered questions of the Council. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Report No. 17-75 o£ the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding Staffing for Communications Center, was accepted. Adoption of Resolution No. 77-75 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field amending Resolution No. 42-75, setting salaries and related benefits for Officers and Employees o£ the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 77-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolutioc~ No. 42-75, setting salaries and related benefits for Officers and Employees of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: None Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Budget Transfer from the Council's Contingency Fund No. 11-510-6100 to the Police Department's Regular Salaries and Wages Account No. 11-620-0100, in the amount of $9,000.00, was approved. City Manager Bergen summarized a report dated December l, 1975, from the Traffic Engineer of the Public Works Department, outlining difficulties in providing two-way movement on East 18th Street at Baker Street. Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 8 279 Councilman Rogers requested that the Public Works Depart- ment trim the trees on the median island of East Truxtun Avenue that are obstructing the view of vehicles trying to turn left onto that street. Councilman Rogers requested that the traffic problems on East 18th Street and East Truxtun Avenue remain under study until such time as a solution is found. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, report dated December 1, 1975, from the Traffic Engineer of the Public Works Department outlining difficulties in providing two-way movement on East 18th Street at Baker Street, was received and ordered placed on file. Mayor Hart acknowledged a group of young ladies in attendance at the Council meetings the last two weeks. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 2096 to 2155, inclusive, in the amount of $111,172.46. (b) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work in widening and improving Planz Road - Contract No. 75-110 with J. L. Denio, Inc. (c) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work on resurfacing Union Avenue between Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing and Niles Street - Contract No. 75-119 with Griffith Company. (d) Plans and Specifications for construction of Restroom Building and Impact Area Improvements at the Police Pistol Range. a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following Upon (c) and (d) of roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders None None Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 9 Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, low bid of John T. Malloy for construction of Sanitary Sewer in Harris Road between Stine Road and Wilson Road, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Sale of Surplus Real Property, 135.113 feet by 2.25 feet of Lot 19 on Panorama Drive adjacent to Sanitary Landfill, in the amount of $300.00, to J. C. Calhoun, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Quitclaim Deed. Deferred Business. Tabling of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code by adding Section 2.08.095. Councilman Bleecker stated that on November 25, 1975 he sent a letter to each of the following City of Bakersfield employee units suggesting that the procedural rules of the Council that are being considered are consistent with and permitted by the Brown Act and requested support or comments from each group: Confidential Unit General Supervisory Unit Management Unit Chief of Police Kern County Employees Association, Inc., SEIU Local 700 AFL-CIO California Teamsters Public, Professional & Medical Employees Union - Teamsters Local 911 Councilman Bleecker read into the record the responses from each unit, as follows: November 26, 1975 To: T. Keith Bleecker, Vice-Mayor From: Confidential Unit The Confidential Unit would like to take this opportunity to let you know that we concur with the proposed recommendation to add Section Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 10 2.08.095 to Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code, which governs the procedure of Council meetings. We appreciate the apparent concern by members of the City Council that City Employees deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in public. Jasmine Hayden Margaret Ursin .......... ooo .......... November 26, 1975 Vice-Mayor T. Keith Bleecker City Council 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California Re: Addition to Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code (To be Section 2.08.095) Dear Vice-Mayor Bleecker: The General Supervisory Unit of the City of Bakersfield hereby notifies you they support the proposal as made by you at the Council Meeting of November 24, 1975. Sincerely, Norman H. Riley, Representative General Supervisory Unit .......... ooo .......... December l, 1975 To The Honorable T. Keith Bleecker City Councilman, City of Bakersfield We the management unit of the City of Bakersfield are wholeheartedly in support of the proposed Council action imposing addi- tional rules on Council statements. We feel such action would enhance the image of the employees of the City of Bakersfield in the eyes of the citizens of this community. We feel that any Council suggestions towards improving services provided by City employees are always welcome. We certainly do not feel that public employees are above reproach; however, proper procedures have been estab- lished by City Council and State Law for any grievances logged against City employees. Signed Dennis Needham Charles Graviss Frank Casey Eugene Richardson Respectfully submitted, James Ware, Chairman .......... ooo .......... 282 Bakersfield, California, December 1, 1975 - Page ll December 1, 1975 Mr. T. Keith Bleecker, Vice-Mayor Councilman - Fourth Ward City o£ Bakersfield Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Keith: As representative of all of the members of the Bakersfield Police Department, I read with interest your proposed amendment to Council Rules. We certainly support any action which gives the employees the benefit of a fair hearing prior to public ridicule. I, as Chief of Police and representative of the Bakersfield Police Department, have never and will never stand in the way of just criticism of this department or any member thereof; however, I do feel it is only fair that if a member of either the Council or public has a grievance against individuals, that grievance should be made to competent authority for a proper investigation prior to a public airing to the embarrassment of the individual employee because as you well know and I well know, many times the person making the charge is not in possession of all of the facts and when all of the facts are known, the situation could be entirely different. We support any action which would tend to make the decorum of the Council meetings professional and not sensational. The police department, of course, is accorded some of this protection by City Ordinance 314, section 310, and we feel it is only fair that every individual employee of the city be given the same opportunity to a fair hearing prior to a public airing of the Council to the embarrassment of that employee. In other words, we support proper procedures for the airing and investigation of proper grievances against the city staff, but public airing without a proper investigation only leads to misunderstanding and poor relations. Thank you for your consideration in sending this department a copy of your proposed resolution. Very truly yours, R. O. Price Chief of Police .......... 000 .......... Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page December 1, 1975 Mr. Keith Bleecker, Councilman City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Councilman Bleecker: Thank you for your November 25, 1975 letter detailing your proposed addition to Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code. Please be advised that the Kern County Employees Association, S.E.I.U., Local 700 has always been and always will be a staunch supporter of Section 54957 of the Government Code, commonly known as the Brown Act. I, too, am a firm believer in the Brown Act. As a matter of fact, I feel that the Legislature, in all of its wisdom, could do much to strengthen the Brown Act and in so doing, afford greater protection to all public employees, be they elected, appointed or selected. It is gratifying to me to note that the City of Bakersfield also believes that all employees should be guaranteed the protection of the Brown Act. Sincerely, B. D. Kaye General Manager .......... ooo .......... November 25, 1975 Mr. Keith Bleecker Vice Mayor City Hall Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Bleecker: Please be advised that this communication constitutes formal and enthusiastic support of the addition to the City Council's Rules of Procedure, Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code as described below: "No Council member shall make any personal attacks, or bring any charges against, any officer of the Council or any employees of the City, except in an executive session allowable by law, if such attack or charges, whether written or oral, allege or allude to incompetency, conflict of interest, dishonesty, or any like matter which could make said officer or employee subject to disciplinary action." I sincerely trust that you and your colleagues on the City Council pass the above addition to Bakersfield, California, December 1, 1975 - Page 13 the City Council's Rules of Procedure, Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code, for in our opinion it is o£ significant value to the officers and employees of the City of Bakersfield and goes a long way to protect them from scandalous charges, untrue statements and other derogatory remarks. Cordially, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 A. Dotson Bennett Secretary-Treasurer. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code by adding Section 2.08.095, was tabled until such time as the Council should move to take it off the table, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: None New Business. First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Table of Chapter 17.23 and Sections 17.23.020 and 17.23.026 and repealing Section 17.23.024 of the Municipal Code, concerning Zoning Regulations in the C-O Zone. This amendment to the Zoning Regulations would delete the uses 'in the C-O Zones which are now permitted subject to the Planning Director's approval and make them permitted uses in the C-O Zones; the amendment would also add other specified uses to the list of uses permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit. After a public hearing held on November 19, 1975, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Table of Chapter 17.23 and Sections 17.23.020 and 17.23.026 and repealing Section 17.23.024 of the Municipal Code, concerning Zoning Regulations in the C-O Zone. Bakersfield, California, December 1, 1975 - Page 14 Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing on application by T. Douglas Lawrence to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-3 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2 (Commercial) Zone and an R-3-P (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling - Automobile Parking), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as lll6 "M" Street. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and property owners notified as required by law. The applicant is requesting C-2 zoning on the north half of subject property for an area containing 7200 square feet and R-3-P on the south half which is a 7200 square foot area. South portion of subject property is unimproved, but there is a single family dwelling and an illegal new storage building on the north portion. The applicant would like to use this new storage building in conjunction with a business across the alley to the north and fronting on California Avenue. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- pation. No protests or objections were received. Mr. Tom Cosby of Cosby Construction Company and Mr. T. Douglas Lawrence, the applicant for the proposed zone change, were present to answer questions. The public portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Ordinance No. 2252 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 commonly known as lll6 "M" Street, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, Cali£orn~a, December l, 1975 - Page 15 This is the time set for continued hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 909a of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of Inyo Street lying between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street, in the City of Bakersfield. The public portion of this hearing was closed at the Council Meeting of November 17, 1975. Councilman Medders stated that at the Council Meeting of November 24, 1975 he moved that this item be held over so Mr. Heisey would have an opportunity to speak for himself, however, Mr.. Heisey feels that his Attorney and the City Attorney have adequately stated the facts and there is nothing further to add to those statements. Councilman Medders asked the Public Works Department if the proposed alley, that will replace Inyo Street, can handle the largest legal size vehicle that is allowed on City streets. Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley stated that normally "L" shaped alleys are designed with a corner cutof£ or bulb to provide a 36 foot turning radius, as this will handle a large refuse truck and most service vehicles and delivery trucks, however, it would not handle the largest truck permitted on a City street. The largest vehicle permitted is a 60 foot truck with trailer and that would require a 48 foot turning radius. Councilman Medders stated that, as he understands it, Mr. Heisey of Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company intends to provide an alley large enough to handle the trucks that deliver to Pike Plumbing. Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley suggested that, if Inyo Street is closed, a condition of the closing be that they design the alley for a 48 foot turning radius. Mr. Robert Pike of Pike's Plumbing Company confirmed that deliveries to his business would require the 48 foot turning radius. Mr. Pike requested, that if Inyo Street is closed, that Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 16 Bakersfield Sandstone Brick be required to use the alley and that curbs and gutters be installed on 18th Street so Inyo Street would not be used as a public driveway. Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley stated that the applicant has agreed to provide curb, gutter and sidewalk along that portion of 18th Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Resolution No. 78-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation of a portion of Inyo Street lying between Truxtun Avenue and East 18th Street, in the City of Bakersfield, with the condition that the alley be designed for a 48 foot turning radius and Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along 18th Street at Inyo Street, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Rogers, Sceales, Bleecker, Medders Noes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen Absent: None THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS WERE MADE AT THE TIME EACH COUNCILMAN CAST HIS VOTE. Councilman Sceales stated that he is supporting the closing of Inyo Street and would like to make it known, publicly, that anytime, in the future, that he can be of assistance to any person or private enterprise that requires a street closing, that will benefit the City of Bakersfield and can show those benefits, he will support abandoning any right-of-way the City may have by returning the right-of-way back to that property owner. Councilman Bleecker clarified his yes vote by stating that prior closings of Inyo Street have prohibited it from being a through street. Several projects in the downtown area could not have been built unless certain streets were closed in the public interest. There isn't any difference in closing these streets, which benefited the Bank of America, other banks in that area, the downtown campus of Bakersfield College and perhaps future proposed closings which would benefit a redevelopment project in the center of downtown Bakersfield, than the closing of a street adjacent to Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Company. That company has been there for approximately 90 years, it is a healthy and viable business, Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 17 it is in the public interest for the City of Bakersfield to help business, if possible, if it i:s not to the detriment of the people of this City. This is not one of those instances where it is a detriment to the City and I vote aye. Councilman Medders read the following statement into the record: The abandonment of the segment of Inyo Street in question will have no effect on traffic to the businesses on 18th Street which use the alley. Any delivery truck that transports goods to those locations will still be able to make those deliveries. As this portion of Inyo Street exists at present it is of no significant value to the City of Bakersfield, and the public good will best be served by returning this property to its owners. All things considered, with politics removed from this issue, we would not hesitate to grant this request to anyone else where the circum- stances are similar regarding the public effect. I have given this particular request a great deal of time, much thought and very careful consideration. If I thought for a moment that it was detrimental to the City or to any individual business I would oppose it vehemently. It might have been detrimental to someone when the lower portion was closed in 1971---but no- body objected at that time---so we did it. Now, this remaining part is absolutely of no consequence, because a proper alley will adequately replace it. The regrettable part of this whole matter is that it has been so completely blown out of pro- portions. I want it clearly understood that I am not voting on a "gift of public property." I wouldn't "give" Bakersfield Sandstone Brick anything that belongs to the City. I am voting to return a property to its rightful owner, that the City has been using. Finally, I cannot on the one hand profess to be in favor of less government---and on the other hand deny private enterprise when the consequences to the public interest are nil. Bakersfield, California, December l, 1975 - Page 18 Adjournment. There being no further business to Council, upon a motion by Councilman Strong, adjourned at 9:50 P.M. come before the the meeting was MAYOR of the of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CITY~C~ERK and Ex-~fficio Clerk of the Council of the City of Ba~rsfield, California ma 29O Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 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., December 8, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Reverend Kenneth Cragg of the Northminster Presbyterian Church. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Absent: None Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers Minutes of the regular meetings of November 24, 1975 and December 1, 1975 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Councilman Rogers announced that Mr. Howard Charmell, General Manager of Bakersfield Cable TV, Inc., who was scheduled to appear before the Council tonight regarding an update on im- proving of cable TV service, is unable to attend; and he read the following letter from that company into the record: December 2, 1975 Mr. Harold E. Bergen City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Bergen: To keep you informed of the continuing progress that Bakersfield Cable TV is making in its commitment to provide the best possible service to our subscribers, we wish to inform you of the following: 1. Application has been made to the Federal Communications Commission for the necessary license to construct and operate the microwave relay system that is to replace the sub-low trunk run presently in operation from the antenna receiving site. This application is on public notice at the FCC, file No. CAR-10229- 01 and we are hopeful of expeditious handling by the Commission. 2. The contract has been awarded for the construction of the necessary microwave receiving tower. Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 - Page 2 3. As Mr. Long has previously reported, work is continuing on the engineering requirements necessary to upgrade the plant facilities and reduce the amplifier cascades. All this work is proceeding to enable simultaneous interface with the completion and turn-on of the new microwave relay system and to cause minimal interruption of subscriber service. 4. Graphic display information systems are presently being evaluated and we expect to award the appropriate contract for such a system in January, 1976. 5. CATEL, manufacturers of the FM processors that we will be using, have completed their FM signal survey and are presently assembling the equipment to be ready for installation at the time the microwave system is installed. 6. A microwave engineer has been hired and is presently in training and will be assuming overall supervisorial responsibility of our technical department by mid-January, 1976. 7. December, 1975 bill forms are in the mail and will, no doubt, again create some overload of the telephone system. It has been our experience in the system billing conversions that the inherent change-over problems dissipate greatly after two or three cycles. Also, with the December billing, an explanatory notice of the billing system was enclosed. A copy of that notice is attached for your information. We appreciate your continued cooperation and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Long, Mr. Channell or myself. As has been our practice, we will continue to update you on our progress and, also, we look forward to meeting with you in the near future. Sincerely yours, Donald O. Williams Vice President Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, letter from Bakers- field Cable TV, Inc., dated December 12, 1975, regarding update on improving of cable TV service, was received and ordered placed on file. Assemblyman Bill Thomas introduced various members of his staff and presented the Mayor, Council and City Manager with a Legislative Handbook. Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 - Page 3 Correspondence. Councilman Rogers read a communication from Frank A. Simmer, 2812 Renegade Avenue, regarding his inability to obtain the "Star Channel" from Bakersfield Cable TV, Inc., and requested that the staff investigate this matter and report back to the Council at next week's meeting. Council Statements. Councilman Bleecker commented on the untimely death of Walter C. Wickersham who served the City of Bakersfield as a Police Commissioner for 35 years. Councilman Bleecker moved that the Council recess to an Executive Session to consider the nominations to fill the vacant unexpired term on the Police Department Civil Service Board. Councilman Barton requested a ruling from the City Attorney on the legality of an Executive Session to discuss the various nominations for the Police Department Civil Service Board. City Attorney Hoagland stated that "yes" the Council may have an Executive Session to consider the appointment of an officer of a Civil Service Commission. After discussion, Councilman Bleecker's motion that the Council recess to an Executive Session to consider the nominations to fill the vacant unexpired term on the Police Department Civil Service Board, was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Sceales, Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Rogers Noes: None Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Medders Councilman Medders remained in the Council Chambers and did not attend the Executive Session. Mayor Hart announced that on unanimous ballot, in Executive Session, Mr. was appointed to fill Walter C. Wickersham, term expiring December 31, Bradley T. Ritter, 3301 Christmas Tree Lane, the unexpired term, created by the death of on the Police Department Civil Service Board; 1976. Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 - Page 4 Reports. City Manager Bergen stated that the Memorandum from the Public Works Department and Draft Resolution on the Kern County Solid Waste Management Plan are for information at this time and will be placed on the Agenda next week for action. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Memorandum from the Public Works Department, dated December 4, 1975, regarding Final Draft of the Kern County Solid Waste Management Plan, was received and ordered placed on £ile. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 2156 to 2245, inclusive, in the amount of $69,072.06. (b) Claim for Damages from Mary Sue Baker, Kim Renae Baker and Corey Dean Baker, 8601 Gregory Avenue, Lamont, California. (Refer to City Attorney) (c) Notice of Completion for street and sewer improvements under Tract No. 3724 Contract No. 75-49 with John and Vicki Shipman. (d) Notice of Completion for street and sewer improvements under Tract No. 3741 - Contract No. 75-37 with Tenneco Realty Development Corporation. (e)Application for Encroachment Permit from Gunner Pharmacy, 2700 "H" 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: Councilmen Sceales, Medders, Noes: None Absent: None Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Rogers Action on Bids. Referral of Seven Year Development Lease on 580 acres of City owned farmland adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 3. City Manager Bergen outlined the background of this proposed lease and a memorandum from Dale Hawley, Deputy Director Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 - Page 5 of Public Works, to Denny Haynes, Finance Director, dated December 5, 1975, regarding the same subject. This proposal was advertised in the usual manner and fourteen bid invitations were mailed to farming operations in the Bakersfield area. One bid was returned. This is a development lease which requires that lessee, at his expense, install wells and pumping equipment, construct and maintain permanent ditches for irrigating and controlling drainage of plant effluent, grade and level large areas of land, pay all ground water charges, cultivate and harvest crops, pay all property taxes on improvements made, plant permanent pasture, maintain existing fences and con- struct fences as needed, bear cost of mosquito abatement and other conditions as called for in the bid. The bidder, Lewis and Falletti Farms, has agreed to make the above improvements and dedicate them to the City in lieu of lease payments for the 7 year period. The staff believes this bid to be advantageous to the City. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Barton, the Seven Year Development Lease on 580 acres of City owned farm- land adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 3, was referred to the Business Development and Parking Committee for study and recom- mendation. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Blake, Moffitt & Towne for Annual Contract for Cut Paper Stock, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Deferred Business. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2253 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Table of Chapter 17.23 and Sections 17.23.020 and 17.23.026 and repealing Section 17.23.024 of the Municipal Code, concerning Zoning Regulations in the C-O Zone. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Ordinance No. 2253 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 - Page 6 295 Table of Chapter 17.23 and Sections 17.23.020 and 17.23.026 and repealing Section 17.23.024 of the Municipal Code, concerning Zoning Regulations in the C-O Zone, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Rogers Noes: Councilmen Sceales, Bleecker, Medders Absent: None New Business. Adoption of Resolution No. 79-75 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field deleting a Council Meeting in the month of December, 1975. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Resolution No. 79-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield deleting a Council Meeting in the month of December, 1975, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Noes: Councilmen Sceales, Medders Absent: None Councilman Barton cited Division 3, 337, Paragraph follows: Christensen, Rogers Chapter 34, Section 5 of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, as "Questions laid on the table remain there for the entire session unless taken up before the session closes." Councilman Barton requested a ruling from the chair as to when a session of the Council terminates or when would the proposed ordinance, that was laid on the table at last week's Council Meeting, become null and void because of action by this or another Council. Mayor Hart stated that the ordinance that was tabled last week is now in "limbo" until a motion is made and approved by a majority of the Council to take it off the table. Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1975 - Page 7 Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. MAY~~~rsfield, Calif. ATTEST: ~an~Ex-Of~ CITY CLE d ~erk of the Council of the City of BakersVeld, California ma Bakersfield, California, December 15, 1975 297 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., December 15, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mr. Ed Ottinger, President, 3rd Quorum of Seventies, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Absent: Councilman Barton Minutes of the regular meeting of December 8, 1975 were approved as presented. Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Jim Furgason, Y.M.C.A. Long House Chief in Kern County, introduced the Y.M.C.A. Indian Guides and Princesses, acquainted the Council with their program and presented honorary membership certificates in the Indian Guide and Indian Princess program to Mayor Hart and the members of the Council. Mayor Hart introduced Mr. Jerry M. Zulfa, Regional Vice President, Guarantee Savings and Loan Association, who presented a Bicentenary Commemorative Liberty Bell numbered 702, cast for the month of January, 1834, to the City of Bakersfield. There were. 2,400 of these bells cast over the past two years, one for each month of our nation's independence. Mr. Zulfa presented to Mayor Hart a certificate certifying that the bell was cast by Whitechapel Foundry and information regarding the bell. Correspondence. Upon request by Councilman Rogers, in regard to communi- cation from the Kern Mosquito Abatement District reminding the Council that George H. Barnett's term as a member of the Kern Mosquito Abatement District will expire on December 31, 1975, the staff was directed to contact Mr. Barnett to determine what his Bakersfield, California, December 15, 1975 - Page 2 wishes are as to serving another term, gather information regarding his attendance record and report to the Council at the next meeting. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, communication from Highlands Real Estate Corporation, Bin 1969, Bakersfield, regarding Extension of City Sewer Lines on property located north of Highland High School, was received and referred to staff for study and recommendation. Councilman Rogers read a communication from B. L. Dickinson regarding withdrawal of Zone Change Application--Panorama Royale Apartments, Columbus Avenue and Panorama Drive. After discussion, upon a motion of Councilman Rogers, request of B. L. Dickinson for withdrawal of zone change and request that the zone filing fee of $200 be waived were approved. Council Statements. Councilman Rogers reminded the staff of his request for a report on "Star Channel" television service in response to an inquiry from Mr. Frank Simmer. Deputy City Manager Sumbardo stated that a report is not available at this time due to the fact that Mr. Don Williams, Vice President of Bakersfield Cable TV was out of town this week and Mr. Howard Channell was not able to contact him. Deputy City Manager Sumbardo stated that Bakersfield Cable TV is planning on setting up a type of service similar to "Star Channel," and a definite letter on this matter will be available next week. Reports. City Manager Bergen presented a report dated December 10, 1975, regarding Southeast Bakersfield Treatment Plant Expansion, from the Public Works Department. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, report regarding Southeast Bakersfield Treatment Plant Expansion was referred to the Water and City Growth Committee for study, recommendation and report back to the Council. Bakersfield, California, December 15, 1975 - Page 3 (c) and roll Ayes: Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) (b) (c) (d) Upon (d) of call vote: Allowance of Claims Nos. 2246 to 2319, inclusive, in the amount of $271,696.31. Notice of Completion for street and sewer improvements under Tract No. 3747-- Contract No. 75-84 with Roy J. and Helen B. Wattenbarger. Plans and Specifications for the improve- ments of Wilson Road between Wible Road and Hughes Lane. Request from the Southern Pacific Trans- portation Company for abandonment of a portion of Sonora Street, within the Southern Pacific right-of-way, between Sumner and Kentucky Streets in the City of Bakersfield. (Refer to Planning Commission) a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barton Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Barber Pontiac, Inc. for 27 intermediate size police sedans, was accepted and all other bids rejected. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bids of Data Documents, Inc., for 23 items, and Moore Business Forms, for 8 items, for Annual Contract--Printed Forms, ACB 14076, were accepted and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, low bid of G & S Construction Company for construction of a Sanitary Sewer Main in Gosford Road, was accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. 300 Bakersfield, California, December 15, 1975 - Page 4 New Business. Appeal from Judy Wells regarding City Manager's denial for a renewal of a "Cardroom Work Permit." After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, January 5, 1976, at 8:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, was the time set for hearing an appeal from Judy Wells regarding the City Manager's denial for renewal of a "Cardroom Work Permit." Approval of Construction Change Order No. 5 to Contract No. 74-109 with Fred S. Macomber for Police Facility. The proposed Change Order will provide for a return air duct in the Security Storage Room No. 117 and supply and exhaust ducts in the Elevator Equipment Room No. 45. This Change Order increases the contract price by $382.38. An extension of two days to the contract time is allowed as a result of this Change Order. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Construction Change Order No. 5 to Contract No. 74-109 with Fred S. Macomber for Police Facility, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Adoption of Resolution No. 80-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Concurring in the County of Kern Solid Waste Management Plan. The Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 requires each county to submit to the State a solid waste management plan by January 1, 1976, subject to approval of the plan by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the county. The City of Bakersfield is being asked to adopt a resolution of concurrence in the plan. Generally, the plan presents (1) an identification of solid wastes and an inventory of facilities and operations; (2) objectives and measures to achieve objectives in storage, collection, recovery and disposal; and (3) a program for administration and implementation of the plan. Bakersfield, California, December 15, 1975 - Page 5 301 Deputy Director of Public Works Hawley read a report dated December 4, 1975, directed to H. E. Bergen, City Manager, regarding Final Draft of the Kern County Solid Waste Management Plan. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 80-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield concurring in the County of Kern Solid Waste Management Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers,. Sceales Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barton Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing on application by J. R. Smeed to amend the zoning boundaries from an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) Zone to a C-O-D (Commercial and Professional Office - Architectural Design), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the east side of Oak Street, approximately 300 feet north of 21st Street. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. The Planning Commission was of the opinion the property, presently zoned R-3-D, should remain R-3-D, with the "P" (Automobile Parking) Zone added to permit the development of off-street parking for "Oak Towers." The Planning Commission found the R-3-D-P zoning consistent with the Land Use Planning policies outlined in the General Plan. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public participation. Mr. J. R. Smeed, the applicant, spoke in approval 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 Council deliberation and action. Bakersfield, California, December 15, 1975 - Page 6 Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2254 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 east side of Oak Street, approximately 300 feet north of 21st Street, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers:, Sceales Noes: Absent: None Councilman Barton Mayor Hart read a report from the City Manager dated December 15, 1975, regarding transfer of funds to Fire Department's Overtime Account. Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, budget transfer from the City Council Contingency Fund Account No. 11-510-6100 to the Fire Department Overtime Pay Account No. 11-640-0300, in the amount of $5,150, to reimburse the presently depleted Fire Department overtime funds and provide sufficient funds for the remainder of the year, was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barton Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. ~o1~ ~I- t~e b'ity~of Bakersfield, ATTEST: CIT /C~ERK and E~Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of B~ersfield, California Calif. po Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 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., December 22, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Bleecker followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mr. Howard O. Campbell, General Executive of the Y.M.C.A. of Kern County. The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Present: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers (Seated at 8:10 P.M.), Sceales, Strong Absent: Mayor Hart Minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 1975 were approved as presented. Correspondence. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, communication from Mr. Dean A. Gay resigning from the Planning Commission, was accept,~d and the Mayor was requested to send a letter of appreciation for his many years of service to the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, communication from Sani-Tainer, Inc., Chula Vista, California, requesting transfer of Contract No. 65-72 from Consolidated Waste Removal Division, Darling-Delaware Company, Inc. to Sani-Tainer, Inc., SCA Services, Inc., was received and referred to the staff for study and recom- mendation. Council Statements. Councilman Barton commented on a letter written to the Planning Commission from the Southern California Chapter/The American Institute of Architects, dated December 15, 1975, regarding the proposed Sign Ordinance and the fact that the Planning Com- mission has been discussing this ordinance for the past 10 years. Councilman Barton made a motion that the Chairman of the Planning Commission attend the Council Meeting of January 5, 1976 and present a status report on the proposed Sign Ordinance. After a lengthy discussion Councilman Barton withdrew his motion. 304 Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 2 The City Manager was requested to invite the Chairman of the Planning Commission and Chairman of the Sign Ordinance Committee to attend the Council Meeting of January 5, 1976 and discuss with the Council the status of the proposed Sign Ordinance. Reports. Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, read Report No. 10-75 regarding Transfer of Funds for City Hall West Wing Construction and Space Analysis Study, as follows: The Budget Review and Finance Committee has reviewed a request from the City Manager for a transfer of funds related to the City Hall west wing construction project and space analysis study to determine future City Hall building needs. The following is a summary of anticipated building construction and related architects' costs for the west wing addition to the City Hall. Budgeted Amount $315,000 Estimated Costs: Construction Contract $306,940 Architects' Fees 27,400 (construction) Testing Budget Deficit 3,000 (337,340) ($22,340) In addition, a total of up to $10,000 will be due the architects for work on a master space analysis study to determine future City Hall needs. On October 28, 1974, the City Council authorized Biggar, Frapwell, Ghezzi and Cartnal to perform this work, in addition to being selected as architects for the City Hall addition. On the basis of the above, a total of $32,340 in additional funds is needed for these purposes. The Budget Review and Finance Committee recom- mends that the City Council approve the following budget transfers: Transfer $18,128 from the City Council Revenue-Sharing Contingency Fund (56-510-6100) to the Revenue-Sharing Buildings Account (55-795-9200). Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 3 Transfer $2,659 from budget savings in the Revenue-Sharing Street Improvements Account (55-795-9500) to the Revenue-Sharing Buildings Account (55-795-9200). Transfer budget savings from the Revenue- Sharing Nonstructural Improvements Account (52-795-9400) to the Revenue-Sharing Buildings Account (55-795-9200). o Transfer up to $10,000 from the City Council General Fund Contingency Account (11-510-6100) to the regular Council budget account (11-510-4100). Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Report No. 10-75 of the Budget Review and Finance Committee regarding Transfer of Funds for City Hall West Wing Construction and Space Analysis Study, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Budget Transfer from; City Council Revenue-Sharing Contingency Fund No. 56-510-6100 to the Revenue-Sharing Buildings Account No. 55-795-9200, in the amount of $18,128.00. Budget savings in the Revenue-Sharing Street Improvements Account No. 55-795-9500 to the Revenue-Sharing Buildings Account No. 55-795-9200, in the amount of $2,659.00. Budget savings from the Revenue-Sharing Nonstructural Improvements Account No. 52-795-9400 to the Revenue-Sharing Buildings Account No. 55-795-9200, in the amount of $1,553.00. City Council General Fund Contingency Account No. 11-510-6100 to the regular Council Budget Account No. 11-510-4100, in the amount of $10,000.00. was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong* (Item 4 only) Noes: Councilman Strong* (Items l, 2 and 3) Absent: None Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance Committee, read Report No. 11-75 regarding Transfer of Funds for Fire Department Arson Investigation Equipment, as follows: As of October l, 1975, the Fire Department assumed full responsibility for the City's arson investigation program. The program was 2, O6 Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 4 transferred from the Police Department, since the Fire Department's duties and responsibilities related to fire suppression and prevention are much closer related to arson investigation functions. This is also the practice followed in the vast majority of other California cities. In order to perform this function in an effective manner, the Fire Department needs funds for the purchase of various equipment and monies for the rental of vehicles for investigation pur- poses as needed. Specifically, the Fire Depart- ment has requested the following: 2 Portable Radios $1,700 Gas Detector 700 Automobile Rental 200 Total $2,600 The Budget Review and Finance Committee recom- mends that funds be provided for the above purposes, and that $2,600 be transferred from the City Council General Fund Contingency Account (11-510-6100) to Accounts 11-640-3800 (Rental), 11-640-7500 (Signal and Communications Equip- ment), and 11-640-8300 (Equipment NOC) Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Report No. 11-75 of the Budget Review and Finance Committee regarding Transfer of Funds for Fire Department Arson Investigation Equipment, was accepted. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Budget Transfer frora the City Council General Fund Contingency Account No. 11-510-6100 to Account Nos. 11-640-3800 (Rental, 11-640-7500 (Signal and Communications Equipment) and 11-640-8300 (Equipment NOC) in the amount of $2,600.00 for the Fire Department to purchase equipment and rental of vehicles for investigation purposes, was approved. Councilman Barton, Chairman of the Business Development and Parking Committee, read Report No. 4-75 regarding Sacramento Street Closing between East 21st and Grove Streets, as £ollows: On October 6, 1975, the City Council requested that this Committee make a review of the traffic problems relating to the closing of Sacramento Street. That request was made after a presen- tation by Mr. Dan Picco, Picco Manufacturing, indicated that vehicles were blocking the alley south of East 21st Street between Sonora Street and Union Avenue. Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 5 The Police Department and Public Works Depart- ment have been studying the problem since that time and have alleviated all of the parking problems with one exception. The problem that still exists is that of a special truck which parks and blocks the alley once each week for a 45-minute period to unload liquid sugar. This problem could be eliminated by one of two alternatives. An underground pipeline could be extended between the liquid sugar unloading area and the alley off Sonora Street, a distance of approximately 60 feet. The entire alley south of East 21st Street between Sonora Street and the vacated Sacramento Street could be closed and a north-south alley connection between East 21st Street and the existing alley could be constructed. This new alley connection would be at a location directly adjacent to the property occupied by Picco Manu- facturing. A sketch showing this alignment is attached. Since the second alternative was recommended by the property owners in the area and is preferred by them, it is the recommendation of this committee that the Council initiate proceedings for the closing of the alley between Sonora Street and vacated Sacramento Street and for the opening of a new alley connection south o£ East 21st Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Report No. 4-75 of the Business Development and Parking Committee regarding Sacramento Street Closing between East 21st and Grove Streets, was accepted, and the recommendation that proceedings be initiated for the closing of the alley between Sonora Street and vacated Sacramento Street and for the opening of a new alley connection south of East 21st Street, was approved. Councilman Barton, Chairman of the Business Development and Parking Committee, read Report No. 5-75 regarding Lease of Property Adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 3, as follows: At the City Council meeting of December 8, 1975, the proposed lease of 580 acres of City owned farmland adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 3 was referred to this committee for study and recom- mendation. This is a development lease on approximately 350 acres which requires that the lessee, at his own expense, plan for the development of the property, install wells and pumping equipment, Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 6 construct and maintain permanent ditches for irrigating and controlling drainage of plant effluent, grade and level large areas of land, pay all ground water charges, cultivate and harvest crops, pay all property taxes on improve- ments made, and bear the costs of mosquito abatement and other conditions as may be called for. After reviewing the bids returned and the proposal made by Lewis and Falletti Farms, it is the recommendation of this committee that the lease be awarded to them subject to the following conditions: That the lessee submit an acceptable plan for the development of the property; and That the lessee submit satisfactory evidence that they have the financial ability to per£orm under the terms of the lease. Mr. David Lewis, representing Lewis and Falletti Farms, answered questions of the Council and explained their plans for farming this land. After a lengthy discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Report No. 5-75 of the Business Development and Parking Committee regarding Lease of Property Adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 3, was accepted and the Lease was awarded to Lewis and Faletti Farms subject to the Business Development and Parking Committee approving the conditions as outlined in the report. Councilman Bleecker stated that the Business Development and Parking Committee would meet with representatives of Lewis and Faletti Farms tomorrow, December 23, 1975, at 3:00 P.M., in the Caucus Room of City Hall. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 2320 to 2478, inclusive, in the amount of $204,761.10. (b) Request from Moreland Engineering, Inc., for annexation of property located on South "F" Street between Talisman Drive and Ming Avenue, Tract No. 3800. (Refer to Planning Commission for study and recommendation) Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 7 309 (c) Request from the Central Baptist Church for annexation of property located at 203 South "H" Street. (Refer to Planning Commission for study and recommendation) Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b) and (c) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, bids of General Cable Corporation for 30' Aerial Device and Three Way Chevrolet Co. for Step Van, were accepted and the other bid rejected. New Business. Adoption of Resolution No. 81-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ascertaining and determining the pre- vailing rate of wages to be paid to certain crafts and types of workmen employed on public work in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 81-75 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ascertaining and deter- mining the prevailing rate of wages to be paid to certain crafts and types of workmen employed on public work in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Adoption of Resolution No. 82-75 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield amending and redesignating the Downtown Redevelopment Survey Area to include additional area. The Redevelopment Agency respectfully requests the Councll to amend the existing survey area to include the area immediately east of the existing project area, bounded by "N" Street, Truxtun 310 Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 8 Avenue, "R" Street and 178 Freeway. Staff and legal counsel agree, recognizing that the Griffith project could result in a need for relocating businesses within the survey area, and should a hotel project materialize, the most likely site would be within the survey area. This resolution does not commit to expanding the boundaries, but con£orms the Agency or City Council to the State Redevelop- expansion. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Resolution No. 82-75 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield amending and redesignating the Downtown Redevelopment Survey Area to include additional area, was adopted by the following roll call vote Ayes Councilmen Barton, Sceales, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Strong Noes None Absent: None Adoption o£ Resolution No. 83-75 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield directing the Planning Commission to select changed boundaries of the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Project by the addition of land selected from within the amended and redesignated Downtown Redevelopment Survey Area, and to prepare an Amended Preliminary Plan for the Project. Once a survey area has been established or expanded, State Law requires the Planning Commission be directed to prepare an Amended Preliminary Plan, this resolution does that. The City Council is the final authority on project boundary expansions. The Planning Commission's role is to make a determination and recommendation to the Council. Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Resolution No. 83-75 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield directing the Planning Commission to select changed boundaries of the Downtown ment Law which requires this action prior to any evaluation of Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page 9 Bakersfield Redevelopment Project by the addition of land selected from within the amended and redesignated Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Survey Area, and to prepare an Amended Preliminary Plan for the Project, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None First reading of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 2.08.020 of the Municipal Code concerning Parlia- mentary Law. The Municipal Code specifies the 1962 Edition of Mason's rules. There have been two new editions since then; the most recent in 1975. Copies of the 1962 Edition are no longer available. This ordinance will allow the City to use the most recent edition and thereby always be up to date. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 2.08.020 of the Municipal Code concerning Parliamentary Law. Approval of Agreement with Sam Tanksley Trucking for City Sewer Service to a proposed establishment at the north- east corner of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brundage Lane. The connection will be made to a County Sanitation District sewer main in Mt. Vernon and the discharge will be treated at City Treatment Plant No. 1. The sewer service request has been approved by the Planning Commission provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Plans to be submitted for City's review and approval. 2. Enter into a Suburban Sewer Rental Agreement. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Agreement with Sam Tanksley for City Sewer Service to a proposed establishment at the northeast corner of Mr. Vernon Avenue and Brundage Lane, was approved. 312 Bakersfield, California, December 22, 1975 - Page l0 Approval of Local Agency-State Master Agreement for Federal-Aid Urban System Program. This agreement specifies the requirements for processing construction projects under the Federal-Aid Urban Program. The Federal-Aid Urban Projects which are proposed under this agreement were approved by the City Council on September 15, 1975. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Local Agency-State Master Agreement for Federal-Aid Urban System Program, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Hearings. 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. 4," 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 Sceales, the hearing on the annexation of "Kern River No. 4," was continued until January 19, 1976, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None 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. Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, December 22, 1975 - Page Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, the hearing on the annexation of "Kern River No. 5," was continued until January 19, 1976, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales, Strong Noes: None Absent: None Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. VICE-MAY~f the City of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: CITY an Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California ma 31 d Bakersfield, California, January 5, 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., January 5, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Donald A. Rogers. Present: Absent: The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Christensen, Rogers, Sceales, Strong, Barton the regular meeting of December 22, None Minutes of approved as presented. Upon a motion Correspondence. by Councilman Sceales, Medders, 1975 were communication from the Kern County Board of Supervisors, dated December 31, 1975, regarding proposed contracts under the provisions of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act (Sections 51200-51295 Government Code), was received and referred to the staff. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, communication from Mr. Buddy Graham, 3531 Palm Street, dated December 28, 1975, re- garding the traffic problem on Real Road and Palm Street, was received and referred to the Public Works Department and Police Department. Mrs. Jill Haddad, Chairman of the Planning Commission read the following letter into the record: January 2, 1975 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Hall 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Honorable Gentlemen: The Planning Commission at their regular meeting of December 17, 1975 held a public hearing on the draft of the proposed Sign Ordinance.