Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1992 B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Staff: Jack Hardisty AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITFEE Wednesday, February 5, 1992 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Communication from Klein, Wegis, DeNatale, Hall, Goldner & Muir regarding Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 2.. Pushcart Vendors Ordinance 3. Communication from Taft regarding Acquisition of Sunset Rail Line 4. Communication from G.E.T. regarding Appointment of Representatives to Interagency Management Committee to Study Rail Line Acquisition 5. Communication from Dan N. Kimm regarding Designation of China Alley - as a Cultural Resource 6. Set Next-Meeting KLEIner, %VEGIS, DENATALE, HALL, '' GOLDNER & .MUIR ~ ~ W~G~S ARCO TOWE~ .... ' ~0~ C ~aLL '' - '"*~ .... *' '" '' BAKERSFIELD. CALIFOrnIA 93309 .... ........ ,'~ ~g~-;6~0 ~A~Y L. GOLDN~ . aO~T A K~ONICR aO. 80X ltl7~- CALIFORNIA ~8001 ~AVIO J. C00D[~ 8A~[RSFI[LD, CALIFORNIA g338g-117~ ~[NIS[ MARTIN ~UC[ MONgOl -,~,.... ~o~.. ~ursday, December 12, 1991 ~ARISA S VIOAU~TA ~ANI[L C. SMART ~on. Dale ~awle7 ~ ~,~ · ..:. Ci~ Manage~ C~ of Bakersfield C~ MAN~,~8 ~50~ T~tun ~venue Bakersfield, Ca]flora Re: Unreinforced M~o~ Building I~pectio~ Dear Mr. Hawley: . ~is letter follows the coherence Monday, November 25, 1991, ~th members of the Do~to~ Business and Proper~ O~er's ~sociation about the U~ei~orced M~o~ Building ordinance, ~ e~orced by the Building Depa~ment.. ~ discussed, these o~ers want to comply ~th the Code's impection requirements, but are ha~ng difficul~ finding architects and stmcmr~ engineers inclined to perform the evaluatio~ for a varie~ of re,om. 'First, md foremost, th~ questiom on the fo~'s lint page create a liabili~ coverage issue that effectively screem the great majori~ of architects and stmctur~ enoneers from prefor~ng the evaluatiom. Of note, the ordinance code states that the Ci~ ~ii pro,de the "form" the architect or structural engineer must fill out, but does not pro, de that staff ~I1 deter~ne the i~o~ational "substance" required on that fo~. ~at "substance" is set forth in Section 15.41.010 (B) of the Mu~cipal Code. Oily the first h~f of the first question on this page requesm i~o~ation required by the ordinance. ~e balance of the quesfiom ~e the ones creating the liabili~ issues for the architecm and stmctur~ engineers. We request the Ci~ simply remove those questiom from the form. Secondly, we request that the Ci~ hire engineers or architecm from a list supplied by the ~sociation to peffo~ the stmcmr~ analysis in exchange for a fee paid by the building o~er to the Ci~ which covers the complete cost of the an~ysis. State ~w pro, des immu~ to the Ci~ for "action or inaction" ~sociated ~th identi~ng and pro, ding these KLEII~, WEOIS, DEI~ATALE, HALL, GOLDi~ER 8: I~UI1R .' Letter to Dale Hawley, City Manager Page 2 .Thursday, December 12, 1991 Re: Unreinforced Masonry Buildings structural evaluations (Government Code §8875.3). 'Thus, as the City's agents, the engineers and architects would be entitled to the City's immunity, rendering their liability concerns moot. This would also not cost the City anything. Thirdly, if the City is aware of architects or structural engineers who are currently willing to provide the analysis for owners of um'einforced masonry buildings, we would, appreciate a list so that we could distribute that list to owners of the City's unreinforced masonry buildings and they could then meet the deadline set by the ordinance. Finally, we understand from Cai Bidwell's comments that the structural specifications found in Bakersfield Municipal Code section 15.40 are based upon but more demanding than the specificatiom adopted by the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles is situated in an area historically more prone to earthquakes than Bakersfield and those earthquakes are generally of a greater magnitude. We encourage City staff to reevaluate these standards and to endorse amending our' ordinance so ,that it is more in line with the structural specifications in the Los Angeles ordinance. The property owners are eager to comply with the August, 1992 deadline and we look forward to establishing a dialogue with the City so that our mutual concerns can be attained within a cooperative and positive framework. Very truly yours, February 5, 1992 The following engineers were contacted and they indicated that they are doing design work or will consider doing design work on unreinforced masonry buildings. Ed Creswell 1716 Oak-Street 324-9255 Alton Engel ~ 4009 Union Avenue 327-7025 John Forestelle 1414 Valhalla Drive 833-4311 Warren Minner 1716 Oak Street 324-9724 Fred Porter 1000 21st Street 327-0362 Raymond Stene 4560 California 323-8314 Brian Ward 2920 H Street 328-9022 Wheeler & Gray 7462 N. Figueroa St. 213 256-2101 Decoma 5300 So. Santa Fe Ave. 213 581-8900 Pars Engineering 305 E. Boyd St. 213 621-2550 /° Calv~ Bid~ell ' Building Director DW 1501 TF~UXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD.CALIFORNIA 93301 · (805) 326-3727 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ~ This survey must be filed with the! I~I Building Department at 1501 Truxtun Ave prior to August 25, 1992 Telephone 326-3720 1990 Building Address: This report was prepared by California License # Seal Building Name: Number of Stories: Bldg. Size-Length Width (Include sketch or plans and sections plus pictures). Building Usage Usage No. OccuDants Floor Area Elevatio; 1st Floor Mezz. Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor Structural Description: Building Type Building Age. Building Foundation Building Floor Building Roof Building Wall Exterior Wall Interior Wall Height of Building~ Adjoining Buildings Construction URM Yes__No__ Height SCl ' STRUCTURAL CONDITION YES NO 1. H/T Ratio (excludes veneer) is . (List for .all load bearing walls) * H/T ratio is acceptable. ~ I I 2. Mortar Quality: Number of tests done . (The engineer or architect shall state his reason when the number of tests done is less than the code requires.) Number of tests with shear stress ~ 30 psi .. (Tests.are not required if the engineer or architect states in his opinion that the mortar quality is not acceptable.) Name of the testing agency . * The mortar quality is aCceptable. 3. Wall Anchors: Check one: Embedded Anchors Through Wall Anchors Number of Tests . (The engineer or architect shall state his reason when the number of tests done is less than the code requires.) Anchor Plate Size Anchors are within 2 feet from inside corner of wall Anchors serve as combination anchors. -* The quality and condition of anchors is accept'able. 4. Parapet Wall: Check one: Concrete URM Other Parapet Is there a continuous reinforced concrete bond beam throughout the length of the parapet. Unbraced parapet ht. f 1.5 times thickness of wall. * Condition of parapet is acceptable. 5. Diaphragms: (Describe the materials and construction of the diaphragms.') A. Demand/Capacity Ratio: < Span'of diaphragm (in feet) DCR Floor Diaphragm All'owable DCR DCR for roof diaphragm Allowable DCR B. Shear Connections: Required Allowable * Diaphragm displacement and condition is acceptable. 6. Shear Walls: Maximum Shear Allowable Shear (List for all load bearing walls) * Condition of shear wall is acceptable. Conclusions and Recommendations: 1. Does the building meet the standards of Chapter 15.40 of the Bakersfield. Municipal Code? If not, specify what corrective work woul~ be necessary to upgrade the building to a reasonably good level of seismic resistance. 2. ~ If the building is substandard, is it hazardous to people inside or outside, of the building in the event of a major earthquake? 3. Does the building present a hazard to adjoining properties in the event of a major earthquake? 4. General statement concerning the condition of the building relative to Chapter 15.40 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and any strengthening done as a result of the 1952 earthquake.. Note: *Acceptable means meeting the applicable Section of Chapter 15.40 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Re'vised 12-3-91 SCX M E M 0 R A N D U M .o r 22, 199 TO: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: BILL DESCARY, TREASURER~.~ SUBJECT: PUSHCART FOOD VENDORS Several months ago a pushcart food vendor complained that a permit had been incorrectly issued for a location in front of the County Administration Building at 1415 Truxtun. It was alleged that the location was less than one hundred feet walking distance from a restaurant or other establishment selling prepared food to the public (cafeteria in basement) which would violate Municipal Code Section 12.44.035(D)(7). It was determined the permit was issued in accordance with the code as written. However, code language is different from what was intended. The matter was referred to the Urban Development Committee for review. In order to correct the distance language and other shortcomings identified in the review, staff has prepared an ordinance as a separate Municipal Code chapter relating to pushcart food vendors. The new chapter clarifies the criteria for measuring distance from restaurants, requires vendors to have commercial liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured, indemnifies the City from claims, increases the distances between vendors from 100 to 150 feet, requires pushcarts to be self contained and prohibits adjacent crates, coolers, tables and chairs. While this appears to be a comprehensive chapter, issues remain. The above changes were discussed with many of the vendors. Generally, they feel they are being regulated out of business. The following issues have been identified: 1. The dictionary defines a pushcart as a cart pushed by hand, especially one used by street vendors. None of the carts currently dispensing hot dogs meet this definition. Pushcarts are not currently operated as self contained units and would not be allowed to operate under the new ordinance. 2. According to the Community Services Manager, outdoor food vendors in the vicinity of the Convention Center pose a potential conflict with the concessionaire that has contracted with t,he City to provide food service at the facility. Litter is also a potential problem with ticket lines that form for concerts, trade shows, conventions and with the anticipated crowds for basketball games. The Traffic Division advises that the right-of-way on the east side of N Street is wide enough to accommodate as many as four vendors. Prohibition of pushcarts in the JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 22, 1991 PAGE TWO area of the Convention Center, as has been suggested, would be discriminatory and is not a viable solution. 3. Outdoor food vendors have complained that their business is being hurt by other vendors in the vicinity. These vendors were well over 150 feet apart which raises the question whether the distance between vendors should be greater than 150 feet. 4. The owner of Westchester Liquors complained that a vendor across F Street by Pep Boys was hurting his sandwich business. The vendor claims the Pep Boys manager was hostile toward him for having his pushcart on the sidewalk along the side of their building. The location meets code requirements. 5. Regulation of this activity takes considerable staff time. Vendors have looked to staff to act as mediators in disputes. Currently, permits cost $25.00. In order to recover costs, the fee should be increased. 6. A survey of five vendors revealed that two had no liability insurance. One had $1 million and the other two had $100,000 and $300,000. The potential liability to the City is $1 million. cc: Dale Hawley Greg Klimko Lee Andersen Larry Lunardini Laura Marino Jake Wager Steve Walker Jack La Rochelle krc MBD.15 BILL WE"""'"'""" FEATURING. Westcheslcr P~it, lz~e 3to~:]~ Liq~lo,.~ - '"~.~' Uompb.'te l,in~ u! Imported ,t~t,t Domc.~tic lt'tne~. L~,tm~,'.~ ~ad. Bc'rr.~ 2408 F ~RE~ FA~.~ 3-0~03' B~KERSF'ELD. CAL'FORNtA .... ,e,aden~ and The Eaker~f'ieid Cit-,' C',:,un:~il Members t'50! Y'ruxtun .Avenue ~0~5 Bakersfield ~' Ret': ~ t ~'e~ Vancio r 241 i F' gtr'~:~et Dear ~r. ~avo'~- and {.Ti;.v ~.atl~?, [ ne p,~lrpase : ..... is letter i~ to e:<oress 'ii~atisfaction with :,~e f ~tv re~'arciiu~: ,-grant;n,e i'::ens, es to str~t '.endor~ maid, iv the : ..... ' .... : .... :,ems as :n~- store. As a tax payer and pronertv owner ~ith a sizable investment in Westchester T am responsible to ~av preperty ' -- - . . for an al,:,~ho~ license ~ health fo~d ~,~ ;~ ~ax. e~a~ tax · , .......... _rm .... garbage alarm fee. etc. These vendors on the other hand apply for a street license· and go into business with little or no investment and campete with somenne as myself who has a much lar~er investment. And in essence ~i,;ey, nothin~ back to the Cit.. This is not ethica~. i would like to discuss this matter hv telepho, ne at your earliest c,~nvenience at 323-0503. Sincerely, - 0 .- ·. WESTCH ST R I.[QU .q :~-:.. " '.Rilliam E..TayiOr, Owner '.. hm DRAFT ' 11/18/91 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 12 . 44 . 035 AND ADDING CHAPTER 5 . 45 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUSHCART FOOD VENDORS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 12.44.035 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Chapter 5.45 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 5.45 PUSHCART FOOD VENDORS Sections: 5.45.010 Definitions. ' 5.45.020 Permit required. 5.45.030 Application- Issuance - Fee. 5.45.040 Regulations. 5.45.050 Revocation. 5.45.060 Appeal. 5.45.010 Definitions. Whenever used in this chapter, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings: A. "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association of any nature whatsoever. B. "Pushcart food vendor" means any person who engages in a business of selling food and/or drinks on any city sidewalk within the city, and does not include any business occupying a structure upon.a permanent foundation constructed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 15.12 of this code. 5.45.020 Permit required. It is unlawful for any person to operate as a pushcart food vendor in the city in violation of this chapter, or without having first procured and maintained a valid permit from the city manager or his designee. 5.45.030 Application - Issuance - Fee. A. Applications for permits under this section shall be made on forms to be furnished by the city manager or his designee, shall be submitted no less than fourteen days prior to commencement of business, shall be signed under.penalty of perjury by the applicant and shall require the following information: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; 2. The name, address and telephone number of the business; 3. Prior permits held and whether such permits were ever revoked or suspended and the reasons therefor; 4. If the pushcart is to be stationary, the exact location where the pushcart will be situated; 5. If the pushcart is to be mobile, the proposed areas within which the pushcart will be operated; 6. The business tax certificate number of the business; 7. Whether a health department permit for this business has been issued. B. The application may be accompanied by a written approval from the owner of any retail business located within fifty feet in either direction and on the same side of the street as the proposed fixed location (if any). C. The application shall be accompanied by evidence., satisfactory to the city manager or his designee, of general liability insurance providing coverage on an occurrence basis ~for bodily injury, including death of one or more persons, property damage and personal injury., with limits as required by the city~ Insurance required of the applicant hereunder shall be primary insurance as to the city, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the city, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers shall be considered excess insurance, - 2 - over and above the applicant'.s insurance and shall not contribute with it. The applicant shall save, hold harmless and indemnify the city, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from all claims, demands, damages, judgments, costs or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise from, or are in any way related to, any activity addressed by this chapter. D. If the application is not accompanied by the signed approvals described in subsection B., above, the city manager or his designee shall, within ten days of receipt of the application, set a hearing upon the application. The city manager or his designee shall by mail notify the applicant and each business operator whose approval was not obtained, of the time and place of such hearing, which shall be not less than five days after the date such notices are mailed. At such hearing, any owner of any such business may respond as to the criteria, set forth in subsections E.4, through E.6. of this chapter. Within five business days of the conclusion of the hearing, a written decision shall be mailed to the applicant. E. The city manager or his designee shall, in his discretion, issue a permit if he finds: 1. That the application is ~complete and truthful; 2. That the location of the pushcart is no less than one hundred feet from a hypothetical line extending out to the public sidewalk from the outer edges of the main entrance of any establishment within which food prepared on the premises is sold to the public. For any establishment having more than one entrance, the city manager or his designee shall determine which entrance is the main entrance to the establishment. 3. That the location of the pushcart is no less than one hundred fifty (150) feet, measured radially, from a location specified in a permit issued another vendor pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The business for which the application is made will be maintained and conducted in accordance with all laws of the.city and the state. 5. That operation of such business at such location will not present any substantial hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. '6. That operation of such business will not create an unreasonable hardship for any adjacent or neighboring business. 7. That ~he applicant has obtained, insurance as required under subsection C of this section. - 3 - 8. That a valid business tax certificate has been issued for this business. 9. That a health department permit has been issued for this business. '10. That the applicant has not had a permit, issued under this section, revoked, unless th~ city manager finds that the reasons for such revocation are unrelated to this application. F. Ail permits issued under this chapter shall remain in effect until the following June 30, unless earlier suspended or revoked. G. The applicant shall pay a fee not to exceed the cost of processing any such application and inspecting such~business as set forth in Section 3.70.040. H. Permits may be issued with conditions to ensure that the pushcart will be operated in a safe and legal manner, will not disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and will not constitute an undue burden on city resources. 5.45.040 Regulations. A. No permitholder .shall shout, make any outcry, blow a horn, ring a bell or use any other sound device including any loudspeaker, radio or amplifying system where sound of sUfficient volume is emitted or produced therefrom capable of being plainly heard upon the streets, alleys, parks or other public places. B. All pushcarts shall be self-contained, and no 'tables, chairs, boxes or objects other than the permitted pushcart shall be permitted on the public sidewalk. C. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be non-transferrable, and shall be valid only as to the applicant and location provided on the application for such permit. D. Except ~s expressly permitted by and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12.44 of this code, the sale, offer to sell, advertising or display of merchandise on any street or sidewalk in the city is prohibited. E. The permitholder' shall maintain the required issurance throughout the term of the permit. - 4 - 5.45.050 Revocation. Any permit issued pursUant to this chapter shall be immediately revoked by the city manager whenever he finds: A. That misrepresentations were made on the application; or 'B. That the applicant has been convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the business for which application is made, unless he has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation; or C. That the applicant has done any act involving dishonesty, fraud or deceit with the intent to substantially benefit himself or another, or substantially injure another; or D. That any of the terms or conditions of said permit have been violated, or that the business has been operated in violation of local, state or federal law. 5.45.060 Appeal. A. Should any applicant be dissatisfied with the decision of the city manager or his designee not to grant a permit or for the revocation of a permit, then said applicant may, no later than ten days after notice of such decision is deposited in the United States'mail, addressed to the applicant or permittee at the address provided on the application, make written objection to the city council setting forth the grounds for dissatisfaction, .whereupon the council shall hear said objections at a regular meeting no. later than three weeks following the filing of the objection with the city clerk. The applicant shall be given written notice no less than three days prior to said hearing. The council may~ upon said hearing, sustain, suspend or overrule the decision of the city manager, which decision shall be final and conclusive. B. ~ Pending the hearing before the council, the decision of the city manager shall remain in full force and effect and any reversal thereof by .the city council shall not be retroactive but shall take effect as of the date of the council's decision. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. -o0o -- 5 -- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing O~dinance ~was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED CLARENCE E. MEDDERS MAYOR of the City of Bakgrsfield APPROVED as to form: LAWRENCE M. LUNARDINI CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield LCM/meg BUS-ORD\ PUSHCART.O-4 11/'18/91 F.~q~r~ Tran$ot Distr~ ~ . 5 C/"/'Y MA, NAGER,,~ OFFICE January. 15, 1992 Mr. -J.. Dale Hawley City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Hawley: Golden Empire Transit District recently convened a meeting of Kern COG, CalTrans, Kern County, and Cities of Taft and Bakers- · field representatives to discuss membership on the Interagency Management Committee and to administer a Long Range Public Trans- portation.Systems Study. This study is a continuation and exten- sion of the efforts of the joint agency committee that recently completed a Phase 1 report on possibilities of a light rail system for the urban area. It is important that the Long Range Public Transportation Systems Study be a joint effort of the affected and involved agencies. Appointment of an official representative to the Interagency Management Committee by the City of Bakersfield' would be most beneficial to completion of the study. Please advise. Sincerely, Steve Ruggenberg General Manager SR:ces 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield. California 93301 (805} 324-9874 FAX (805) 324-7849 CI't'Y MAN~,GF-R'S OFFICE January 22, 1992 Mr. Dale Hawley City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Dale: Enclosed is the promised Memorandum o~ Understanding. If you have any questions please let me know as soon as possible and I'll distribute the information to the others. Also enclosed is a letter I sent to Mr. Lee Fox expressing our need for notification. Sincereiy, Steve Ruggenberg~'~ ~ General Manager SR:ces Enclosure 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield. California 93301 (805) 324-9874 FAX(805) 324-7849 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FORMING THE INTERAGENCY FIXED GUIDEWAY PASSENGER SYSTEM CONSORTIUM FOR THE BAKERSFIELD-KERN COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA WHEREAS, the County of Kern and the cities within Kern County are rapidly increasing in population; WHEREAS, this rapid growth pl'aces increasing demands upon the existing transportation system, maintenance of acceptable air quality conditions, public finances necessary to support the needs of the County, and other critical areas; WHEREAS, a coordinated transportation system cannot be developed and financed without the full cooperation of all affected governmental jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, a Long Range Public Transportation Systems Study is being undertaken by the Golden Empire Transit District in full cooperation with the affected governmental units: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, the City of Taft, the City of Arvin, the California Department of Transportation, the Kern Council of Governments, and the.Golden Empire Transit District do hereby form an Interagency Fixed Guideway Passenger System Consortium to jointly evaluate and integrate fixed guideway transportation plans into the planning.process and operations of each consortium member. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED That each member organization shall appoint one representative to the Consortium Executive Committee which also shall be known as the Interagency Management Committee, and that the Golden'Empire Transit District shall serve as the staff to the Committee. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED That each member organization shall appoint one representative to the Consortium Policy Committee which also shall be known as the Transit Policy Committee, and that the Golden Empire Transit District shall serve as the staff to the Committee. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED That each member organization shall approve by resolution, motion, or other proper action this Memorandum of Understanding either prior to or at the time it designates its ~epresen%ative to the Transit Policy Committee and the Interagency Management Committee. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE DAY OF , COUNTY OF KERN DATE GOLDEN EMPIRE DATE TRANSIT DISTRICT COUNTY OF BAKERSFIELD DATE CITY OF ARVIN DATE KERN COUNCIL OF DATE- CITY OF TAFT DATE GOVERNMENTS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DATE TRANSPORTATION APPROVED AS TO FORM DATE ~ Golden Empire Transit District ~ ' ' ~. / ,January 21, 1992 Mr. Lee Fox Vice President, Asset Management Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway 1700 East Gold Schaumburg, Ill. 60173-5860 Dear Mr. FOX: As you may be aware, the Golden. Empire Transit District in asso- ciation with the City of Bakersfield, the City of Taft, the City of Arvin, Kern County, the Kern Council of Governments and Cal- trans is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive study of transportation corridors with a view towards the potential for light rail transit applications in the metropolitan area. We expect to have a major amount of information from the study by July 1992. including which are the highest potential corridors in Ker'n County. As you might imagine we are'concerned about the status of all railroad rights-of-way in the County. Attached for your informa- tion and review is a 'resolution of the Board of Directors concerning the transit corridors and their relationships to existing railroad rights-of-way. Due to the status of our study and the importance to us of any pending or actual changes in rail corridors, I am hereby reques- ting that you place the Golden Empire Transit District on the notification list.to be contacted immediately in the event of any proposed or pending sale or lease, abandonment, and/or change in -operators of all rail facilities, branches, stations or main lines in'Kern County. For your information a similar request has been made of Mr. Ken Dixon of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. If you have questions or need further information, please contact me. ~ Sincerely, Steve Ruggenberg General Manager SR:ces Attachment BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ~ OF THE GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION 91-15 IN THE MATTER OF: NOTIFYING RAIL OWNERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY WHEREAS, transportation issues are integral to issues in Kern County'related to growth and development, clean air, and many other quality of life circumstances; and WHEREAS, Golden Empire Transit is a public agency in Kern .County responsible for public transportation; and WHEREAS, Golden Empire Transit has recognized the need for a long-range Public Transportation Systems Study for Kern County and has committed 'funding for the preparation of that Plan; and WHEREAS, said long-range Public Transportation Systems Study would include a comprehensive public involvement program, the setting of priorities, completion of policies ~nd .procedures for implementation of the Plan, and a framework for financing the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Kern Council of Governments also serves as the Kern Congestion Management Agency and is responsible for long- range ,transportation planning in Kern County; and WHEREAS, said Public Transportation Systems Study would be scheduled' for completion in approximately twelve months, ~nd could.be integrated with Kern COG's transportation planning; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Public Transportation Systems Study will include a rail element and consideration ,of the future of the Sunset Rail Line, a rail shortline located in Kern County, which runs from Southwest Bakersfield to Downtown Taft; and WHEREAS, the Sunset.Rail Line runs through the incorporated areas of Bakersfield, Taft and Maricopa as well as unincorporated areas in the County of Kern; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Rail Line is currently being considered for sale to a private firm or firms, and such sale would irrevocable alter public opportunities for the use of said rail line; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Rail Line remaining in the public domain is vital for the future of Kern County and to all potential users of said rail line, both public and private; and WHEREAS, an informal consortium of interested agencies has been formed, consisting of the Kern Council of Governments, Golden Empire Transit District, the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, the City of Taft, and the City of Maricopa; with the goal of communicatina with Southern Pacific Railroad to urge them to delay any sale of the rail line which would take the line out of the public domain, and further to work with the consortium on the future purchase of the line by a public agency or agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED the ~ Board of Directors of the Golden Empire Transit District hereby agrees to participate in the Sunset Rail Line consortium and t© combine efforts with other member agencies to communicate with Southern Pacific Railroad to urge them to delay any sale of the rail line that would take the line out of the public domain, and further to work with the consortium on alternatives for future purchase .of the line by a~ public agency or agencies. All the foregoing being on motion of Director Ashland and secon- ded by Director Gutierrez was authorized by the following roll call vote: AYES: Director Robinson, Michel, Silver, Gutierrez, Ashland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CERTiFiCATION The undersigned duly qualified Secretary of the Board of Direc- "tars of 'the Golden Empire Transit District certifies that the foreg6ing is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Board of Directors of the Golden Empire Transit District held December 3, 1991. Secretar~ %f the Board of Directors Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission...-- d.__-- Economic & Community Development Department ~ ,?- DEC 0,~, 1991 I 515 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 £:EVELOFMENT Dear Chairman, I/we, the undersigned, being owners/owner representative of property located at B~&FIELD ,, ,, ['I]S'['O[~]C ~ ~n~ ,/:)///¢/v ,, do hereby request that this property be considered for cultural PP_.F VA ON COlv[]v[I~[ON resourse designat{on and be placed on the Bakersfield Register of Historic Places. I/we have provided the following information which describes the .subject prope~, its architectural and historical characteristics. I/we am familiar with the design guidelines that pertains to my property and understand the intent of these guidelines. I/we recognize that the completion of the attached forms must be accompanied with the appropriate fees before designation procedures can pr~ede. Sincer~ , Name Street City, State, Zip Phone Number LOGO DEPICTS BAKER STREET ~ L..~RARY ~ ~s'r. ~es~ t515 TRUXTUN AVENUE .BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 (805) 326-3765 APPLICATION FOR HI~;TORIC DESIGNATION CULTURAL RESOURCE Historic name reflecting the period of significance and/or common name ~cation Catego~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ Public or Pr~ate ~her Past Us~ ~~c~/ ~iJ~v Present Use ~m m~r~~)/~v ~V ~ner of Prope~ S~eet City, State, Zip Description ' ex/s~e~c~ Location ofStructur. ~e'~_~e,~ "L,"~'J"'I" ~. ~ ~ ~ou~ ~ ~A~ original ~e, moved, unknown g~ ~=~. Form prepared by c~, st~t., z~ ~z~ ~/~ ~ ~'~z~ Telephone ~) g~/- ~~ Date of appli~on /~, /~ ~ ]~Z MEMORANDUM T ~ ,,.,~.,", ~- '~-~ MANAGER'S OFFICE January 21, 1992 MEMO TO: DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER MEMO FROM: JAKE WAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IRECT SUBJECT: CHINA ALLEY? .... As you requested in our phone conversation of January 8, 1992, 'we have researched the adjacent property owners to "China Alley." The following is a list of those property owners: Property Owner Parcel Numbers L Street Associates 005-422-01-004 5 Sunhill 005-422-03-000 Portola Valley, CA 94025 005-422-044)03 005-422-05-006 005-422-07-4302 005-422-08-005 005-422-094)08 Glenn Kimm 005-422-12-006 3500 Claremont Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 Marion Demos 005-422-13-009 1030 33rd Street 005-422-14-002 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Harold W. Robertson Trust 005-422-15-005 1000 21st Street 005-422-16-008 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Ying On AssociatiOn 005~422-20-009 745 Grant Avenue San Francisco, CA 94108 The Historic Preservation Ordinance stipulates that under Section 15.72.070 Subsection A, "The city council or the property owner of the proposed property may initiate a request for the designation of a cultural resource." SinCe the alley can be initiated for designation by the City Council,' originating an application from the Council would be another option rather than to request the above listed adjacent property owners to collectively apply for the designation of "China Alley" as a Cultural Resource. In the meantime we will direct the applicants, Dan N. Kimm and Mary Ming, to discuss with the property owners listed above their interest in applying for cultural resource designation. attachments cc: David Lyman Allen Shaw Andre Devereaux Chrono a:china2.DH s-42 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. sc. OOL D~'./L_Z~~ ~-4 J I I I I L ST. ~i t,~.$ /05 15~ l~.$ ....... l ~ ! ~ J I I I t25 , I I I I ~ I I I I I I ~~1 I I .~o' I II I I I I , 4 ~~ IlO[II ;l~ IJ I~ll~ ~351361~',38~39 / I i I I I I i I I / ~ / , i i I I i I I I '~* ~ E. HOUGHTONS SUBD. ASSESSORS' MAP NO. 5~.~