HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/95 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
May 12, 1995
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL///
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT' GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Please do not forget that the Workshop subject at the next Council Meeting
on May 17th is a very important one - the presentation of the proposed
1995-96 City budget.
2. The formal grand opening celebration for the Holiday Inn Select will be
Wednesday evening, June 7th.. John Q. Hammons will be in Bakersfield for
this event. Further details will be distributed to you as we get them.
3. Congratulations to Raul Rojas, Public Works Director, and his staff. You
will find information enclosed indicating they got us a $270,000 grant to
purchase non-polluting equipment.
4. A meeting was held this week with residents relative to the northeast park
and the Destec $500,000 contribution. I am told that it was used as a
"venting" session by some, but staff is cautiously optimistic that future
meetings will be productive.
5. The Parks Division reports that we are experiencing fewer than normal
protests as a result of the mailed maintenance district notices. My
prediction would be that we are seeing the stability which is coming about
as a result of the consolidation of the various districts and the benefits
of eliminating the administrative costs. That situation should continue to
improve next year, when we will not have the transition issue from two
types of assessments.
Do you know that we do not have to mail these 19,000 notices every year?
That is policy, as opposed to legal requirement. It would certainly save
money and create less pain to reduce the number of mailings to what is
statutorily required. ! believe we are only required to mail based upon
those experiencing substantial increases which may not, in future years,
even be the case.
6. You will find a significant memo enclosed from the City Attorney. it
indicates that James B. Haggin, one of our community's founders, had a lot
of foresight when he dedicated street right-of-ways in the downtown area.
He precluded their use for canals, waterways, etc. This would make most of
the "middle of the street" concepts for a downtown water theme very, very
difficult.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 12, 1995
Page -2-
7. We had a meeting this week relative to the major land trade between the
Kern County Water Agency and Castle & Cooke. It all seems to be positive.
It is a concept supported by the Kern River Parkway group, as well as the
City staff, County staff, Castle & Cooke and the Water Agency. It
exchanges property north and south of the river, reducing the potential for
commercial construction within sensitive secondary floodplains south of the
Kern River and making more logical development patterns for Castle & Cooke
in the future. It is all dependent upon a Sphere of Influence change and
annexation. LAFCO is the only potential hold up, but we are working with
the other entities to try to get them to cooperate.
8. Responses to Councilmember referrals and inquiries are enclosed regarding
potholes at Custer/South H Street and Wilson Road (east of Stine Road), the
amount of an assessment for 1226 Hosking Road, and landscaping west of the
Corporation Yard.
9. A status report from Economic Development on the Chester Avenue Urban
Design Concept Plan is enclosed.
10. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 12th, as part of the City's
Looking Good Neighborhood Program in Ward One. A summary of the citizen's
input is enclosed.
11. Enclosed is a brief memo from Community Development on the recent Fair
Housing Poster and Essay Awards Ceremony.
AT.alb
Enclosures
cc! Department Heads
Trudy Slater
Carol Williams
B A K E R.S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
· MEMORAN~~¢~
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Direct0r~~//~
DATE: May 4, 1995
SUBJECT: COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) - PROJECT REMOVE
PROGRAM
We have received notification from the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) - Remove
Program Evaluation Committee for Motor Vehicle Emission
Reductions that we have been preliminarily awarded $270,000
grant funding for the purchase of heavy duty fleet vehicles;
specifically, $70,000 grant funding was awarded for the purchase
of 2 CNG Street Sweepers, and $200,000 for the purchase of 4
automated CNG' Refuse Vehicles.
This is the most grant money ever awarded to the City by the
SJVUAPCD and the Projects Remove Program. Also, this is
the first time in three years that we have been successful in
obtaining any grant funds.
I would like to commend Mr. Mark A. Springer for his fine
work in writing the grant application which made it possible for
the City to receive the grant monies.
:;TY MANAGER'S
FUNDIN~ · CN~
REMOVE PROGRAM PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED FUNDING LIST 1994-95 PROJECTS
116 Project Clean Air~ Inc. "Teach The Teachers" Program $. 16,177 $16~1, 77
11 City of Stockton Traffic Signal Coordination $490,000 $490,000
94 Local Government Commission ... Training Seminars $98,877 $98,877
69 Council of Fresno County Governments Free Towing Service on SE 41 $12,900 $12,900
18 Bakersfield College AFV Mechanic Training and Equipment $92,407 $92,407
39 Fresno County Rural Transit Agency Purchase Electric Tran .s. it Vehicle $90,000 $90,000
91 City of Merced Purchase 10 Dedicated CNG Vehicles $22,250 ... $2.2,250
70 Council of Fresno County Governments Regional Transportation Guide $4,900 ..$4,900
57 San Joaquin CoUncil of Governments Van Pool Pass Subsidy $20,000 $20,000
112 Vida en el Valle Newspaper Newsprint Campaign $29,600 $20,000
10 Stanislaus Area Association of Governments Non-Motorized Project Program $.10,000 $10,000
83 I~lerced County Association of Governments P.~ak Hour Model .$47,750 $47,750
82 Merced County Association of Governments Continue Valleywide GIS $150,000 $150,000
49 Visalia Unified School District Convert 9 School Buses to Ded CNG $35,000 $35,000
108 City of Bakersfield Purchase 2 Ded CNG Streel Sweepers $112,500 $70,000
110 'city of Bakersfield Purchase 4 Ded CNG Refuse Vehicles $243,000 $200,000
21 Fresno Area Express Bicycle Racks for Transit Buses $15,875 .... $15,875
67 Council of Fresno County Governments Develop Mode Split Model $75,000 $75 000
126 West Hills Community College AFV Training Center $144,000 $100,000
44 pappas Telecasting, Inc. Multi-Media Campaign ....... $147,750 $40,00.0
13 KFSN TV - Channel 30 Television Campaign $49,920 $40,000
89 Fresno County EconOmic Opportunities Comm. Convert 15 Transit Vans to Ded CNG $35,000 $35,000
12 Sylvan Union School District Purchase 2 Ded CNG School Buses $97,000 $27.,500
111 Varner Bros., Inc. Purchase 4 Ded CNG Refuse Vehicles $292,000 $200,000
90 El Sol'del Valle Newspaper Newsprint Campaign $27,600 $10,000
60 City of Ceres Purchase 2 Electric Vehicles $19, ~100 $18,900
35 City of Hartford Convert Fire Engine to CNG/Demo $5,750 $5,750
86 Iproject Clean Airl Inc. Auto .Buy-Back (~ $600 Per Vehicle $1,321,020 $800 000
... 105 Fresno Radio Advertising Group Radio Campaign $44,~00 $44.,000
119 County of Fresno New Traffic Signal $88,200 $88 200
9 Pick-N-Pull Auto iguy-Back @ $600 Per Vehicle $1,200,000 $700,000
19 CSU, Fresno Project Titan, E95/Electric Vehicle $14,000 $14,000
05/01/95
san Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control DiStrict
· -, .:" REMOVE PROGRAM -.
-' '~ EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS
1:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 10, 1995
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
First Floor Conference Room
1999 Tuolumne Street, Fresno, CA 93721
(209) 497-1075
AGENDA
I. Introductions
II. Approve Minutes of April 19, 1995
III. Committee Evaluation Process
IV. Public Comment
V. Approve Recommended Funding List for 1994-95 REMOVE Projects to
be Submitted to the District Governing Board for Final Approval
VI. Adjournment
Please call John Villeneuve or Jeff Findley if you have any questions at (209) 497-
1075 and FAX (209) 233-0140.
David L. C_~ow
Executive Director/Air Pollution COntrol
1999 Tu,~ umne Street. Suite 200 · Fresno. CA 93721 · (209) 497-10(30 · FAX (209} 233-2057
Nm'thcs3 Re~ion C. eaa-al RcS~on ' ~ ~' -: S~._u~ ttcsJon
4230 K~~nan A'.'e~ue. Suite 130 · Modes;to. CA 95356 1999 Tuelumne Strew_ .. Suite 200 o R'es. no. CA 93721 2700 M Street. Suite 275 · Bake~sf~. CA 93301
(20~} 545'7000 · Fax ~'209) 545~652 . (209) 497-10CC · Fax (209) 233-2057 (805) 861-3682 · Fax (805) 86 t
May 5, 1995
To: Greg Klimko, Finance Director
From: Michael L. Kennedy, Data Processing Manager/~}9~~
Subject= Public Hearing Notices - Assessment Districts
On April 28th there were approximately 19,000 notices sent to
property owners regarding the public hearing for the 1995-96
maintenance districts. We printed the notices for Public Works on
the Prime.
The Clerks office has received an unusually high number of notices
"returned" by the post office (Approx 500 as of this date). Some
are the usual owner name or address problems. Others seem to be
incomplete address (ie. apartment number missing etc.).
The Public Works staff is making corrections and remailing the
notices where it is applicable. We are attempting to determine if
we can develop an automated process to identify the incomplete
addresses if necessary.
The information for the ownership, address and parcel number are
extracted from a computer tape supplied to us by the Kern County
Assessors Office. This year's tape was supplied in a new format
since they converted to a new "Kern Integrated Property System"
this year.
There may be no need for alarm. I just wanted you to ba aware of
this issue. I will keep you informed of any additional information
I get on Monday, May 8th.
cc: Alan Tandy -
Raul Rojas
Lee Andersen
]CITY MANAGER'S OFFiCe7 :!
" ~ MEMORANDUM
May 11, 1995
TO: HON. KEVIN McDERMO~-F, COUNCILMEM~ER
mOM: J~Y ~. s~ous~, c~ A~~ ~
S~JECT: P~~ C~~ ~ ~~
Please find attached two memos by my staff addressing issues
we discussed recently regarding the proposed Centennial River
Project. If you have any questions or need further research please
let me. know.
JKS:fet
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
Gene Bogart, Water Manager
Corresl\J~S\fenti~d.v. 511
THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT~DIS~~~IS PROTECTED
BY THE A~-CLIENTANDATTOHNEXWONK-~~~~
MEMORANDUM
May 9, 1995
TO: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, City Attorney
FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Proposed Canal Project Right-of-Way Research
I. The Project. You directed me to discover the title position
of the City of Bakersfield to certain lands that may be involved in
a proposed canal project near Central Park within the city limits
of the City of Bakersfield. The proposed canal project would
direct water down current city streets; therefore, we need to
ascertain the title position that the City has in the streets
themselves. You further directed my attention to whether or nOt
the City of Bakersfield could acquire the necessary title for said
project, if the acqdisition of said title was necessary, and the
methodology of such acquisition.
II. Summary of Conclusions.
A. The City of Bakersfield has a right-of-way (easement) for
streets, avenues, alleys, roads and highways as delineated upon
certain recorded maps dated from 1889 and 1904 for most of the area
involved in this proposed project (the "Project' hereafter). Some
small sections of the proposed roadway area may be owned in fee by
the City of Bakersfield.
1. The City has the power of eminent domain which can
be used to acquire the necessary title to construct the Project.
Because the use of the streets for the Project would be far beyond
the current use as a public access easement, the City would have to
acquire fee simple title by buying the property from the many
underlying fee holders. Because access to the remaining property
owned by adjacent landowner may be impacted, additional "damages'
will have to be paid. Each and every property owner will be
entitled to fair market value compensation for all damages
proximately caused by the taking of the property for the Project.
The City will pay pre-project prices when the fair market value is
calculated. As the number of property owners will be numerous, at
least some litigation must be contemplated.
THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED
BE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE
Memorandum to
Re:
May 9, 1995
Page 2
2. Prior to going forward, a complete title search with
a litigation guarantee should be completed. Said title search will
be relatively straight forward; however, it will be extensive,
therefore expensive. I recommend the final route of the Project be
decided upon prior to beginning any title search because any change
in the" route will require more title work and thereby add
additional expense to the cause.
B. Detailed Discussion.
1. I contacted Public Works to obtain known deeds and
dedications concerning the property potentially involved with the
Project. Jack LaRochelle and Ron Young provided me with the deeds
and the 1889 and 1904 maps with the title dedications to the City
of Bakersfield. The basic dedications contained on the maps are
"rights-of-way" for public use with certain noted exceptions. A
right-of-way is an easement, and the holder of the underlying fee
title retains all uses not in conflict with the overlying users
right-of-way.
2. A grant for the purposes of right-of-way for a road
is distinguishable from a grant of land to be used for a road. The
latter grant may be entirely consistent with conveyance of a fee
simple title, since a road may be maintained as readily on land
held in fee as under an easement, but the grant of land as a right-
of-way recognizes nothing but an easement. (Parks v. Gates (1921)
186 Cal.App. 151; Elliott v. McCombs (1941) 17 Cal.2d 23.) In our
specific case, the dedication is of a "right-of-way"; therefore,
the grant is for an easement only. The rights of any person having
an easement in the land of another are measured by the purpose and
character of that easement. Also, the right to the use of the
underlying land remains in the fee owner, insofar as it is
consistent with the purpose and character of the easement.
(Langazo v. San Quaqin Liqht and Power Company (1939) 32 Cal.App.2d
678.) The owners of the dominant and servient estates have the
right to insist that so long as the easement giving rise to their
relationship is enjoyed, it shall remain substantially the same as
it was when it came into existence, regardless of any question as
to the relative benefit in damage that would ensue to either by
reason of a change in a mode and manner of enjoyment. (Allen v.
San Jose Land and Water Company (1891) 92 Cal. 138; Wallen v. Ruiz
(1953) 40 Cal.2d 294.) Thus, as the City took the easement for
road purposes and has used the easement for road purposes only, to
change or enlarge the use to that of a canal would be inapposite to
the traditional use and, therefore, would not be allowed without
the acquiescence of the owner of the underlying tenement.
Memorandum to
Re:
May 9, 1995
Page 3
3. The actual dedications read as follows:
1889: "We, and each of us respectively, hereby
dedicate to the public, so far as our respective
ownerships of the lands shown upon the annexed map
extend, the right-of-way over and upon our said lands for
'such streets, avenues, alleys, roads and highways as are
'laid down and delineated upon the said map hereunto
annexed and entitled "Map of Northern Division of the
Town of Bakersfield" and dated "March 15, 1889,# being a
photographic copy of that certain original map made by
and according to the surveys of W. R. MacMurdo Esq.,
County Surveyor of the Kern County, California; excepting
and reserving from such dedication, however, unto each of
us respectively, so far as our respective ownerships
extend, the right-of-way for and the right to construct,
establish and maintain waterways, mains,'canals, ditches
and other aqueducts, in, on and upon any and all the
roads, streets, alleys and avenues delineated upon said
map; and provided also that the streets, avenues, alleys,
roads and highways laid down and delineated on said map
are not to be opened or deemed opened or dedicated except
as, and insofar as, the lots and blocks fronting thereon
and adjacent thereto are, from time-to-time, sold by us
respectively, and then only to the extent of their
immediate frontage on such lots and blocks so sold.
"Dated: March 15th, A.D. 1889. J. B. Haggin by
Lloyd Tevis, his Attorney in Fact, W. B. Carr."
1904: "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the Kern County Land
Company hereby dedicates to the public, insofar as its
ownership to the land shown on the annex extends, the
right-of-way over and upon said lands for such streets,
avenues, alleys, roads and highways as they are laid down
and delineated upon said map, which said map is dated
March 10, 1904 and entitled Sales Map of the Kern County
Land Company, showing subdivisions of its additions to
the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California,
compiled by Walter James, 'its Chief Engineer, excepting
and reserving from such dedication however unto said Kern
County Land Company the right-of-way for and the right to
construct, establish and maintain waterways, water mains,
canals, ditches and other aqueducts, gas mains, electric
transmission lines and street railways, under and upon
such roads, highways, streets, avenues and alleys
delineated thereon and also that the streets, avenues,
alleys, roads and highways laid down and delineated
Memorandum to
Re:
May 9, 1995
Page 4
thereon and provided also that the streets, avenues,
alleys, roads and highways laid down and delineated
thereon, are not to be open or deemed opened or dedicated
except as an in so as, the lots and blocks fronting
thereon and adjacent thereto are from time to time sold
by said Kern County Land Company, and then only to the
extent of their immediate frontage on such lots and
blocks so sold.
"IN WITNESS THEREOF the said Kern County Land
Company has caused this dedication to be executed by its
President and its seal affixed this 10th day of March
1904. KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY, By William S. Tevis, Its
President."
As one can see, the dedications are virtually identical
in the right-of-way which were dedicated. The exceptions may be
significant; however, the underlying factor remains that the City
received an easement only and must, therefore, purchase the fee
title before constructing any waterway which will take the owner's
property in total and stop its use for road purposes. The
dedication exceptions may require the City to purchase additional
property rights from others.
4. The Streets and Highways Code will impact any street
abandonment or closing. Streets and Highways Code section 1920
states:
"When the governing body of a city by resolution or
ordinance removes a street for public use or closes it to
vehicular or pedestrian traffic, such resolution or
ordinance may set forth such minimum maintenance
requirements, including the maintenance of drainage, for
the Street as the governing body determines for the
public safety."
Section 1930 of the Streets and Highways Code reads:
"[T]he City Council... of any city may retain or may
summarily vacate and abandon any portion of a street as
defined in Section 8305, which portion has been
superseded by relocation, except in case such abandonment
may cut off all access to property of any person which,
prior to such relocation, adjoined the street or
terminated any easement or right of a type described in
Section 1934."
Memorandum to
Re:
May 9, 1995
Page 5
Note that, in the case of Rancho Palos Verdes v. City
Council (1976) 59 Cal.Ap.3d. 869, the court stated that a City
Council resolution vacating a public street pursuant to Streets and
Highways Code section 1930 was void where the actual relocation of
the.street was not an existing fact. In the current scenario, I am
informed the properties in question will not lose all access
because of the change and use of the street.
Streets and Highways Code section 1932 states:
"On abandonment of an easement, title thereto
reverts to the owner of the underlying fee. On vacation
of a street, were the City owns only an easement, title
likewise so reverts."
In this instance, the abandonment of the easement would
cause the title to revert to the owner of the underlying fee;
therefore, the City must purchase or eminently domain the property
necessary for constructing the Project.
5. Eminent Domain is by definition the right to take
private property for a public use. Both the Federal and State
Constitutions provide that private property may be taken for public
use, upon the payment of just compensation. The eminent domain law
for the State of California expressly provides that the power may
be exercised to acquire private property only for a public use.
(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 12404.010.) Public use within the meaning
of a California Constitution is a use which concerns the whole
community or promotes the general interest in its relation to any
legitimate object of government. (Bauer v. County of Ventura
(1955) 45 Cal.2d 276.)
The development of a public parkway project should easily
fall within the public use requirement of the eminent domain law;
therefore, the City may use its power of eminent domain to acquire
property for the Project.
The City of Bakersfield will have to pay property owners
whose property has been taken for the Project, "just compensation"
for the loss of their property. The phrase "just compensation"
contemplates compensation measured by what the landowner has lost
and that the owner be made whole for his loss and be compensated in
an amount of money equal to the actual loss suffered by reason of
the condemnation. (Redevelopment Aqency v. Gilmore (1985) 38
Cal.3d 790.) Traditionally, the only compensation allowable in
eminent domain proceedings has been the value of the land taken
plus the depreciation of any market value of the remainder due to
the use made and the part taken. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1263.010;
Memorandum to
Re:
May 9, 1995
Page 6
Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist Church (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 384.)
Under the eminent domain law, the owner of a business conducted on
the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of
a larger parcel, must be compensated for loss of good will if he
proves that the loss is caused by the taking of the property or the
injury to the remainder. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1263.510(a).)
The California courts have recognized three basis methods
or approaches used by appraisers in determining the fair market
value of real estate:
(1) The "market data" approach, as indicated by recent
sales of comparable properties in the market place;
(2) The current cost of reproducing, or replacing, the
property, less depreciation; and
(3) The income or capitalization approach.
The fair market value of the property taken is defined in
the eminent domain law as the highest price on the date of
valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to
sell but under no particular urgent necessity for doing so, nor
obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy
but under no particular necessity for so doing, 'each dealing with
the other with a full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for
which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.
Obviously, the fair market value is a subjective issue and the
sellers (or the individuals being condemned) will claim the highest
possible value while the City will appraise the property and offer
the appraised value. If negotiations cannot be successfully
concluded with any property owners along the proposed project
corridor, eminent domain proceedings would be initiated and the
issue of market value would eventually be cited by a jury. Note
that the fair market value does not include any increase in the
value of the property that is attributable to the Project. (Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1263.330.)
6. Prior to going forward with the Project, I recommend
a complete title search be obtained with a litigation guarantee and
complete documentation attached thereto so the City Attorney's
office can have the necessary documentation to review and determine
what the appropriate action will be in the case of each owner of
land along the Project route. The title report will not be
difficult, in that the tracing of a chain of title is a relatively
easy title project; however, because of the numerous owners, the
search will be extensive and the expense will be high because of
the large number of searches required. It would behoove the City
to not change the route once the title searches have been
Memorandum to
Re:
May 9, 1995
Page 7
completed. It is in the best interest of the City to choose the
route and establish it firmly before requesting the title search in
order to save expenses.
7. Kern Delta Water District will be in control of the
water which will be supplied to the Project. Kern Delta, because
of the liability associated with this Project, will undoubtedly
demand a complete indemnity. The liability is high for this
Project because we will be developing a parkway, and, children
would be expected to be present in such areas. The presence of
children and moving water brings the possibility of the drowning of
a small child. The presence of box culverts crossing streets adds
additional dangers to anyone swept away by the moving water. Kern
Delta's attorneys will quickly recognize this and require a
complete indemnity from the City.
Kern Delta will, most likely, not allow any treatment or
alteration of the water which moves through the Project and will be
deposited back into their canal. If any treatment is contemplated,
a pre-approval of such treatments by Kern Delta will be a
necessity.
Kern Delta may not guarantee the delivery of water under
all situations. A drought, or other unforeseen circumstances, may
cause Kern Delta to cease to deliver water to the Project at any
given time. Other issues concerning diversion will have to be
addressed, such as: Will the City be forced to divert water under
all circumstances when demanded by Kern Delta? May the City cease
diversions for maintenance purposes in spite of Kern Delta's
objections? Will Kern Delta be allowed to control the amount of
water entering the system at any given time? A contract between
the City and Kern Delta should address these, as well as other,
water diversion issues.
cc: Gene Bogart, Water and Sanitation Manager
Janice Scanlan, Deputy City Attorney
~E.E3~E~OS/cana~$ 8 .m~ao
MEMORANDUM
Ma~ 9, 1995
TO: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, CITY ATTORNEY /.~/~
FROM: JANICE SCANLAN, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY~'"'~'
SUBJECT:. POSSIBLE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THE CANAL PROJECT
You requested that I research the possibilities of funding the
proposed canal project with either redevelopment funds or CDBG
funds.. Based upon my research, I have come to the conclusion that
neither option is feasible.
DISCUSSION
A. Redevelopment
In order to add property to the already-established
redevelopment project area (or even to create a brand new project
area), one critical element must be present: the area must be
bliqhted, both physically and economically. AB 1290 significantly
redefined the term blight. Health and Safety Code section 33030(b)
now defines a blighted area as an area which contains both of the
following:
1) An area that is predominantly urbanized ... and is an
area in which the combination of conditions set forth in Section
33031 is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction
of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent
that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the
community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both,
without redevelopment.
2) An area that is physically and economically blighted.
Section 33031 sets out examples of physical and economic blight.
Some examples of physical blight are: unsafe buildings; incompa-
tible uses; subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and
inadequate size. Some examples of economic blight are: depreciated
or stagnant property values; abnormally high business vacancies;
abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned
buildings; lack of necessary commercial facilities normally found
in neighborhoods; residential overcrowding or excess of bars; high
crime rate.
THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED
BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE
Memorandum to Judy K. Skousen, City Attorney
Re= Possible Funding Options for Canal Project
May 9, 1995
Page 2
I viewed the site on Friday andcannot find any evidence which
could substantiate a finding that the area of "R" Street between
22nd Street and 17th Street is blighted. The area appeared
entirely commercial. I saw a few store fronts for lease, but for
the most part, it appeared to be doing quite well. A larger
project area would be needed to establish the blight requirement
and to generate tax increment.
Even if a blight finding could be substantiated, there are
other factors to consider when amending or creating a project area
under the new redevelopment scheme. First, it is extremely time
consuming. Even an amendment to the plan must undergo the rigors
of an initial plan adoption. This .includes hearings and reports to
taxing agencies, et.cetera. Also, the tax increment split has been
reformulated, so the City would not realize as much increment from
the new area as the same tax would have generated in the original
project area. And, it must be kept in mind that twenty percent of
tax increment monies must be set aside for housing. Even if
adopted, it would be a number of years before there would be
sufficient cash flow to support such a large undertaking.
B. Community Development Block Grant
In order to use CDBG monies for a public improvement project,
the project must meet one of three national objectives: 1) the
project would benefit iow and moderate income persons; or 2) the
project addresses slums or blight; or 3) the project meets a
particularly urgent community need.
For the same reasons mentioned above, it is not conceivable to
argue that the area where the proposed canal would be placed is
blighted, no matter how blight is defined. I am unaware of how
building a canal will benefit low and moderate income persons. The
area of the project is predominately commercial. "Urgent community
need" is defined by HUD as a condition which poses a serious and
immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community which is
of recent origin or which recently became urgent, and which the
City is unable to finance on its own. I can conceive of no urgent
community need for a canal either.
Other factors which need to be considered are Davis-Bacon and
Section 3. As a charter city, we may opt out of paying state
prevailing wage on public works projects. If federal money is used
to help construct this canal, we will no longer be able to avoid
paying prevailing wage. I do not know if prevailing wage was taken
into account when costs estimates for the project were prepared.
Memorandum to Judy K. Skousen, City Attorney
Re: Poeeible Funding Options for Canal Project
May 9, 1995
Page 3
Along those same lines, Section 3 (Title 24, Part 135, Code of
Federal Regulations) applies. Section 3 requires that whatever
contractor builds the canal get at least ten percent of its new
hires for the job from the area where the canal is being built.
CONCLUSION
The immediate area where the project is being proposed is not
blighted. Therefore, a redevelopment project area cannot be
established there. Additionally, the project does not meet the
national objectives required by the Community Development Block
Grant program. Consequently, CDBG funds cannot be used to finance
the project.
JAN/meg
OP1NIONg~ 1/C~.P~
cc: Attorney Opinion File
B A K E R.S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager / ~
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Directbr /~
DATE: May 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Council Referral Record #14908
At a recent Council meeting, Councilmember Salvaggio
reported potholes located at Custer and South H Street; and Wilson
Road, east of Stine Road (Stine School area): The potholes were
repaired by our Street Maintenance Division on May 5, 1995.
RECEDVED
P~F14908. 503 l~
CITY MANAGER'S OFFIC~ ",
. -~' . · ,, · :--',~:... ,~?." ~ ........ ~'~.. "' ~ ~': '-~, -. ' CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL-' ' ' ' .' .... ' ..... .:',' ,~
-'../'..-.¢'HEETING'"o'F: '.0s/o95' "'.;:... "-:.-.: ..,.",': "~-'-" "MAY 5 1995
REFERRED .TO: ': ' '~'; ~-.RO~As' ~-.?. ' ' ~USLIC WORKS DEP~TMENT
~TEH: RECORD~ 14908
S~Fee~ Fepa~Fs a~ Cus~eF and Sou~h H S.~Fee~ and
on W~3son Roa~ (StOne Schoo]'area). (Sa]vagg~o)
--ACTION TAKEN BY COUNC~'L.:
SALVAGG~O REQUESTED STAFF REPAIR TWO POTHOLES ZN ~-
THE NORTHBOUND LANE AT CUSTER AND SOUTH H STREET;
AND TWO HAJOR'CRATER POTHOLES ~N THE EASTBOUND
LANE OF W~LSON ROAD, WEST OF REAL ROAD, EAST OF
STONE ROAD, AROUND THE STONE SCHOOL AREA,
BACKUP MAIERIAL ATTACHED: NO
DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK' 05/05/95
NOTE: STATUS-CHANGES ARE TO.BE ENTERED FOR EACH REFERRAL
AT.LEAST'ONCE A HONTH EVEN IF NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN!
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D~..~
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ [
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director//~.~x~
DATE: . May 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Councilman Request
Assessment District No. 91-1 (Hosking Trunk Sewer)
Assessments No. 17 and 18
My staff has reviewed the annual assessments against the properties billed to 1226 Hosking Road:
Assessors Parcel Number 176-100-25 (Assessment No. 17) and Assossors Parcel Number.176-100-26
(Assessment No. 18). The total lien initially levied against each parcel in October of 1992 was
$12,382.41. The bonds have a 15 year term and the 5.25% annual percentage rate for 1994-95. The
1994-95 annual debt service on this lien is $1,422.04; the amount shown on the attached tax bill is
correct. As a side note, the assessment that appeared on the tax bill last year was $1,442.53.
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Marian Shaw at 3579.
AD 95:L01 _1 \TAXINQ.M~M
RMR:jrkmps
xc: Reading File
Project File
Marian P. Shaw
BAKERSFIELD
March 31, 1995
176-100-R5-00-4
MARETICH MARY O & LORI ANN
I~6'HOSKING RD .
BAKERSFIELD CA 93307
Dear Property Owner:
The records of the City of Bakersfield indicate that you
have not made payment on the assessment 'bond which liens your
property(les).
These assessments became due on December 10, 1994, and a
second installment is due April 10, 1995. Both installments have
been billed with your property taxes. The assessment bond requires
that the City begin foreclosure proceedings upon all delinquencies
~within 150 days. This letter is to advise you that if payment is
not made upon this assessment 15 days from the date of this letter,
the City will be forced to turn this matter over to an attorney to
begin foreclosure upon your property(les). In that event, you will
not only be required to pay the delinquent assessment~ but a
statutory penalty and attorneys fees and costs as well.
If you have already paid this assessment, please contact
Cheryl Perkins at 326-3058 to ensure that our records are corrected
or brought current. If the assessment has not been paid, we would
request that it be paid to the Kern County Tax Collector within the
next 15 days.
Sincerely,
Gtl Ro~ as~
Assistant Finance Director
a:DELINQ
City of Bakersfield · Finance Department · 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
(805) 326-3742 · FAx (805) 323-3780
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
?oj~.4 JOINT CONSOLIDATED TAX STATEMENT BUSh',~E~S HOURS
~ES. COUNTY. PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OTHER TAXING AGENCIES iN THE PHIL FRANEY -- KC1rC
COUI'JTY OF KERN. STATE OF CALIFORNIA KERN COUNTY TREASURER -- TAX COLLECTOR 730 A M - 5:3C PM.
MONDAY TNRU THURSDAY
;GR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1. 1994 ENDING JUNE 30. ~995 1115 TRUXTUN AVE.. BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301-4639 CLOSED FRIDAY
KMVCD VECTOR ASMT 2.00 :K SUBMI]
'5 199
:RN COUN~
1 · 122657 513.14 712.02 513. t3 712.02
, ~4~ 106 ~ 7, 309 , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 91, 415
l~;lll~ll'12:l:{~$~[Ig, l:la;~ ~ '111 t:t:l:lllN~ilJ,~l:l~; YOUR CA';:ELLED CHEC-: ,S YOUR RECSJPT
( 176-1~-25-00-4/ 001-261 94-125944-00-8 ,~..,.~,,:....~. 914,5
u
u~
O & LORI ~N PROPER~ TOTAL'CURRE','-.XD,E 2,450.31
~..._ ~~G RD ~ TAX ..,.,,.,.,, o.
REVERSE SIDE OF BILL
'-- .~RSR~ ~ ~7 ~ STATEMENT FIRST INSTALLMENT 1,225.16
"EFOR~ "A"~ "E ~""E '"'~ IS MOM" P"O'~"~ T"EASMRE" -- TAX COLLE~TO" "OT R~S"ON~i~LE IF ~U PAY ON W"ONG "ROP~"~ SECOND INSTALLMENT 1,2Zb. 1
LOCATION
OF ~CL OF MR TOTAL CURRENT
TAX 2,450.31
PROPER~ p~ BRKSR .. }l ~ ~ ~' ~ ~
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
> *KCS~P LAND USE 57.00
KMVCD VECTOR A~I
HOME OWNER'S COPY .
ORIGINAL SENT TO LENDER
I
1 · 122657 1 , 055.48 803.58 1 , 055.47 803.58
[ ' [ 326 ~ 109~ 706 t ] [ [ H[ ' 7~ 000 ~ 032
176-100-26-uu~ 001-261 94-125945-00- I ,~.~v,~ . 188032
R~RSE SlOE OF
BEFORE~YI URP~PE~.TR~URER--T~C~ ~TRE$~SBLE ~ ~' ON6 ~ E~. SECONDINSTALLMEf~
LOCATION ·
OF 1~ HOSING RD B~ERSRE~ TOTAL CURRENT 3,71'8.11
:ROPER~ ~ ~ 28 TAX
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy,. City M~nager ~
DATE: May 5, 1995
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING
As requested by Vice Mayor Patricia J. DeMond and
Councilmember Kevin McDermott, attached is a memorandum
outlining the cost for landscaping the roadside west of the
Corporation Yard. The cost estimate is $17,000 for contracting
the work.
At this time we do not have provisions in our budget to do the
work. If you would like to discuss this issue with me, please
contact me.
LANDSCPG.INQ
Attach.
RECE~VEU
,
CITY MANAGER'S OFF?
MEMORANDUM
TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: JOE A. LOZANO, PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MANAGER~
DATE: MAY 5, 1995
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING ON TRUXTUN AVENUE WEST OF THE CORPORATION
YARD GATE.
I have inquired about the cost of landscaping the roadside
area on the south side of Truxtun Avenue just west of the
Corporation Yard gate. I contacted the Parks Division and they
have given me an estimate of $17,000.00 for the contracting of the
work.
Please contact me if you need additional information.
JL/ln
D2:M-050595
5 1995
BAKERSFIELD
'r'TY MANAGER'S OFF;
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
May 4, 1995
TO: David Lyman, Principal Planner
FROM: Donna Barnes, Development Associate~~
SUBJECT: Summary of Kick-off Meetings and Field Reconnaissance for the Chester Avenue
Urban Design Concept Plan and Implementation Program
On Wednesday, April 19, 1995 the project kick-off meeting and field reconnaissance was held
in the Basement Conference Room City Hall Annex Building.
The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to obtain materials and exchange information regarding
Chester Avenue. At the meeting were Marc Brodeur and Bruce Jacobson from Urban Design
Studio; Jim Eggert, Planning; Don Hoggatt, Public Works and myself. Unforunately, no
representative from Traffic was able to attend the meeting. Representing the CDDA was Yvonne
Cohrs. Phil Gaskill, the other agency representative for the project could not attend.
At the meeting Marc Brodeur explained the project concept and described potential funding
sources, including the possibility of a getting a corporate sponsor (i.e., Miller Lite or Budweiser)
to host a special event fUndraiser. There were also discussions about past and present
redevelopment efforts, previous downtown landscaping projects, existing infrastructure, the
availability of needed reference maps/materials, Central Business District Zoning development
standards and community perceptions of Chester Avenue. For survey purposes UDS asked for
the City to obtain an aerial photograph of Chester Avenue. This photo will help identify existing
improvements on Chester Avenue and save the time of doing a field inventory. Don Hoggatt
indicated he can access most of the requested information and would be providing it to UDS.
At 1:30 p.m. everyone from the morning meeting, except Jim Eggert, met at the San Joaquin
Bank Lobby for the field reconnaissance of Chester Avenue. Joining us were: Bart Hill,
Beautification Committee Chair, Downtown Business Association; Roscoe Rolnick, Marketing
Committee Chair, Downtown Business Association; David Milazzo, Downtown Revitalization
Committee, Future Bakersfield Vision Committee; and Robert Price, Bakersfield Californian.
Instead of walking Chester Avenue, Bart Hill invited everyone into his conference room for a
discussion. Bart Hill talked about the resurgence of downtown activity (in two years DBA
membership went from 80 to 600) and said he could act as the contact for the DBA. He thanked
the City for doing the Chester Avenue Project. He expressed his preference of a tree landscaped
median on Chester Avenue, due to the existence of many basements. He described how the
downtown community had dissolved the downtown improvement district and felt there is little
support for the formation of another district. Mr. Milazzo expressed concern about the project
moving forward without a detailed topographic survey to identify improvements above and
below ground. He felt that without this survey the design should not be done. Mr. Milazzo
described plans of constructing a boat canal between Central Park and the Holiday Inn Select
Hotel. Both representatives indicated that their organizations had vision plans they intend to
implement and that they would probably be applying for the same grants as the City to complete
their projects. Mr. Brodeur was surprised that the City does not maintain trees in the public
right-of-way and that compared to other cities this is very unusual. Bart Hill said that the City
may need to reconsider its priorities and redirect its budget to the downtown.
After approximately one hour of discussion the group was ready to walk Chester. Bart Hill,
Roscoe Rolnick and David Milazzo did not go on the field reconnaissance, but everyone else did.
Milazzo said he would prefer Judy Salamacha as the Future Bakersfield Vision Committee
contact, not himself.
Observations discussed on the field reconnaissance were poor maintenance of trees, dying trees,
empty tree wells, inappropriate selection of trees, absence of irrigation, non-compliant ADA
handicapped ramps, inconsistent sidewalk paving materials, too many regulatory signs, out-dated
slump stones planters, uncomfortable street benches, and a street width too wide for a pedestrian
orientation.
Initial ideas Marc Brodeur presented included removing the cobra heads from the intersections
and replacing them with pedestrian lighting standards. The possibility of Bakersfield becoming
an ADA demonstration city for the selected urban design elements could be a potential source
of financing, providing up to 95% federal funding for the project.
On April 25, 1995 the Community Kickoff Meeting was held. Steve Walker, City Traffic
Engineer and Don Hoggatt attended the meeting. There were no representatives from Planning.
Marc Brodeur, UDS showed the slide presentation of the Chester Avenue field reconnaissance.
He said that currently the constraints outweigh the opportunities. A streetscape visual preference
survey was conducted by Mr. Brodeur. Workshop attendees had the opportunity to select
preferred urban design styles for urban design elements, such as, trees, tree grates, benches,
paving materials, water elements, trash receptacles, banners, and signage. Based on the visual
preference survey results UDS will develop alternative urban design elements selections.
Preliminary designs will be presented at the June 12 Agency meeting and at the June 15 General
Membership Meeting of the Downtown Business Association.
B A K E R S F I E L D i~~TYMANAGEWS-OFF~
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
May 3, 1995
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: GEORGE GONZALES,~MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY CONEeERNS, 4/12/95 MEETING
As a continuation of the City's Looking Good Neighborhood Program, a neighborhood meeting was
held April 12, 1995, at 6 p.m. The meeting was held on S. Robinson St., between E.9th and E. 10th
streets. Ward 1 Councilmember Irma Carson assisted in conducting the meeting and representatives
from the following city departments were in attendance: Public Works, Fire, Police, Development
Services, and Economic and Community Development. Below is a summary of the community
concerns voiced at the meeting.
COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND NEEDS
VACANT LOTS: Overgrown with weeds
Trash dumped on lots by persons outside the area.
ABANDONED HOUSES: 1201 POTOMAC; 1316 POTOMAC. Houses are vacant and not
properly secured. May be in use as crack houses.
SUBSTANDARD: Rental units in the area are in a substandard condition.
GARBAGE: Need the new automated service; Toters.
Earlier garbage collection schedule, a.m. rather than p.m.
TRAFFIC: Excessive speed on residential streets. Increased traffic on Potomac
since cul-de-sac installed at Ralston and Gorrill.
Need stop signs on E. 9th and E. 10th at Robinson.
TRANSPORTATION: Improved bus service; residents have to walk too far to get to bus
stops.
LIGHTING: Improve street lighting on E. 9th and E. 10th; too dim.
ANIMAL CONTROL: Too many dogs running free; no collars or leashes.
he:Tandy.memo
C]TY IVIANAGER'SOFF~C' B A ~ E R S F I E L D
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
May 8, 1995
TO: JAKE WAGER, Director of Economic and Community Development
FROM: BRET J HELGREN, Fair Housing Office~.~1
SUBJECT: POSTER AND ESSAY AWARDS CEREMONY
On April 29, 1995, the Fair Housing Advisory Committee Poster and Essay Awards
ceremony was attended by the Mayor, Bob Price, Vice-Mayor and Councilperson, Pat DeMond,
County Supervisor, Ken Peterson, local DFEH director, John Ortiz, Bill Mungary, and George
Gonzales, among others.
Over 400 posters and 79 essays were received during the competition. This reflects an
increase in participation from 1994 of over one-hundred entries. Posters and essays were judged
in eight categories ranging from pre-school to twelfth grade by the artistic and literary ability
expressed and the use of this year's theme "fair housing makes a difference."
The Mayor announced the City Council's proclamation regarding the principles of equality
in housing and Ms. DeMond awarded twenty-one trophies to the poster and essay winners. Mr.
Peterson and Mr. Ortiz also made similar proclamations referencing fair housing month. Marlene
Flippen, committee chair, and Carol Hatcher, Kern County Superintendent of Schools, were co-
presenters with Ms. DeMond.
Approximately 160 people attended the ceremony which was catered by Pepe's Pollos'of
East Bakersfield. I was the Master of Ceremonies and introduced all of the speakers and
presenters after lunch.
Barbara Norcross, Vaughn Realty, and the Kern County Apartment Association each
received awards for their outstanding contribution toward affirmatively furthering fair housing
in Kern County in the individual, business, and agency categories, respectively.
The event was well received and advisory committee members felt it was the most
successful poster and essay ceremony in recent memory.
May 3, 1995
Building
Our
Com,,,u,i~, Dear Future Bakersfield Delegates,
· Together
By now we hope you have heard the time to celebrate Metro
Ba ~ke_r_~s f i~_e 1d '
~BAKEESFIE~O-ACTIONT£AM .... Sunday, May 21, 1995. And since it was one of our
RoyAshburn Selected tOp priorities, we need t° have you and your
Supen4sOr, KemCounty families there. The activities will begin at the Fox
· . Theater at 11:30 a.m with. a reception and greeting by
Morgan Clayton Mayor Bob Price.. We will then "parade" to Chester Avenue
Tel Tec Secud~ Inc./
GreaterBakersfieldChamber where the day's multi-cultural entertainment, crafts,
arts and crafts will provide family fun for all.
Rayburn Dezember r
Wei~s;ar;oBa~, At the Future Bakersfield Conference in December and
again at the Future Bakersfield Prioritization Meeting on
MichaelFisch February 23, we agreed one of Bakersfield's true assets
The Bakersfield California
was its people. To create Community-wide awareness that
CurtisFIoyd our diverse cultures is an asset to be recognized and
AfricanAmedcanNetwork ceIebrated, we'decided a Multi-Cultural Fair was a first
step to build relationships.
George Martin
Borton, Petdni&Conron The committee led by Delegate Terri McClanahan has done
KevinMcDermott a superb job in creating a first'year event that has all
ViceMayor, City of Bakersfield the potential to grow. This potential will become a
reality if we all support the effort by spreading and
TonyOrtega word to our friends, neighbors, and families.
Kern County Hispanic Chamber/
Cal State University Bakersfield Additionally, as Future Bakersfield delegates, we must
make this a priority day for our presence on May 21,
Bob Price 19 9 5.
Mayor,-City of Bakersfield ........................
We know you will want to be there as we fulfill the first
Judy Salamacha
Castle & Cooke Homes, lnc. of several goals we have set for our 1995 Action Agenda.
Thank you for yoUr support. Let us know if you plan to
LoethaDeloresSlade attend. Please, call Judy at the 325-5235 at the Future
African American NeNvork Bakersfield office.'
Ray Watson
KGET-TV 17
Sinc~e~re ly, a~y W
May~ Bob Price ' , tson, Chair
City of Bakersfield Bakez ~field ActiOn Team
RO. Box 1947
Bakersfield, California 93303 ~,:;~?;!': RECE%VEQ
CITY' MANAGER'S OFFtC
Rou es be Selected for Further $ udy
Public Encouraged to Provide Inpu
C alifornia is investi-
gating the feasibility
of developing a high Potential Routes
speed rail (HSR) Linking LosAngeles ·
to the
system for the state. To ana- San Francisco BayArea
lyze the feasibility of such a
system, the newly-formed ~ US 101 Corridor
California Intereity High ~ Route 99 Corridor
Speed Rail Commission has ~ Interstate $ Corridor
initiated a series of studies.
Among these studies is the Corridor ..... ,
Evaluation and Environr~F~ntal :?; ./~
Constraints Analysis which is examin- ..........
lng potential HSR routes. ::
The first phase of the Corridor
Evaluation is an initial review of route
alternatives between Los Angeles and the
San Francisco Bay Area. These routes are
located within three general corridors defined as ~
US 101, Interstate 5 and Route 99 (See map).
Each corridor is
evaluated based
on potential ridership,
costs and environmental
impacts, as well as its ability
to accommodate various ~
HSR technologies, including
magnetic levitation (maglev).
Findings from the Phase I analy-
sis are summarized inside.
The Commission will meet on May 15 in LOS
Sacramento to review the results of Phase I and to select the ES
routes with the highest HSR potential for fm'ther detailed analysis.
You are welcome to attend the Commission's meeting and share your comments on the results of the
initial phase of the study.
The matrix below outlines
Corridor Evaluation: Phase I Results
corridors themselves, and
and Route 99) are for gene~
Goal I Maximize gidership Potential US 101 Corridor
· Maximize overall ridership 200+ mph se~wice: 24-46 % less than shortest Interstate 5
projections Corridor option.
· Maximize population served 1990:10 mile wide corridor: 7.6-7.7 million;
counties served: 13.5 million. 2020:10 mile wide
corridor = 10.3-10.5 million; counties served = 18.8 million.
· Minimize travel times between population, Los Angeles to Bay Area, 200+ mph service: 43-97% longer
employment and tourist/recreation markets than shortest Interstate 5 Corridor option. Also serves
Mve°~tuerrae/(~Sxanlairnda. s, San nuis Obisp°, Sant a Barbara, and
Goal 2 Minimize Costs
· Estimate capital costs 24% higher than shortest Interstate 5 Corridor option.
· Minimize major or costly elements: route length 16-19% of corridor in steep (9%+) slope. 11% of corridor in
tunneling, aerial structures,
right-of-way, etc.
· Minimize technical and constructibility Somewhat higher technical and constructibility constraints
.... constraints _ __thanAtoute_99 Corridor._
· Estimate operational and maintenance costs 11 - 21% more than Interstate 5 Corridor.
Goal 3 Avoid Potential Environmental
Obstacles
· Maximize compatibility with existing and Moderately compatible.
planned development
· Minimize impacts to natural resources Low impact on threatened and endangered species habitats.
Low impact on water resources.
· Minimize impacts to social and economic Low impact on farmland. High population disturbance.
resources High visual impact.
· Minimize impacts to cultural resources High number of historic resources affected.
· Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic and Few major faults. Many areas with steep slopes and credible
soils constraints soils.
· Maximize avoidance of areas with potential Moderate potential for encountering hazardous materials.
hazardous materials
=~-M-i-n}~ize P-~ig~iai'ae-I[~/~-f't~°m' &~)~P-/;~ ............... Moderate potential fo,' delays.
permitting and agency review processes
I
results of analysis on the three main Los Angeles-Bay Area high speed rail corridors. This matrix focuses on the
not on specific alignments within each corridor. It is important to note that the corridor names (US 101, Interstate 5
Interstate 5 Corridor Route 99 Corridor
200+ mph service: highest ridership projections for shortest 200+ mph service: 3-6 % less than shortest Interstate 5
route option. Corridor option.
1990:]0 mile wide corridor: 5.5 million; counties 1990:10 mile wide corridor: 7.0-7.1 million; counties
served: 13.4 million. 2020:10 mile wide served: 13.4-13.8 million. 2020:10 mile wide corri-
corridor = 8.0 million; counties served = 20.1 million, dor = 10.9-11.8 ~nillion; counties served = 20.1-21.0 million.
Los Angeles to Bay Area, 200+ mph service: offers shortest Los Angeles to Bay Area, 200+ mph service: 8-17% longer
travel times. Kern County station is 20 miles west of down- than shortest Interstate 5 Corridor option. Also serves
town Bakersfield. Fresno County station is 46 miles west of Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, and Antelope Valley.
downtown Fresno.
Lowest capital costs for shortest route option. 11-15% higher than shortest Interstate 5 Corridor option.
urban land cover, in urban land cover.
Somewhat higher technical and constructibility constraints Least technical and constructibility constraints, based
than Route 99 Corridor ..... I on_terrain, geology, and land uses
Lowest operational & maintenance costs. 10-20% more than Interstate 5 Corridor.
Low compatibility. High compatibility.
High impact on threatened and endangered species habitats. Moderate impact on threatened and endangered species
Moderate impact on water resources, habitats. High impact on water resources.
Moderate impact on farmland. Low population disturbance. High impact on farmland. Moderate population disturbance.
Moderate visual impact. Moderate visual impact.
Low number of historic resources affected. Potential impact Moderate number of historic resources affected. Potential
on Fort Tejon State Historic Park. impact on Fort Tejon State Historic Park.
Moderate amount of faults, steep slopes, and erodible soils. Many major faults. Few areas with steep slopes and erodible
soils.
Low potential for encountering hazardous materials. High potential for encountering hazardous materials.
Moderate potential for delays. High potential for delays.
Printed on recycled paper.
(Co,-,-i~orSt,,~yco,~ti,~,~,tf,- .... o,~e,'pag~) connections to cities outside the opportunities. Future issues of this
Once the Commission has nar- main Los Angeles to San Francisco newsletter!:~l.provide you with
rowed down the number of route Bay Area corridor, updates on '[i~e"~esults of these stud-
alternatives between Los Angeles Three other HSIt studies are ies as they becmne available, as well
and the Bay Area, Phase II of the
exploring ridership and related as opportunities for you to partiei-
st.udy will begin. This phase is a
revenues, economic impacts and pate in the study process. []
detailed technical study of the
financing options and partnership
selected routes. Phase III examines
California Intercity High Speed Rail
Commission
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
Governor I 0 1995
Business, Transportation '"
and Housing Agency ~ITY MANAGER'S OFFtC?'
Dean R. Dunphy -.
Secretary
801 K Street, Suite 1918
Sacramento, CA 95314 Alall Tandy
California Intercity High Speed Rail City Manager
Commission City of Bakersfield
Dean R. Dunphy, Chair 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Donna Lee Andrews
Aimee S. Brown " " '= '"~ar'ersue'u ,
CA
93301
Daniel Wm. Fessler
Edward Jordan
Johnetta MacCalla
Mehdi Morshed
Audrey Rice Oliver
Michael E. Tennenbaum