The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/23/2011TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Manager ��/ch General Information �l�lerry Christmas and��Ca��y �L'oCid�ays! December As a reminder, City Hall will be closed Monday, December 26t" in obser the Christmas Holiday. Miscellaneous News • Online financial news outlet 24/7 Wall St.com recently examined t which added and lost the most jobs based on the most recent da the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bakersfield ranked fourth on the list jobs added between November 2010 and October 201 1! Other ci the `most jobs added' list include: Fort Wayne, IN, Pueblo, CO, Spr MO and Miami, FL. • We received some good news going into the holiday season - recent sales tax receipts show a year over year increase for consecutive quarter. This quarter was up approximately 24 pE comparison to the same period last year. We do not yet h breakdown of where within the economv the increases are takin Honorable Mayor and City Council General Information October 21, 201 1 Page 2 High Speed Rail News ■ Enclosed is a copy of a resolution recently passed by the Community Services District (Kings County) opposing the high sK project. The resolution outlines similar concerns which the City inc its recently passed resolution. ■ Additionally, this week the Palo Alto City Council adopted Ic which outlined the Council's opposition to the high speed rail prc Council cited the contradiction between the current project stc the measure presented to voters in 2008 and the business plc flawed and not credible as its reasoning to oppose the proj request it be terminated. ■ We have also been advised that the City of Wasco is considering potential action to oppose the current High Speed Rail plan. The opposition to the project continues to grow and Bakersfie alone in adopting a formal stance against the project! ■ More media outlets and citizen groups are peeling back the laye flawed High Speed Rail Business Plan. The enclosed article focu recent analysis which shows the Rail Authority counted, for exc single HSR-generated job which is predicted to last for 10 yec separate jobs. The study goes on to note the true impact of HSF the State's overall unemployment rate would be 1/1 Oth of one per ■ In response to the information in the preceding article, the Hig Rail Authority admitted its definition to describe project-related , "imprecise and potentially confusing." Authority officials now project will create "thousands and thousands" of jobs - revised fr� million jobs the Authority first stated. The follow up article is enclosE Event Schedule There are three public events scheduled for the next week at City fa< ✓ Bakersfield Condors Hockev Honorable Mayor and City Council General Information October 21, 201 1 Page 3 ✓ Kwaanza Celebration Dec. 29th; 1- 4 p.m. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center Council Referrals � Councilmember Salas: o Potholes On South Chester And EI Serrano Reports For your information, we enclose the following information: ➢ The Streets Division work schedule for the week beginning Dec 26t� ➢ A letter from the United States Postal Service regarding an u� public meeting related to possible consolidation of its Pega� Processing and Distribution Center; and ➢ A letter from AT&T regarding changes to its U-verse programming. AT:ch cc: Departmenfi Heads Roberta Gafford, City Clerk Robert N. Dowd' Robert W. Gin' Randy L. Edwards Jim D Lee Jefirey L. Levinson' Raymond L. Carlson Ty N. Mizoie• Michael R. Johnson' Steven S. Dias RoDin M. Ha{i Mario U. Zamora Laura A. Wolfe 'a Professional CorporaLon Griswold LaSalle Cobb Dowd & Gin L.L.P. G•L•C•D•G ATTORNEYS A California Limited Liability Partnership including Professional Corporations 111 E. SEVENTH STREET HANFORD, CA 93230 Telephone: (559) 584-6656 www.griswoldlasalle.com Email: carlson cr,�riswoldlasalle.com Direct Facsimile: 800-947-1859 December I6, 2011 City of Bakersfield Atm: Alan Tandy, City Manager City Manager's Office City Hall North 1600 Truxtun Avenue - 5`h Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 �� „* , �_,•.-�, iw7�ra RE: Armona Community Services District Resolution No. 201 I-2 Opposing Speed Rail Project Dear Mr. Tandy: Enclosed is Armona Community Services District Resolution No. 2011-2 oppo High-Speed Rail Project. Sincerely, GRIS WOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, DOWD & GIN, L.I�P. „ � RI.C:ka Enciosure F UCATIE�RAYWC.SD\H5R Piojea�Ur rc Resolulion 201 l-2 wpd �' l��_ RESOLUTION NO. 2011-2 RESOLLiTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ARMONA CO: SERVICES DISTRICT Ot'POSING THE CALIFORI�TIA HIGH SPEED AUTHORITY HIGH SPEED TRAIN PROJECT �I'he Board of Directors of the Armona Community Services District (District) declares and resolves as follows: A. WHEREAS, the District is a California community services district for, California Community Services District Law, Californi3 Government Code §§ 6100 B. WHEREAS, the District provic�es water, wastewater, soiid wastz and ; services to the unincorporated community of Armona in kings County, CA located w of Hanford and east of the City of Lemoore; and C. WHEREAS; on or about August 15, 2011, the California Hi?h Speed F (Authority) and Federal Railroad Administration released a Draf[ Environm ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIR/DEIS) for the Fresno to Bakersfield ": proposed statewide High Speed Train (HST) project; and D. WHEREAS, the DEIRIDEIS consists of over I7,000 pa�es includ appendices and memoranda; and E. WHEREAS, the Authority allowed only �� days to comment on thf ending on September 28, 2011, later extended to 60 days ending October 13, 2011; � F. WHEREAS, the 60 day comment period was inadequate under t] Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA's implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations, and sta due process requirements; and G. WHEREAS, the inadequate time to review and comment on the 17,00( to Bakersfield DEIR/DEIS c�nstituted a denial of due process to the District and all who were precluded by the abbreviated comment period from making the kind of tho necessary to make informed comments on the presentation of the environment impacts as disclosed in the DEIRIDEIS; and H. WHEREAS, the Authority ignored the requests of over 25 inter requesting an adequate comment period through mid February 2012; and September 22, ?U 1 I Board meeting, and violated the First Amendment petition rights c and interested parties like the District by eliminating the last opportunity to appe address the Board prior to the close of the inadequately and illegally short comment J. WHEREAS, on or about October 5, 2011, the Authorit�� announc reintroducing the "Hanford West Bypass" altemative as a potential route for the HS being an illegal action by the Authority and its Board in view that no properly noticed Board meeting had taken place at which this decision could be lawfully made; and K. WHEREAS, the Hanford West Bypass does not follow existing corridors as required by Proposition 1 A approved by California voters in 2008, ; devastating impacts to th� land area between Hanford and Armona and the east � co�nmunity of Armona, inciuding the impassable barrier formed by the fuIly gr alignment; and L. WHERF;AS, the DEIR/DEIS assumes that local law enforcement w actions of trespass and other unlaw-ful acts occurring in or on the alignment, providir� the HSR even though Proposition 1 A prohibits subsidies to the HST project; and M. WHEREAS, in meetings and workshops, the Board and its sta nonresponsive, condescending and arroQant toward representatives of interested ] parties, includin� disrespectful treatment of the then Executive Director of the Ftings Bureau by the former Board chair; and N. WHEREAS, the Authority Board is purely appointive; and not accc representative of the people of the State or the San Joaquin Vailey; and O. WHEREAS, the proposed HST project would pass through or across n properties in Kinas County including land subject to the Williamson Act, land desigr farmland and other high value protected agricultural Iands; and P. WHEREAS, the proposed HST project would disrupt Ion� standing cultural practices on many parcels of farm property in Kings County, including many i on account of the grade separated ali�nmznt blocking nonnal movement; and Q. WHEREAS, on October 18, 2011, the Kings County Board of Super� Resolution No. 11-065 "In the Matter of Revoking and Rescinding Resolution 10-03 3; the California High Speed Rail Authority High Speed Train Project" a true copy of whi as Exhibit A; and NQ�`'. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOL�'ED T��A'I' thz Board of Directors c Commtinity Ser�rices District does herzby rzsol`�e that it opposes the California Hia Project as bein� not in the interests of the District or of the interests of the service re District's sen�ice area of Armona; and BE IT FURT�IER R�SOLVED THAT the staff of the District is instnicted �f this Resolution to appropriate public entities incIudinQ the Authority, the Autho� Federal Railroad Administration. thz Boards of Supervisors and County Admini� Counties of Kem, I�in�s, Fresno, Madera and Merced, the Gity Govncils and Mayoi �f Visalia. Tulare. Hanford. Fresno, Madera, to elected state and federal officials and and private entities and individuals as it may judeed appropriate to communicate tr WHEREFORE, this Res�lution is passed and adopted by ?he Board of D Armona Communitti� Services District on December 1�. 201 l, bti' the follotvinQ votE q�tES: Dillon, McMillan, Chavarin, Danielson �p��. Bittner ABSF,NT: None ABSTAI�': None � r .:�. " DA� ELSO�. hairman of Boa �1TTEST: _ � � ,, , , IRENE DILL�N. SECRE"rARY CE�TIFICATL- OF SECRETAR�c" I. Irene Dillon. the du1.�� appointed and actinQ Secrztary of the Board of D Armona Community Services District. do herebv declare that the fore�oinQ Resolz passed and adopted at a Re�ular �'Ieetino of the Board of Directvrs of the Armor Services District, duly held at Armona. Califamia, on December 13, 2011. DATED: December 13, 2011. � �� _�� . � ,� � BEFORE THE B�ARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF h'INGS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ?C :: X:C TC X 7C 7C :C i�T T%�E 1fLATT�R Or REV OKI� G AND RESOLLITIOIV R�SCI�IDIN� �ZESOLU�'IOi`{T 10-033 ��'D OPPOSING THE CALIFORi�tIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT r WHEREAS, Califomia voters approved Proposition 1 A on November 4, : Legislature codified the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act Century ("the �ct"; AB 3034; See Streets and Hiah�vays Code Sections 2704-2?04.: WHEREAS, the Act provides �9.1 billion in bond funds to finance � electrified train system desi�ed along existin� transportation corridors to achie travel times between population centers and to operate without government subsic connect the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento in the north, throujh the Cen� Los Anglzs, �ran�z County and San DieQo in the south (collectively the "Project'); `VHEREAS, federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("A�'' been allocated to the California high-speed train Project; and `VHEREAS, a nine-member California High-Speed Rail Authority ("Au1 appo�nted pursuant to the Act and Public Utilities Code Section 18�020 to plan ar the Project pursuant to the Act and all applicable la�v and implementing regulations; i�'HEREAS, the Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA' agencies for purposes of environmental review of the Project under the California E Quality Act ("CEQA") and the National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA"); a tiZ�HEREAS, on May 25, 2010, the Kings County Board of Supervi� (Resolution � 10-03 3 ) that it: 1. Supports the continuing development of high-speed rail on a statewid 2. Supports a unified approach for the Central Valley, should the rail t io traverse throu�h it; 3. Supports routes that use existin� transportation corridors and ri�hts-o �. Opposes any and all ali�nments where transportation corridors do nc present time; and �VHEREAS, revocation and rescission of Resolution 10-033 and opposition FindinQs: I. The �uthoritti� and FRA have failed and continue to fail to coordinate County reQ3rdin� the Project and its impacts on the health, safety anc iii� C�iiI'i� j% aT'id liS ZOCai Y�aTIIllil� �G�ilsil�iltS Sis� OI�1T'iaii�.�'S; aild �. The Project does not cunform with the County's General Plan and re] ordinances: and 3. Prior to release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmf Statement ("DEIR/EIS") for the I'resno to Bakersfield Section of the Authority and F�A assured Kings County Board of Supervisors that planning issues and health, safety and `velfare concerns would be ad� the DEIR/EIS, but it has not be done despite detailed correspondence the Authority an� FR.A and irtroduced in attempted coordination meE Kin�s County Board of Supervisors; and -�. Th� UEI�IS defers miti�ation �r.�:ysis on :r�any of tr.� impacts thai not only Kings County property owners, but Kings County GovernmE County staff resources and fails to resolve conflicts �vith the County': Pian; and �. The DEIR/EIS propuses that the Bakersfield to Fresno Section will n� eiect?-ifie�i, in vioIation �f Fropositi�n 1P., «Thich requires atl eieciri ic speed train system; a.nd 6_ The DEIRIEIS further indicates that if the entire hijh-speed train syst anticipated by Prop. lA is not built out as anticipated: the track for th� to Fresno Section `vill have "indegendent utility" for Amtra�: purpose qualify under ARRA fundinQ requirements. This completely ignores investment in the existin� transportation hub and intermodal conriecti plannin� as well as economic impac:s on affected downtowns and the and greenhouse gas impacts created by alterin� the hub; and 7. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section DEIR/EIS consists of more than 1 and relies on technical documents that combined total more than 30,0 the Authority provided for a 45-day comment period �vith a token 15 extension for a total of 60 days; and Q. Just before expiration of the inadequate 60 day review pe�iod, rather t to a flood of requests for extension of the cornment period, the Ajltho: evaluating the impacts, issued a statement that it intends to retain the � comment period for the DEIRIEIS, proceed �vith the separate Merced Secrion DEIR/EIS, but "re-introduce an alternative route, the Hanforc Bypass alternative, along with an alternative station Iocation to serve F�in�s/Tulare region" and then issue a revised draft EIR/supplemental for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section only in Sprina of 2012. Had the coordinated with the County as requested, this may have been avoidec . .� . . � _ � c_ 1� t- -�- ---- -- �--- ---�---._._.� 1...,..,1 _ ................. ....1.. +„ L � without envir�nmental review; �.vithout c�utreach by the Authority or Kings County, and was previously abandoned without explanation. ] �vords, it adopted particular ali�,mments v��ithout pubiic or agency inpi claimin� to "tier�' off of the earlier aeneral programmatic environmet CiC�Clliitcrii. i-ii�0, u�S�itc a 12iiZi iii�It'i 8 ieC�Zi2I I'2SY�I2Slv1� 3�ZiIC}r, �. Ar?ry Corps of Enaineers, suQCest�n� tha� it shoul_d r�consider the H< ali�nment the Authority on May, 2011 refused to comply and remain undeterred in its effort to issue the Project DEIR/EIS. Now, at the er. DEIR/EIS comment period, the Authority is backtracking and indica� reconsider this alternative; and The Authority's lack of transparency, failure to coordinate and resolti i�norance of the will of the people expressed in Prop. IA, and its "ac forgiveness later" approach to the Project. have caused the Kings Co� of Supervisors to revisit its prior Resolution I 0-033. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Kings Supervisors: 1. Affirms the findings herein; 2. REVOKES and RESCINDS Resolution �10-033 adopted May 3. OPPOSES the California Hi�h-Speed Rail Authority High-Spe� The foregoiny resolution ��as unanimously adopted upon motioT Joe Neves, seconded by Supervisor pou¢ Verboon at a regular meeting held c October, 201 l, by the follo�vin� vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT Supervisors Neves, Supervisors Supervisors Verboon, Fagundes; Vaile and Barba /s/Tonv Barba Tony Barba, Chairperson of the Board of Supervi� County of Kin�s, State of California IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this 18th day of Octobe /s/Rhonda Brav .� . . .-. .-� . .. , , n • . r. � r n http: //www.paloaltoonline. com/news/st Uploaded: Monday, December 19, 2011, 11:54 PM Select FILE --> PRINT to print this story. �� 1��t0 �� Q 15 I i r7 $ Palo Alto calls for 'termination' of high-speed rail City Council votes 8-0 to take its strongest position yet against $98.5 billion project In a dramatic reversal from its position three years ago, the Palo Alto City Council on Monday night (Dec. 19) a city's official position a call for termination of California's beleaguered high-speed-rail project. With its 8-0 vote, the council took its most extreme stance to date against the project, which has been graduall� community and disillusioning city officials since 2009. The new position, which the council voted to add to its g� for high-speed rail, was prompted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority's recently released business plar the project's price tag more than doubling from what was presented to the voters three years ago. The project'� was also extended from 2020 to 2033. The vote, while significant, is hardly surprising. The council had urged voters in 2008 to support high-speed rail turned against the project as questions began to emerge about the rail line's design, ridership projections and f year, the council took a position of "no confidence" against the rail authority. It has also decided to join Menlo P a coalition of nonprofit groups in a lawsuit that challenges the rail authority's environmental analysis. The council's rail committee unanimously recommended earlier this month that the council go a step further an� project's termination, though members split over the exact wording the city should adopt to support this positior Chair Larry Klein, who was absent Monday night, and Councilwoman Gail Price advocated for a short paragra� state should terminate the high-speed-rail project "since it's too expensive, has no credible funding plan, is bas� flawed and unreliable data." The paragraph also asserts that the project was brought before the voters in 2008 serious, material misrepresentations." But the council on Monday chose a longer statement penned by Councilman Pat Burt and Councilwoman Nanc Though their statement, like Klein and Price's, called for the project's termination, it provides a fuller explanatioi opposition. Shepherd said Monday that she still believes America needs high-speed rail. But she maintained that the proje� city voters supported three years ago is no longer the one on the table. In 2008, the rail authority had estimated that the cost for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line would be less t The business plan that the rail authority released last month showed the price tag climb to $98.5 billion. "This particular project as it's going right now is not what I voted for in 2008," Shepherd said. "At this point in tin that our community understand that it's not the same project." The position adopted by the council states that the city "believes that the High Speed Rail project should be ter the project in its current form "fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Propositior vote, the council's statement asserts, relied on "grossly understated construction costs," "understated fares anc ridership" and a requirement that the new system would be operating without a government subsidy. "Since the revised HSR Business Plan and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job creatio significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given accurate information during the 2008 E an informed decision on an HSR project for the state of California," the new guiding principle states. http: //www.paloaltoonline. com/news/st important that as soon as other people read this, they understand our reasoning behind it. "It's really important to set forth what the reason is so that people understand it and not just say that it's Palo AI declarative statement that we don't support it." Price ultimately joined her colleagues in adopting the longer version. The Monday vote illustrates the dramatic shift in the council's position toward the high-speed-rail project and ur Alto's status as the project's leading opponent. It came at a time when the project is facing a storm of scrutiny � and federal levels. Last week, several members of the U.S. Congress vehemently criticized the rail authority's funding plan, which federal grants and on $11 billion in private investment. U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, who chairs the House C Transportation and Infrastructure, predicted that the project will be a disaster and said it is "imploding every da� project for its cost overruns and questioned the rail authority's choice of a Central Valley segment as the line's : The Dec. 16 committee hearing also featured testimony from Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of the Palo Alto grou Advocating Responsible Rail Design. The group was among the first to flag problems with the rail authority's ric methodology and had over the past two years criticized the authority for faulty cost estimates and a lack of tran testimony at the hearing, Alexis described California's project as "fool's gold" and slammed the rail authority for on consultants and for low-balling previous cost estimates. "Do we need high-speed rail in our state? Absolutely," Alexis told the committee. "But the train we're on is on th costs too much and it delivers too little." Find this article at: http://www. paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?story_id=23637 Job estimates for California high-speed train are too high, review shows �3��'•�;'��`�,��`�� 3 ��r-t,�� °�i� http://www.sacbee.com/2011 / 12/22/v-print/� �ob estimates for California high-speed a re too h ig h, review shows San �ose Mercury News Published Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011 SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Though California's high-speed train faces an intensifying backlash c billion price tag, political leaders from Washington to Sacramento justify the cost by to� huge number: 1 million jobs the rail line is supposed to create. But like so many of the promises made to voters who approved the bullet train, those appear too good to be true. A review by the San Jose Mercury News found the railroad would create only 20,000 to during an average year, and employ only a few thousand people permanently if it's buil "They have a really hard sales pitch with the real numbers, so they've fudged the num� state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, a Chico-area Republican who is introducing legislation to send back to voters. "C'mon, a million people working on a 520-mile railroad? I practically la� loud when (I heard that)." One million people - more than the combined workforce of San Jose and San Francisco to cram shoulder-to-shoulder just to fit along the rail line between San Francisco and Ai In trying to win over a skeptical public to support the most expensive public works proj� state in U.S. history, California Gov. Jerry Brown, the Obama administration, Democrati and big city mayors such as San Jose's Chuck Reed have repeated the 1 million job mai "The facts are clear: over 1 million good-paying jobs will be created," House Minority LE Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement last week. But state leaders, it turns out, quietly beefed up employment estimates. First, they cou year of work as a separate job. So if one person worked 10 years, that counted as 10 jc they figured outside companies, such as restaurants and retailers, would hire two new � every single construction worker. Grand total: 20,000 construction workers and 40,000 "spin-off" employees - each work entire 22-year project - counted as more than 1 million jobs. Job estimates for California high-speed train are too high, review shows credibility on the line. http://www.sacbee.com/2011 / 12/22/v-print/� "To the extent that we use jobs, it's been as a short-hand (for years of employment). It way," said Dan Richard, whom Brown appointed to the California High-Speed Rail Authc controlling the project. "It's absolutely fair that we should be more disciplined about th� forward. At the end of the day, I don't know if it really changes anything. The bottom lii you're unemployed you don't care if it's jobs or job-years." Government agencies routinely calculate temporary construction jobs by the year, but i for public officials to lump all those estimates together. For instance, the White House t� recipients of stimulus funds not to count workers multiple times like officials have done project, which received $2.25 billion from those grants. It's also common for planners to calculate spin-off jobs for huge public works projects. I high-speed rail, they usually separate construction and spin-off jobs in touting the num Valley Transportation Authority does when promoting the BART extension to San Jose. , everyone agrees high-speed rail will be the economic boon for outside industries that oi assuming, particularly since construction would begin in a remote Central Valley locatio Critics say the job questions are just the latest example of supporters misleading the p� When voters approved the project in 2008, they were told it would cost $33 billion, a pr has since roughly tripled. Since the vote, the start date of full service also has been pu� from 2020 to 2034, expected rider counts have dwindled and sources of funding have d Field Poll earlier this month found less than one-third of Californians would approve the today. Michael Rossi, Brown's jobs czar and another project board member, said "there was nc mislead anyone by manipulating the numbers." But supporters always publicly refer to the huge employment totals as "jobs" - sometirr saying that the first leg of the project will put 100,000 "people" to work - without expla the figures represent years of work, and that two-thirds of the jobs are expected spin-o "They want you to believe that when this thing gets under construction that there are 1 individual bodies working around on this project, which is totally bogus," said Aaron Fu� co-chairman of a Central Valley group aimed at holding the rail authority accountable. " trying to legitimize a false number." What's more, officials have not taken into account the potential job losses from the railr will displace many businesses along the train route, including several along the Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose. And within the last month, the California Legislati Office said other state programs could cut jobs so the state can afford the $20 billion dE portion of the rail line. Rail authority spokeswoman Rachel Wall said the first leg of construction "will create a r throughout the state" and provide desperately needed paychecks, particularly within th� construction industry. In addition to temporary construction jobs, the rail authority exp� staff of 4,150 permanent workers to run the railroad. California high-speed rail leaders vow to show real job figures - Sacrame... http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/23/v-print/� �3��'•�;'��`�,��`�� 3 ��r-t,�� °�i� California high-speed rail leaders vow show real job figures San �ose Mercury News Published Friday, Dec. 23, 2011 SAN JOSE, Calif -- SAN JOSE, Calif. - Backing off claims that the bullet train would crea 1 million jobs, California's high-speed rail leaders acknowledged Thursday that their "sh definition used to describe jobs has been "imprecise and potentially confusing." In a statement responding to an investigation by this newspaper, the California High-S� Authority clarified that the 1 million jobs figure does not refer to the number of workers the newspaper reported, it refers to an economic term known as "job-years" in which, f one person working 10 years equals 10 job-years. While the lower-than-advertised job figures would result in about 20,000 construction v� during a typical year, the project's die-hard supporters such as California Gov. Jerry Brc differences didn't change their fervor to start building. Project officials vowed Thursday to make it clear that far fewer people will get jobs thar implied, saying that the project will create "thousands and thousands" of jobs. "But it is important to emphasize that the case for high-speed rail does not revolve aro� project board member Michael Rossi, the governor's jobs czar, said in the statement. "I Californians that something must be done to keep our state moving over the next gene From Sacramento to Washington, political leaders have argued the railroad's employme are so overwhelming that this is the perfect time to embark on the most expensive proj state in U.S. history. They are urging the Legislature to approve the $6 billion first leg c construction in the Central Valley next year, hoping to find the rest of the funding along Rail officials also had used "job-years" to add up the number of "spinoff" jobs they expE companies, such as restaurants and retailers, to create to support the project. In reality, they estimate about 40,000 actual workers - or two-thirds of the project's toi be employed in spinoff jobs in a typical year, even in such secluded areas as Central Va farmlands. • S A K E I� S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: December 23, 2011 SUBJECT: POTHOLES ON SOUTH CHESTER AND EL SERRANO Referral No. 287 COUNCILMEMBER SALAS REQUESTED THAT STAFF REPAIR POTHOLES ON SOUTH AND EL SERRANO, BOTH NORTH OF MING. The potholes on South Chester and El Serrano were repaired on December 14, 2011. Paqe 1 of 2 STREETS DIVISION — WORK SCHEDULE Week of Dec. 26, 2011 — Dec. 30, 2011 Resurfacinq/Reconstructinq streets in the followinq areas: Reconstructing streets in the area south of Planz Rd and west of Wible Rd (weather Miscellaneous Streets Division projects: Video inspection of City owned Sewer & Storm lines to evaluate condition of pipes Repairing Curb & Gutters at Bus Stops in various areas Crack Sealing on Chester Ave north of 30t" St. to River Bridge (weather permitting) NOTE: If raining, there will be no street sweeping service and all street cleaning per: assigned to cleaning plugged drains and part circle culverts. THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Paqe 2 of 2 STREETS SWEEPING SCHEDULE Monday, Dec. 26, 2011 No sweeping service due to Holiday. Tuesday, Dec. 27, 2011 City areas between Olive Dr. & Downing Ave. — Coffee Rd. & Knudsen Dr./Mohawk S Wy. From Weldon Ave. to Meany Ave. Between W. Columbus St. & 34t" St. — Chester Ave. & San Dimas St. Beween Union Ave. & Madison St. — Casa Loma Dr. & White Ln. Between Westwold Dr. & So. Laurelglen Blvd. — Gosford Rd. & Woodglen Dr. Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011 City areas between Snow Rd. & Rosedale Hwy. — Jewetta Ave., west to the City limit. Between Ming Ave. & So. Laurelglen Blvd. — Coffee Rd. & EI Portal / Laurelglen Blvd Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011 All sweepers are assigned to sweeping streets that are not on a set sweeping schedu Friday, Dec. 30, 2011 All sweepers are assigned to sweeping streets that are not on a set sweeping schedu NOTE: If raining, there will be no street sweeping service and all street cleaning pers assigned to cleaning plugged drains and part circle culverts. DISTRICT MANAGER SIERRA COASTAL DISTRICT UNI TED ST/]TES � POST4L SERVICE December 13, 2011 The Honorable Harvey L. Hall Mayor, City of Bakersfield 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mayor Hall: On September 15, 2011, we notified you that the U.S. Postal Service was beginnir Processing (AMP) feasibility study of its mail processing operations at the Bakersf and Distribution Center (P&DC), 3400 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93380 for p consolidation into the Santa Clarita P&DC, 28201 Franklin Pkwy., Santa Clarita, C Sierra Coastal District office has completed its review and submitted it to the Vice Pacific Area Operations for consideration. We welcome public input and will hold a meeting to explain the proposal on Wedn� December 28, 2011 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Veterans Hall, 400 Norris Road, E 93308. Attached please find a summary brief of the AMP proposal. One week prior to the post presentation materials along with the summary brief on our website, http.//abouf. usps. com/streamlining-operatrons/area-mail-processrnq htm. We also will accept any public comment on the study up to 15 days after the meet� may be mailed to: Manager, Consumer and Industry Contact Sierra Coastal District 28201 Franklin Pkwy, Room 210 Santa Clarita, CA 91383-9682 If you have any questions concerning this AMP proposal, please contact Manager, Industry Contact Theresa Salvador at (661) 775-6642. Sincerely, 9 / /� Kerry . Wolny District Manager �'� __ . �r. at&t �� December 14, 2011 City Manager Alan Tandy City of Bakersfield 1600 Truxtun Avenue BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Dear City Manager Tandy, aT&T �� t •:s.. rvr�, AT&T's contracts with programmers for the content displayed on our U-verse°i N service periodic� but are usually re-negotiated or extended with no interruption or change for our U-verse members current contract(s) for the programming indicated below will expire soon, and AT&T is making ever reach a fair agreement to continue carriage. However, if a reasonable agreement cannot be reach� such programmer(s), we will no (onger have the rights to carry their programming on U-verse TV a� below: January 31, 2012: The impacted channels are Estrella (channel 3024), ROOT Sports Northwest (channel 1764), ROOT : Pittsburgh (channel 1730}, and ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain (channel 1760). February 2012: The impacted channels are ION Life (channel 468) and qubo (channels 328 and 3061). In addition the impacted local channels include: In the Los Angeles area, KPXN (channels 30 and 1030 in HD); In the Sacramento area, KSPX (channels 29 and 1029 in HD); and In the San Francisco area, KKPX (channels 65 and 1065 in HD). Customers will be provided with written notification of the above: customer bills include a messagE them to the Legal Notices in USA Today on the first and third Tuesday of each month, and to the Al website www.att.com/U-versepro�ramin�chan�es, for information on programming changes. If you have any questions, please contact your local AT&T External Affairs manager, Jan Bans on 661.327.6565.