HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 35-59~ached to which' was a certi£ie~ copy. 'o~**'.S'aid'*f~anChise o~dtnance'
RESOLUTION ,.NO..S5-~5~_?a_~, ' - .-
-.RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE FL~YOR OF T~E :'
CITY .OF: - '
· BAKERSFIELD~I TO PRESENT FACTS TO TEE PUBLIC'
UTILITIES COMMISSION 0F. THE STATE .'OF ..CALIFORNIA~ ....
~'ND TO .REQUEST SAID' COMMISSION TO..:DiRECT THE --
'-- SOUTEN PACIFIC COMPANY. TO COMPLY ~TH THE ,TERMS
AND ~OONDITIONS OF FRANCHISE' ORDINANCES NOS.-317'; ..
NEW SERIES AND 996, NEW SERIES OF .THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, 0ALIFORNtA '
WHER.EAS, the Operating, depar-tment '0f the Southern ~Paci£i'C.
0ompany, through its duly authoriz.ed'represen.~ative'~ ~[~made application
for-a 'f~anchise tc install .certain .'side tracks .0n 'Haley StFeet .and
-was.: granted a tWenty-fiVO' (~5) yea½' franchise by~ Ordinance 'No. '317,
New series,.--~atea December 6, I928~...certified copies' of '.tkiS
ordinance were £u~ntshed said '.operating depaP'~mentl..f' .the Southern
PaCif i~" Company. who'~ in turn submi tted 'them-t0 n. ,the Public~ U~iti ties
Commission of ~he State of '~al-ifO~nia--:aS .e~idence that £ull"agresment
· had .been rea'ched between the Southern Pacific COmpany .and the govern~
,lng .b0dy..~ef'.the City of Bakersfield,'- j
! - 'Araong the conditions imposed. '~aS.~ that. 'the':'fra~chise would
be subject to 'the-'SoUthern P'~cifio Company abiding 'by:. all regularlens-
and-Conditions imposed from time' ~'.6 time' by the ...City of 'Bakers.field~
als'o,.':-~hat they. would con'duct..operationS. over the t'~acks t-o be instal-
led in.such a manner as not ~o .interfe~.e wi'~h. vehicles using the. -
.Haley Street crossing, "'- .... -" '-'
.A.t. the time of. 'adopting sala:ordinan'¢e the. Oi.'.ty o'f Bakersfield
had-in 'effect' an ordinance. which d~clared it Unlawful-for any. person
to operate any.. train of caps so as 'tO prevent the 'Use-of any street
for purpose 0f,.':~ravel for a perio. d-o£ ' t:ime-lo~ger .than-five..+(5)
minutes,
· of California '-of.. the application ,of. the.' SOuthern'Pacific Company
No.-31'7, New Series, the said commis'~S~'0~ apprOyed -the appiication
of~ the Southern Pacific 0ompany by 'ex par. tle order-having ~elie'd on
the ce~tifiSd+ copy of Ordinance No. 317, New 'Serie~S +as evidence' that
the 0ity~Iof Bakersfield and the Southern Pa~iflic Company..were in
aoo. ord'I as to te~mS and conditionsI~hich' would _be respected
partie s. ' '~ ~" ,-' ~ ·"
At the e~iration of franchise 0~dinance N0.'~ 31.?,, New Series
. " "PaCifi~ "'
on December 6,~ 19.53, said Southern C0mp&ny'made application.~
to thS City C~cil of the, Ci~y.~ of-Bakersfie'ld,'f~r-a permit 'and
privilege tO 'extend said e~iring franchise for-an"indefinite rims
'SUbject to revocation by-the City' of Bakersfie'ld.""
.... .' ~?.r. in ,said f0~l application the operating', department'..of .the
Southern Pac'tfi'c"Cemp~y again reaffirmed. its. p.si~ion't~t it would
"abide ~ all r~gUlationS and conditions imposed by~..the ~City~of
'BakerSfield and t~'t their operations at'~ the Haley'Stre'e~ crossing-
would be conducted tn such~ a manner as to not interfere '~-~ith-vehicles
using'the 'street crossing. ... '~ '
..... ~hS~ application ~f~-~the op~rating~.~epar~ent'~ of- ~he SOuthern
~a~ific ~Company was approved and the City Comcil '~adOpted OrdinanCe/~"'
No.~...996, New S~eri'es on February 8', 195~, .and fn~nis~ed tO ~said-
operati~ depar~ent of the Southern 'Pacific .Company, as 'h~. been
requested by ~hem, certified copies-of~'~ said o~dina~ge.
' ~The 0perati~ department ef 'ths ~.so.uthern P~cifi~' company made
application-te the~ Public Utilities Co~i~s'sion of ths stars
california f0r'a ~enewal of their~ f~ano~se' and 'sUbmitted, at'tache'd
~o their application, certified copis~' o~ Said O~dinance No. 996,
NeW SSries, .which~ also provided t~at iSs~anCS ~.uld be s~bj~ct .to
conai~iOns ,f ~he Ci~y Of Bake~sf~eld,=and wo~1d
operations on Haley Street so &s not ~o.-lnterf.ere W'ith ve~cles using
t~e c~OsSing,
The Publ'ic Utilities ~Conunission-of the State of California,
relying en 'said certified copies of' this .Ordinance approved. the.
application~ of..I'said.Southern Pacific ~Oompany.-.and issued its 'order
ex par. t~-, i-......
"' zn "nrelying on the integrity oF" said' 'Southern Pacifi'c.j·C'ompany
a's evidenced'by the two ordinances ab0-ve re£erred' :'to, the".-City 0f
B~kersfield au~omaticall~ waived public: 'hearings. '~dsr' Rule (.32 cf
the Public U~i!'ities Cc~is~iOn, sin~e the Crdina'nces"'s~ '~dcpted
b[ ~the= ~Oi~y. of. 'Bakers~f~ld bec~ .a '[pa~. of.-the appli ~a.~ion~. and.
., .. . ' :.. ~ .. '-
The legal depa~ent o~ ~he Sc~thegn :Fa~ifi~.'CCmpany has now
challenged .'~he o~dtnance of' the Ci]~y..:~f B~kersfiel~ which prcMbi~s
the .blOcking ..of s~ree~s at railroad' '~OSsi~gs.~ fc~' more .~han '~i~e (~)
.~'minutes, .I~ is apparen~ ~hat the l~gal d~p.~r~en~ ..cf.-~he. Sdu~hern'.-'
~acific.'Ccmp~n~ ts not supporting appliC~'~i.onS.made"' by ~he .ope~a~ing'
department. or ~he Southern Pacific ~Ccmpany ana.. th~i~....repreSen~a~icns.
T~0RE, ~he City Cc~ciZ: cf Bakersfield, by .~this RES0~UTION,
in~tr~gt~ and directs' ~he ~ayor or ]the Ci~y of Bakersfield
t~crmally p~esent all facts to '~e~'~ubli. C U~ili.~tes Oo~issiOn'
a request that they direct the Southern Pacific-CCmPan~ ~'o ccmp!~
with all the terms and condi~ienS ,~of.' ~h~..co~ission~.s:'o~.~er'.
the franchises ~d all ~he conditions of-~he Ci~ Of...BakerSfi~ld
imposed by 0~dinance No, 996, ~ew..Se~es, as being ~-. pa~ of "said
I HEREBY CERTIFY tha_~ .the foregoing Resoluti0~'was pas~ed
and adopted by 'the Oouncil of Itb'e Ci.t~: of Bakersfield a~. al-regular
. meettng"~th~sof held on the
Vote: =
llth' day- 6f M.~y, 1'959~. 'b'Yt'..the f011owl.ng:
"i' ... "
Oounoti of ~he City. 0f.Bake~Sfleld.
the