The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/06/2012OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TO: Honorable Mayor and City Counci FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager ,/��st SUBJECT: Generallnformation Miscellaneous News • This past Thursday evening the Planning Commission held a public hearii Environmental Impact Report for the 24th Street Improvement Proje residents from the area were encouraged to attend and provide the C City Staff with their comments on the proposed alternatives. A court rE hand to document the comments received and many residents chose 1 to provide feedback. Staff will be reviewing the comments submitted � public comment period, which ends July l bth, with the intent of respo comments in the Final Environmental Document. • We were very pleased with the turn out for the inaugural Fourth Independence Day event. There were an estimated 1,500 attendees ii amphitheatre throughout the day. The food and beverage booths did the ice cream and snow cone concessions being especially populc sounded great and enjoyed playing in the amphitheatre venue. We � at what aspects worked well and what changes can be made for the 1 it made for a very nice family-oriented day, and we hope to be able event in the coming years. A special thanks to the staff of the Recrec Department and SMG for their hard work in staging this event. • Two eastbound lanes on White Ln from Shepard St to Akers Rd will be c 13th. A contractor hired by PG&E is conducting pressure testing on PC that run down White Ln and Gosford Rd, south of White Ln. The wo contractor to set up testing equipment over the gas line in the GE floor vote in the Senate, which could effectively kill the high-speec funding for the project is not approved. At the time of this writing t� debating the issue during a spirited floor discussion. Unfortunately, we v� tuned to see the results of what is expected to be a close vote. � The attached article provides five of the many reasons why the high spE is flawed - as the authors of the article state "The last thing California : now is add billions more in bond debt. Beyond the most obvious—tr cannot afford it—there are at least five major reasons California si forward on this rail project." The article is worth the read. � An editorial column in a recent edition of the San Diego Union-Tribur train: The facts shovld kill it" provides a straight forward argument o� reasons for the legislature to nix funding for the project. The editor poignantly, lays out solid reasoning as to why the project should not mo� Event Information ✓ Float in Movie "Dolphin Tale" July bth at 7:30 p.m. McMurtrey Aquatic Center $3 per person or $10 for groups of 4 to 6 ✓ Roller Derby For Heroes July 7th at 6 p.m. Rabobank Arena Tickets: $7-$20 ✓ Music Fest featuring Thee Majestics July l Oth at 7 p.m. Silver Creek Park Free Admission Reports For your information, we enclose the following information: ➢ The Streets Division work schedule for the week of July 9, 2012. High-speed rail up for critical vote today in California Senate - Transportation - The Sacramento Bee 1 I L �'� �:i�� ['L�� _�F�l � �e,,\ � �i ��{��r : �� V,.. s _. =._ri i . This story is taken from Sacbee /-- Root High-speed Senate rail up for critical vote today in Califo dsiders@sacbee.com PUBLISHED FRIDAY, JUL. 06, 2012 Hours before a critical vote today on California's high-speed rail project, Democratic legisl� weren't certain they could line up enough Senate votes to approve it. They were working on the members one by one. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinbe� distributed a chart demonstrating the potential value of the project to various senators, inc track and funding for other, regional transportation projects in their districts. Rail officials said Thursday that if the funding measure fails, the $68 billion project is effec "This is the time when California decides, 'Do we want to move forward with this rail modf don't we?' " Dan Richard, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority board, tolc Capitol. The state Assembly on Thursday voted to approve initial funding for the project, setting up today. With no Republican senator expected to support the measure, it will require the votes of 2: Democrats. "This is a very tight and tough vote," said Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "But I've had tight anc before." Critics were preparing for today's vote, too. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association urge call three Democratic lawmakers it believed could be persuaded: Michael Rubio of East Ba� Pavley of Agoura Hills and Gloria Negrete McLeod of Chino. High-speed rail up for critical vote today in California Senate - Transportation - The Sacramento Bee "I think the one thing that is most important to emphasize is that while over the last coupl have really talked about this as the high-speed rail program, the fact of the matter is that v� business plan is all about is an integrated rail modernization program for the state," Richa� just high-speed rail." Senators are interested in such district-specific benefits. Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa remains undecided about the project, citing concern that the proposal doesn't do anything Coast constituents. Rod Wright was among the Democratic senators leaning toward approval. "At this point we've got so much in, I'm not sure it's time to cut things or to give back the . he said. Wright said some parts of the rail plan are "goofy," such as the requirement to start constr Central Valley. But he said that wasn't enough to dissuade him from voting to move forward. "If I wanted to vote against everything around here that has goofy provisions in it, I'd prob everything," he said. The Assembly's approval, on a 5i-2� vote, was widely expected. Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, urged lawmakers to recall the work of previot that built the state water project and its highway and university systems. "We have issues, in terms of budget problems," he said. "Does that mean that we stop look Republicans argued the state does not have money to invest in rail, and they said the pros� federal funding is uncertain. Citing recent polling showing high-speed rail has become unpopular since voters approved Hagman, R-Chino Hills, urged the Assembly to put the project back to a public vote. "Let them help us prioritize what's important," Hagman said. While Assembly members made floor speeches about the project, senators in a committee � continued to raise questions about the project's management and cost. High-speed rail up for critical vote today in California Senate - Transportation - The Sacramento Bee U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in May urged a vote before the Legislature's su� "If the Legislature doesn't move forward with the project this week, then the secretary of tr made it very clear that they need to look at withdrawing the money from California and pu place else," Richard said. "Without that federal match, we're not going to be able to go forward." c� Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserued. �� Share Call David Siders, Bee Capitol Bureau, C916� 321-1215. Follow him on Twitter @davidside 5 Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Project Shouldn't Get More ... http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-re� http:�/reason.com/archives/2o12 f o2/o2�5-reasons-the-california-hi�h-speed-rail 5 Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Proj ec Shouldn't Get More Money Gov. Brown asks for billions in borrowing even as train system ge shorter, and more expensive. Adrian Moore, Jose�h Vranich & Wendell Cox � July 2, 2012 Despite California's budget deficit rising to $16 billion recently, Gov. Jerry Brown is asking state legislators for $ 6 billion in bonds to launch construction on the proposed high-speed rail system. Voters approved a$9•95 billion bond package for the "bullet train" in 2008, but just about everything about the rail system has changed since then. � ., ��`'�, ^ e + � Y. � � � � .� � . , {,, � � � 1+ � : � l� ',S. The California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) issued a revised business plan in April that calls for a 13o-mile segment running fro. to Madera in the state's Central Valley. If the Central Valley leg is built, the plan say� would eventually share tracks with commuter trains in the Bay Area and Los Angele calling a"blended" approach. Not exactly the bullet train from San Diego to Los An� Bay Area and Sacramento that voters were sold back in 2008. The last thing California should do right now is add billions more in bond debt. Bey� obvious—the state simply cannot afford it—there are at least five major reasons Cali shouldn't move forward on this rail project. Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Project Shouldn't Get More ... http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-re� Now the High-Speed Rail Authority says the price tag for a scaled down system will billion. Last year, the HSRA actually estimated the costs would be over $A8 billion k the sticker shock by $3o billion they've shifted to a"blended" plan that uses slower, tracks instead of building the exclusive tracks capable of handling high-speed trains originally planned on. The official proponent's argument in the Proposition lA ballot pamphlet also promi� that ticket prices would be "about $5o a person." Now, they are saying tickets woulc average of $81 each way, with "express" tickets for the fastest trips costing $123 one The costs have changed so much from what voters were promised that funding shoL until the HSRA fulfills its 2008 promises to voters, or until voters get to approve thE Several groups, including po�ular KFI radio talk show hosts John and Ken in Los A� starting to get the signatures needed to put a re-vote of the high-speed rail initiative 2. There's Still No Legitimate Funding Plan The California High-Speed Rail Authority says it will need $53 to $62 billion to buil Blended System, which would run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Sacramento � appear to have been dropped from the plan. The state currently has the $9•95 billio� backed bonds originally approved by Proposition lA plus an additional $3.5 billion : grants. But where is the remaining $40-$5o billion going to come from? In April, the non�artisan Legislative Analyst's Office wrote, "We find that HSRA ha; sufficient detail and justification to the Legislature regarding its plan to build a high system. Specifically, funding for the project remains highly speculative and importa have not been sorted out. We recommend the Legislature not approve the Governor budget proposals to provide additional funding for the project." If the state starts building a high-speed train system somewhere between Bakersfiel it will run out of money well before the system is finished. That's okay with many tr< who figure once construction begins the government will be forced to find the rest o to avoid having a partially built $10 billion train to nowhere sitting in the Central V� legislature can't afford to be so fiscally reckless. It needs to demand a detailed plan ; 5 Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Project Shouldn't Get More trip will take three hours. http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-re� Even that time is highly unlikely because it depends on trains operating at a peak s� mph, faster than any train in the world, and an average speed of 198 mph. Such avE are going to be next to impossible to reach because trains won't always be running c tracks designed for high speeds and, as the plan admits, they would be forced to slo� ioo-i5o mph in Los Angeles and the Bay Area for safety reasons. Hence, it's likely express trains will take three hours and 4o minutes. Travelers will also find that most of the trains will make local stops and be slower th business plan doesn't provide times but it's likely that San Francisco-Los Angeles tr; would be between four and six hours, depending upon the number of stops made. 4. Shrinking Ridership Numbers The estimated costs have gone way up since 2008 but the HSRA keeps lowering the people it claims will ride the trains. As the Le�islative Analyst's re�ort notes, "Specifically, the HSRA estimates that the ridership would be about 3o percent lower than estimated in the November 2oii dr plan." For example, the earlier plan projected between 29.6 million and 43•9 millior trips per year in 204o while the latest plan assumes between 20.1 million and 32.6 Y one—way trips per year." The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Berkeley sa ridershin estimates are wav off the mark. "We found that the model that the rail aut upon to create average ridership projections was flawed at key decision-making jun� study principal investigator Samer Madanat, director of ITS Berkeley and UC Berke of civil and environmental engineering. "This means that the forecast of ridership is very close to the ridership that would actually materialize if the system were built." The current plan claims people will choose the trains over driving. It makes this ass� arbitrarily doubling the real costs of driving from Northern to Southern California. ] rail plan's reliance on blended tracks would mean slower travel speeds. Add in the t� � r . . . . � . r. � i . . � . • � . � Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Project Shouldn't Get More California. http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-re� 5. The Train Won't Reduce Greenhouse Gases Proponents often say the high-speed rail system is needed to reduce the state's gree: emissions. The United Nations has estimated that effective greenhouse gas reductio should cost $2o to $5o per ton. The California high-speed rail system's emission rec would come at a monstrous cost of $i,800 a ton. Just as troubling, research at UC Berkelev concluded that if rail ridership met HSR� estimates, it would take �o years for the rail system just to negate the emissions cre� own construction. If rail suffers lower ridership the system would "never" negate its emissions. California is drowning in debt and deficits. State leaders like Gov. Brown are calling increases. The California High-Speed Rail Authority keeps raising costs, lowering ri� and lengthening travel times. Its current business plan reneges on promises made t� Proposition 1A. It would be a major mistake for California legislators to borrow billi to start building a train system that is far inferior and far more expensive than the o were promised when they approved Proposition lA in November 2008. Adrian T. Moore is Uice president of research at Reason Foundation. Wendell Cox ; principal of Wendell Cox Consultancy/Demographia. Joseph Vranich is an IrUine, business consultant. They are co-authors of "Cali ornia Hi�qh-S�eed Rail Pro�osal: Diligence Re�ort. " Bullet train: The facts should kill it � UTSanDiego.com � �� 1��1 Bullet train: The facts should kill it By U-T San Diego Editorial Board Wednesday, July 4, 2012 http://www.utsandiego. com/news/2012/j ul/0 The state Senate is expected to make a key vote in coming days on the California High-Speec Authority's plan to begin spending billions of dollars in state and federal funds on the first se; bullet-train system linking Northern and Southern California. Gov. Jerry Brown's latest propc building a 130-mile link between Madera and Bakersfield in the Central Valley. The project has been controversial since state voters in 2008 approved giving $9.95 billion in money to build a system then estimated to cost $43 billion. As the cost estimate rose to $98 billion, the debate over the direction of the project built in in� the governor to force changes, including adoption of a new plan that cut the cost to $68 billio Since then, the narrative has settled into a tidy package: Brown says California has to be bold worry the project could prove a disaster. But let's just stick to facts, not the opinions of "critics." The project was sold to voters in 2008 with estimates of not just project cost but ridership anc that have since been abandoned as far too optimistic by the California High-Speed Rail Auth� The Legislative Analyst's Office, the most respected institution in state government, has repe the project's business plan doesn't comply with the legal requirement that there be no taxpayf operating subsidies when the bullet train is up and running. Of the project's estimated $68 billion cost, less than $14 billion in funding (all from state and taxpayers) is in place. No companies have shown interest in partnering with the state to fund and build the project — been envisioned — unless they are given ridership or revenue guarantees to shield them from � guarantees, the LAO says, break state law. Bullet train: The facts should kill it � UTSanDiego.com http://www.utsandiego. com/news/2012/j ul/0 Brown often depicts criticism of the bullet train as driven by partisan motives, not a genuine : immense boondoggle looms. So how does the California project look to the editorial board oi Washington Post, which can't be accused of right-wing bias? In a November editorial headlined "Crazy train," the Post cited many of the facts we offered. "If the president and governor won't slam on the brakes, then Congress or the California Leg find a way to prevent the spending. Somebody, please, stop this train." If legislators finally acknowledge the facts about the train project, that's just what they will d� �O Copyright 2012 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All right� Paqe 1 of 2 STREETS DIVISION — WORK SCHEDULE Week of July 9, 2012 — July 13, 2012 Resurfacinq/Reconstructinq streets in the followinq areas: Reconstructing streets in the area south of White Ln and west of Pin Oak Park Reconstructing McNair Ln, Ride St and Cernan Way (qrindinq & pulverizinq will be Grind & ResurFace Ming Ave between Wible Rd & New Stine (most of work will be d Sealing streets in the area between "H" St & Union Ave south of Brundage Ln ResurFacing streets with oilsand in the Oleander area (blade seal) Miscellaneous Streets Division proiects: Video inspection of City owned Sewer & Storm lines to evaluate condition of pipes (CDBG funded area) Installing & Repairing curb, gutter & sidewalks in the area ea� south of Palm St. (CDBG funded area) Installing & Repairing curb, gutter & sidewalks in the area so Ave to 8t" St from "M" St to "N" St Storm line installed on "A" St between 17t" St & Truxtun Ave. Sidewalk Repairs on Scarlett Oak south of Ming Ave. Storm line connection at Henry Ln & Rosedale THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Paqe 2 of 2 STREETS SWEEPING SCHEDULE Mondav, July 9, 2012 Between So. "H" St. & Union Avenue — Pacheco Rd. & Hosking Rd. Between Stockdale Hwy. & Truxtun Ave. (ext.) — Coffee Rd & Partridge Ave. Tuesdav, July 10, 2012 Between 99 Hwy. & So. "H" St. — Ming Ave. & Panama Ln. Cul-De-Sacs on the north side of Magdelena Ave., west of So. "H" St. Wednesday, July 11, 2012 City areas between Brundage Ln. & Ming Ave. — So. "H" St. & Union Ave. City areas between Wilson Rd. & Pacheco Rd. — So. "H" St. & Union Ave. Between Casa Loma Dr. & Planz Rd. — Madison Ave. & Cottonwood Dr. Between Planz Rd. & Brook St. — Madison Ave. & Hale St. Thursday, July 12, 2012 Between Carr St. & California Ave. — Mohawk St. & Stockdale Hwy. Between Stockdale Hwy. & Marella Wy. — California Ave. & Montclair St. Between La Mirada Dr. & Chester Ln. — Montclair St. & No. Stine Rd. Between California Ave. (ext.) & Stockdale Hwy. — No. Stine Rd. & 99 Hwy. Between Stockdale Hwy. & Ming Ave. — New Stine Rd. & Ashe Rd. Between Mountain Ridge Dr. & Ashe Rd. — Taft Hwy. & Berkshire Rd. Friday, July 13, 2012 Between Ming Ave. & White Ln. — Buena Vista Rd & Old River Rd. Between Stine Rd. & 99 Hwy. — Ming Avenue & Adidas. Between Panama Ln. & Birkshire Rd. — Gosford Rd. & Stine Rd. bright house tiET;'iORKS June 29, 2012 3701 North Sillect Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Tel (661) 634-2260 Fax (661) 395-3378 /�.' '1 .� Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1600 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: Joseph R. Schoenstein Division President Bakersfield Division i. i From time to time our agreements with cable channels and television stations come up for renewal. While we do no� disruption of service, regulations require us to notify you of the possibility of losing programming. Please be advisE agreements with BBC America, Cooking Channel, Current TV, DIY, Encore, Encore Action, Encore Drama, Encore Famil Suspense, Encore Westerns, Food Network, GoIN, Game Show Network (GSN), Gospel Music Channel, Great Americ� Choice), Movieplex, NHL Center Ice, Ovation, Playboy, Sprout, Starz, Stari Cinema, Starz Comedy, Starz Edge, Starz in Bla TruN, TuN Bandamax, TuTV De Pelicula, TuN De Pelicula Classico, and Youtoo N remain in effect on a month to month to cease carriage in all formats if our authority to continue is withheld. Additionally, our agreement with Fox News expires on July 31, 2012, and we may have to cease carriage in all formats if our withheld. We are working diligently at this time to come to acceptable and fair terms with all of these channels. Effective August 1, 2012, MC MixTape will change its name to MC University. Bright House Networks is continuing its commitment to bring new technology and advanced digital services to our comm have implemented a new digital video delivery technology known as Switched Digital Video (SDV). SDV is a robust bandwid that makes it possible to offer more digital video programming services including new HD channels. In order to offer more new video services, Brignt House Networks will be adding new programming on the SDV system August 1, 2012, the following services were delivered on the SDV system: Pac 12 Los Angeles (Digital Variety) Channel 114 Pac 12 Los Angeles HD (Digital Variety) Channel 1114 Pac 12 National (Sports Pass) Channel 140 Pac 12 National HD (Sports Pass) Channel 1140 Pac 12 Arizona (Sports Pass) Channel 141 Pac 12 Arizona HD (Sports Pass) Channel 1141 Pac 12 Bay Area (Sports Pass) Channel 142 Pac 12 Bay Area HD (Sports Pass) Channel 1142 Pac 12 Oregon (Sports Pass) Channel 143 Pac 12 Oregon HD (Sports Pass) Channel 1143 Pac 12 Washington (Sports Pass) Channel 144 Pac 12 Washington HD (Sports Pass) Channel 1144 Pac 12 Mountain (Sports Pass) Channel 145