The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/22/2021 Staff: Committee Members: Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Chris Parlier – Chair Councilmember, Andrae Gonzales Councilmember, Ken Weir Special Meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Monday, March 22, 2021 12:00 p.m. City Hall North, First Floor, Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301 A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 3. ADOPT DECEMBER 14, 2020 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Ward Boundaries Redistricting Process – Gennaro B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Ebikes – Gennaro/Fidler 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL NOTICE Public Participation and Accessibility March 22, 2021 Legislative and Litigation Committee On March 18, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which includes a waiver of Brown Act provisions requiring physical presence of the Committee members or the public in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Legislative and Litigation Committee Special Meeting March 22, 2021 Agenda Page 2 Based on guidance from the California Governor’s Office and Department of Public Health, as well as the County Health Officer, in order to minimize the potential spread of the COVID-19 virus, the City of Bakersfield hereby provides notice that as a result of the declared federal, state, and local health emergencies, and in light of the Governor’s order, the following adjustments have been made: 1. The meeting scheduled for March 22, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. will have limited public access. 2. Consistent with the Executive Order, Committee members may elect to attend the meeting telephonically and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. 3. The public may participate in the meeting and address the Committee as follows:  If you wish to comment on a specific agenda item, submit your comment via email to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us no later than 8:00 a.m. Monday, the day of the Committee meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item number your comment pertains to.  If you wish to make a general public comment not related to a specific agenda item, submit your comment via email to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us no later than 8:00 a.m. Monday, the day of the Committee meeting.  Alternatively, you may comment by calling (661) 326-3100 and leaving a voicemail of no more than 3 minutes no later than 8:00 a.m. Monday, the day of the Committee meeting. Your message must clearly indicate whether your comment relates to a particular agenda item, or is a general public comment. If your comment meets the foregoing criteria, it will be transcribed as accurately as possible.  If you wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item as it is being heard, please email your written comment to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us. All comments received during the meeting may not be read, but will be provided to the Committee and included as part of the permanent public record of the meeting. Committee Members Staff: Jacqui Kitchen Councilmember, Chris Parlier, Chair Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Jacquie Sullivan Councilmember, Andrae Gonzales REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Monday, December 14, 2020 12:00 p.m. City Hall North, First Floor, Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Committee members Present: Councilmember, Chris Parlier, Chair Councilmember, Andrae Gonzales Councilmember, Jacquie Sullivan City Staff Present: Christian Clegg, City Manager Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager Anthony Valdez, Administrative Analyst III Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The Report was adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. /S/ Jacqui Kitchen DRAFT S:\Council Committees\2020\Legislative and Litigation\12_December Page 2 JK:pa 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion Regarding Development of Legislative Platform - Clegg City Manager Clegg provided a brief overview of State and Federal Legislative Programs designed to guide the City’s legislative advocacy efforts described in the memorandum provided in the agenda packet. Committee member Gonzales thanked staff for the research. He requested homelessness be added to the top of the list of proposed State Legislative priorities and that advocating for fair share of State Funding and advocating for fair share of Caltrans funding for infrastructure and maintenance be combined into one priority. Committee Chair Parlier stated that he supported prioritizing advocating for reasonable and measured relief from state regulations related to energy and agriculture production because of the affects is has on city residents. He agreed with Committee member Gonzales that homelessness be included as a listed priority. Committee member Sullivan thanked staff for their research and report. She was in agreeance with Committee member Gonzales and Committee Chair Parlier that homelessness should be added to the list of State Legislative priorities. Committee member Gonzales requested that Coronavirus (COVID-19) funding resources and homelessness funding resources for states and cities be listed as priorities on the Federal Legislative Priorities. Committee Chair Parlier and Committee member Sullivan agreed. Committee Chair Parlier made a motion to bring the State and Federal Legislative Programs with the revision noted above to a future City Council meeting in January. The motion was unanimously approved. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee member Gonzales thanked staff for all their work during the year. He requested staff reassess Conference Room A layout in order to make the television monitor for presentations more accessible for the Committee members. He suggested installing an additional television monitor on the westside of the room or rotating the table so that the head of the table faces east. Committee member Sullivan thanked staff for all their hard work. She shared her appreciation for having served on the Committee for many years. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:39 p.m. DRAFT Documents Presented At The Legislative & Litigation Committee March 22, 2021 Meeting OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM Date: March 22, 2021 To: Legislative and Litigation Committee Chris Parlier, Chair Andrae Gonzales Ken Weir From: Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager Subject: Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting of March 22, 2021 Committee Agenda Item 2. Public Statements A total of five emails received providing one general comment and four public comments for items related to the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting. Agenda Item 2 – 1 comment Agenda Item 4B – 4 comments Attachments mc 1 Michelle Cruz From:City_Clerk Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:17 AM To:Michelle Cruz Subject:FW: Public Statement for Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting Attachments:3.22.21 Public Comment for Bakersfield CC LegLitigation Cmte.pdf Comments for Legislative and Litigation Committee. From: Olivia Seideman <oseideman@leadershipcounsel.org> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:34 PM To: City_Clerk <City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us> Cc: Emma De La Rosa <edelarosa@leadershipcounsel.org> Subject: Public Statement for Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click! Hello, Please accept the attached document as a public statement for the meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee of the Bakersfield City Council on Monday, March 22, 2021 at noon. Best, Olivia Seideman -- Olivia Seideman (she/her) Civic Engagement Coordinator Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability 2210 San Joaquin St, Fresno, CA 93721 oseideman@leadershipcounsel.org | leadershipcounsel.org 559.570.5607 ext. 119 (o) | 510.410.0151 (c) March 22nd, 2021 Sent via electronic mail City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us RE: General Public Comment Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City of Bakersfield Council Members, My name is Olivia Seideman and I work with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, a community-based organization that works alongside community leaders across rural California to advocate for sound policy, eradicate injustice,and secure equitable access to opportunity. In Bakersfield, we work with community leaders in the East and Southeast neighborhoods of the city. Today, I write to ask the Legislative and Litigation Committee of the Council to formally support Assembly Bill 339, a bill introduced to the California State Assembly by Asm. Alex Lee. At the last Bakersfield City Council meeting, on March 3rd,2021, Councilmember Arias nominated AB 339 to this committee for consideration for a formal resolution of support from the Bakersfield City Council. I ask that today, the Legislative and Litigation Committee take up that consideration and move forward the process for support for AB 339. AB 339 would provide greater public access to meetings of local agencies and the state legislature by promoting the use of telecommunications technology to allow remote participation and to increase language access for limited English proficient residents. Leadership Counsel is co-sponsoring AB 339 because of our own experiences advocating alongside communities at both the state and local level. We frequently see how physical, geographic, and linguistic barriers prevent constituents - especially those from rural areas, who have a disability, or who don't speak English - from engaging with their government, exacerbating existing marginalizations from the public participation process. Because this is a local government issue, we are seeking the support of local government agencies who we think engage the public well. We are grateful for Bakersfield City Council’s willingness to work with us on transparency in the public participation process, and are excited to continue this work going forward. This bill has received support from city council members in Sacramento and Fresno, and from a Supervisor in Tulare County. AB 339 is also co-sponsored by the ACLU of California and has received support from numerous community organizations, including Dolores Huerta Foundation, Faith in the Valley, Jakara Movement, and Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment in Bakersfield and Kern County. As such, we ask that the Committee act to introduce a resolution in support of AB 339, which would help make local government more transparent not only for your constituents in Bakersfield City, but also for Californians across the state. Leadership Counsel welcomes the opportunity to speak more to the Committee about AB 339 at the next meeting, or to answer any questions the Committee may have. In closing, I want to reiterate why AB 339 is such an important issue. Democracy functions best when everyone is allowed to participate, but there are unfortunately many limits to who can participate and how they are allowed to do so. AB 339 helps eliminate some of those limits, leading to a more fair and just democracy for all Californians, regardless of ability, language, or geography. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the Committee’s response regarding a resolution in support of AB 339. Olivia Seideman Civic Engagement Coordinator, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability oseideman@leadershipcounsel.org or (510) 410-0151 1 Michelle Cruz From:City_Clerk Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:16 AM To:Michelle Cruz Subject:FW: Referral on E-Bikes on the Kern River Parkway Multiuse Trail Comments for Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting. From: Asha Chandy <asha@bikebakersfield.org> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:18 PM To: City_Clerk <City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us> Subject: Referral on E‐Bikes on the Kern River Parkway Multiuse Trail Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click! The long-term vision of the parkway was partially funded to decrease traffic congestion by improving the conditions for on-bicycle commuting, while impacting the air quality around us. Why are we debating the safety of this clean and human-powered technology, when there are bigger threats (including cars and dirt bikes) that also use the parkway without recourse for clear and flagrant disregard for the pedestrians and cyclists the parkway was built for?   The argument of accident statistics does  not adequately represent the quality of the low stress bikeable network.     Disincentivizing electric bike users, who  we know cannot top out much faster than the speed of a road bike peloton, from using the only high-quality low-stress facilities that we have in Kern County, the Parkway, sets a dangerous precedent. This will require them to use the already crumbling road  network, where wide or clear enough bike lanes are few and far between, while not addressing the real threats that exist on the Parkway: drivers of cars and other motorized vehicles of greater than 750 watts that use that Parkway without recourse     There is a comparison between the rates  of injuries on electric scooters, electric bikes, and regular pedal bikes.  Reuter’s cites a study by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission that surveyed accidents between these 3 methods, and the rate of e-scooter accidents exceeded e-bikes. However, traditional pedal bikes exceeded both,     Also from reuters, the severity of injury 2  on e-scooter is much higher than electric bicycles     In the  European Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives Journal’s e-bike user survey found users are not only older in age, but also have more saddle time, more miles, and more diversity in their transportation trips  -- Thanks, Asha Chandy Programs Manager Bike Bakersfield Asha@BikeBakersfield.org 1 Michelle Cruz From:City_Clerk Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:16 AM To:Michelle Cruz Subject:FW: Comment :Ebike referral to committee Comments for Legislative and Litigation Committee. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Heinle <jeffheinle@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:32 PM To: City_Clerk <City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us> Subject: Comment :Ebike referral to committee Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click! City Clerk, I would like to make a few comments in regards to ebike referral in committee session today. Specifically in regards to individual investment, commuting, environmental concerns, safety. I hope I can have a few precious minutes of the committees time. Thank you for your time as well, Jeff Heinle City resident 661-599-0603 2 Sent from my iPhone 1 Michelle Cruz From:oneilpedal4@gmail.com Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:31 AM To:City_Council Subject:Ken Weir irt ebikes Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: oneilpedal4@gmail.com Date: March 21, 2021 at 3:03:12 PM PDT To: Richard O'Neil <oneilpedal4@gmail.com>, bill travis cooper <wtcooper47@aol.com>, lauren franconi <lsfranconi@yahoo.com> Subject: To: Leg and Lit Committee To: Leg and Lit Committee From: Kern River Parkway Foundation IRT: Class #1 and Class #2 EBikes (Aka motorized cycles) on the Kern River Parkway Class I Trail Dear Legislation and Litigation Committee Members; The Kern River Parkway Foundation is opposed to all motorized cycles and motor assisted bicycles (EBikes) on the Parkway paved Class I Bike Trail. However today we would like to offer the Citizens of Bakersfield and Kern County a compromise. This compromise we think will increase Recreation while still insuring greater safety for all users and protecting the natural environment of our Parkway. The reasons for the Foundations total opposition will be listed here in bullet point fashion but we can answer more fully as space and time allows. Call us for any further questions. 1. Enforcement Of Bike Path rules: bike speed and bicycle Class identification is difficult to enforce without proper strategies. Enforcement must improve. 2. Off‐Path intrusions; C1 and C2 allowance will potentially open @30 miles of Path to many destructive entries into the adjoining wildlife habitat. The Parkway is home to 4 Endangered Species and countless animals and small perennial plants/flowers. This also includes 8 Parks and a 2800 recharge basin. 3.Health and Safety; C1 and C2 EBikes will bring less capable younger and older riders who will be driving at higher average speeds and increasing risks for all users. The Bike Path is posted for a max speed of 15 mph. While there are a few young, fit bicyclists who can can and do surpass that limit now there will be hundreds more inexperienced riders going 15, 20,25,30,40 and faster. The greatest risks are on weekends when the crowds are thicker and children play near the Path as it goes through those 8 Parks. 4. Walkers and the disabled users of the Path are being pushed off by faster and more dense bicycle/EBike users. Elderly walkers, people with canes/walkers and women pushing baby strollers are feeling less safe on the Path. 2 Our Compromise we offer is very condensed today so it might need further discussion. In our compromise, the Kern River Parkway Foundation asks for the Municipal Code to be updated and clarified. We ask the wording in this Code specify only Class 1 and Class 2 EBikes only be allowed which are identifiable with 4 inch numbers, black numbers on white background . These identifying numbers 1 and 2 be clearly identifying from two directions from the bike. This will help with enforcement by police and citizen education/peer pressure. On weekends we propose reducing the speed limit to 10 mph between Beach Park to Riverwalk Park. This will assist safety for children who play at those 4 Parks Traffic Zone. Please place “Slow, children at play” signs along the Path at these locations. We recommend that the signs along the Path clarify and educate users by stating “only C1 and C2 EBikes with identifiable stickers are allowed on the Bike Path” We will also need signage along the Path that instruct Path users that it is “illegal to ride off path with any motor assisted cycles and bicycles”. Aka “ No Off‐Roading” Thank you for allowing the Parkway Foundation to address this Committee today. We look forward to answering any of your questions regarding this important issue. Rich O’Neil Vice President Kern River Parkway Foundation PO Box 1602 Bakersfield, Ca 93302 661‐706‐1096 Oneilpedal4@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone 1 Michelle Cruz From:oneilpedal4@gmail.com Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:32 AM To:City_Council Subject:Chris Parlier IRT EBikes Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: oneilpedal4@gmail.com Date: March 21, 2021 at 3:03:12 PM PDT To: Richard O'Neil <oneilpedal4@gmail.com>, bill travis cooper <wtcooper47@aol.com>, lauren franconi <lsfranconi@yahoo.com> Subject: To: Leg and Lit Committee To: Leg and Lit Committee From: Kern River Parkway Foundation IRT: Class #1 and Class #2 EBikes (Aka motorized cycles) on the Kern River Parkway Class I Trail Dear Legislation and Litigation Committee Members; The Kern River Parkway Foundation is opposed to all motorized cycles and motor assisted bicycles (EBikes) on the Parkway paved Class I Bike Trail. However today we would like to offer the Citizens of Bakersfield and Kern County a compromise. This compromise we think will increase Recreation while still insuring greater safety for all users and protecting the natural environment of our Parkway. The reasons for the Foundations total opposition will be listed here in bullet point fashion but we can answer more fully as space and time allows. Call us for any further questions. 1. Enforcement Of Bike Path rules: bike speed and bicycle Class identification is difficult to enforce without proper strategies. Enforcement must improve. 2. Off‐Path intrusions; C1 and C2 allowance will potentially open @30 miles of Path to many destructive entries into the adjoining wildlife habitat. The Parkway is home to 4 Endangered Species and countless animals and small perennial plants/flowers. This also includes 8 Parks and a 2800 recharge basin. 3.Health and Safety; C1 and C2 EBikes will bring less capable younger and older riders who will be driving at higher average speeds and increasing risks for all users. The Bike Path is posted for a max speed of 15 mph. While there are a few young, fit bicyclists who can can and do surpass that limit now there will be hundreds more inexperienced riders going 15, 20,25,30,40 and faster. The greatest risks are on weekends when the crowds are thicker and children play near the Path as it goes through those 8 Parks. 4. Walkers and the disabled users of the Path are being pushed off by faster and more dense bicycle/EBike users. Elderly walkers, people with canes/walkers and women pushing baby strollers are feeling less safe on the Path. 2 Our Compromise we offer is very condensed today so it might need further discussion. In our compromise, the Kern River Parkway Foundation asks for the Municipal Code to be updated and clarified. We ask the wording in this Code specify only Class 1 and Class 2 EBikes only be allowed which are identifiable with 4 inch numbers, black numbers on white background . These identifying numbers 1 and 2 be clearly identifying from two directions from the bike. This will help with enforcement by police and citizen education/peer pressure. On weekends we propose reducing the speed limit to 10 mph between Beach Park to Riverwalk Park. This will assist safety for children who play at those 4 Parks Traffic Zone. Please place “Slow, children at play” signs along the Path at these locations. We recommend that the signs along the Path clarify and educate users by stating “only C1 and C2 EBikes with identifiable stickers are allowed on the Bike Path” We will also need signage along the Path that instruct Path users that it is “illegal to ride off path with any motor assisted cycles and bicycles”. Aka “ No Off‐Roading” Thank you for allowing the Parkway Foundation to address this Committee today. We look forward to answering any of your questions regarding this important issue. Rich O’Neil Vice President Kern River Parkway Foundation PO Box 1602 Bakersfield, Ca 93302 661‐706‐1096 Oneilpedal4@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone Legislative and Litigation Committee March 22, 2021 REDISTRICTING WARD 1 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4 Viridiana Gallardo-King Deputy City Attorney Introduction •On February 17, 2021-Vice Mayor Weir referral re: ‒Redistricting ward boundary lines; ‒Review process and timeline for completion to Legislative and Litigation Committee Introduction •Today we will discuss: ‒Current redistricting laws ‒Criteria to use when adopting district boundaries ‒Process Redistricting Laws •Following each federal decennial census, a Council who uses district-based elections shall adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the City •Council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the U.S. Constitution •Purpose of redistricting is to accomplish equality in population Deviation Levels •Deviation from average population for each ward is acceptable if reasonably based upon certain criteria •Case law has established that: ‒A deviation of 0-5% is construed as very reasonable ‒A deviation up to 10% can occur without formal justification ‒A deviation of 10%-16.4% can occur only with formal justification based on established criteria ‒A deviation above 16.4% is intolerable Criteria for Adopting District Boundaries 1.Shall be geographically contiguous 2.Geographic integrity shall be respected in a manner that minimizes division 3.Should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents 4.Shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness Public Hearings •Council shall invite the public to at least four public hearings: 1.At least one hearing before the council draws a draft map of proposed boundaries 2.At least two hearings after council draws a draft map of proposed boundaries 3.At least one hearing or workshop shall be held on a: Saturday, Sunday or on a Weekday after 6:00pm Participation •Council shall do all of the following: ‒Provide info to media organizations, including minority communities ‒Provide live translations at hearing or workshop (Spanish, Filipino & Punjabi) ‒Publish draft maps at least 7 days before adoption (i.e. include certain stats) ‒Record/prepare written summaries of draft map comments; maintain website for 10 years Website Requirements 1.General explanation of redistricting process for City 2.Procedure to testify during public hearing or submit written testimony 3.Calendar of public hearing/workshop dates 4.Notice and agenda for each public hearing/workshop 5.Recording or written summary of each public hearing/workshop 6.Each draft map considered by council at public hearing 7.The adopted final map of council district boundaries Time for Adoption •No later than 205 days before the City’s next regular election: ‒No later than April 17, 2022 Questions E-Bikes on the Kern River Trail Legislative and Litigation Committee March 22, 2021 Ashley Zambrano, Deputy City Attorney Introduction •Chapter 10.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code governs permitted uses of the Kern River Trail •In 2016, Council Referral No. 715 by CM Smith requested analysis of new State law (AB 1096) governing electric bicycles (“e -bikes”) –CAO advised that AB 1096 authorized Class I and Class II e -bikes on the Kern River Trail, unless City amended its ordinance to prohibit them –City’s Code was not amended at that time to clarify types of permitted e - bikes Introduction •State law has continued to change significantly regarding types of bicycles and motorized/electric transportation •City Code does not address these State law changes, creating ambiguity regarding permitted and prohibited uses •Amendments to City Code are necessary to clarify the permitted uses of the Kern River Trail Presentation Outline •Current Bakersfield Municipal Code regulations •Current State law –E-bikes –Motorized Scooters –Electrically Motorized Boards •Options for amending/clarifying the City’s Code Current Code re: Kern River Trail •The Kern River Trail is classified as a Class I multi -use bike path designed for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians •Authorized uses: –Riding bicycles, and other non-motorized modes of transportation, such as walking, jogging, or skating (BMC, §10.80.020.) •Prohibited uses: –Motorized vehicles, motorized cycles, and motorized off-road vehicles (BMC, § 10.80.030.) –Riding or operating skateboards, scooters, “or other similar nonmotorized equipment” (BMC, §10.80.050(A).) State Law –E-Bikes •Assembly Bill 1096, effective January 1, 2016, created a new definition of “electric bicycle” in the California Vehicle Code –“Electric bicycle” is now defined as “a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.” (CVC §312.5) –Created 3 Different Classes of E-Bikes •Made e-bikes subject to all the same regulations as regular bicycles •Permitted to be used on bike paths in the same manner, subject to certain exceptions and local regulations State Law –E-Bikes •E-bikes are regulated in State law as follows: –Class I and Class II e-bikes are permitted on bicycle paths and trails, equestrian trails, and hiking or recreational trails unless specifically prohibited by ordinance (See CVC §21207.5(b).) –Class III e-bikes are prohibited on bicycle paths and trails, bikeways, bicycle lanes, equestrian trails, and hiking or recreational trails, unless they are within or adjacent to a roadway or they are specifically allowed by ordinance (See CVC §21207.5(a).) State Law –E-Bikes •THREE CLASSES OF E-BIKES: –CLASS I: Equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance once the bike has reached 20 mph. –CLASS II: Equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance once the bike has reached 20 mph. –CLASS III: Equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance once the bike has reached 28 mph. State Law –Motorized Scooters •Defined in State law as “any two-wheeled device that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is designed to be stood upon when riding, and is powered by an electric motor.” (CVC, §407.5(a).) •Motorized Scooters “may be operated on a bicycle path or trail or bikeway, unless the local authority … prohibits that operation by ordinance.” (CVC, §21230) *The Bakersfield Municipal Code currently prohibits “scooters” on the Kern River Trail, but refers to scooters in relation to “other similar nonmotorized equipment” and therefore should be clarified State Law –Electrically Motorized Boards •Defined in State law as “any wheeled device that has a floorboard designed to be stood upon when riding,” subject to size, power, and speed requirements. (CVC, §313.5.) •State law prohibits operation of electrically motorized boards on highways, bikeways, bike paths, sidewalks and trails without a properly fitted helmet → Implies they are allowed with a helmet •Subject to speed limit of 15 mph *The Bakersfield Municipal Code currently prohibits “skateboards” on the Kern River Trail, but refers to skateboards in relation to “other similar nonmotorized equipment” and therefore should be clarified Additional Considerations •E-bike and E-scooter “share” programs being introduced in the City –Bird scooters –currently operating in the City, but prohibited on the Kern River Trail via geo-fencing (coordinated through vendor company) –E-bike share program going to Council for consideration on April 21, 2021 •Enforcement –Difficult to easily ascertain different classes of e-bikes –Possible solution: use signage and a speed limit that applies to all uses equally (i.e., enforce speed, not type of use) •Signage Options for Code Amendments •Option 1: –Amend the Code to clearly allow all e-bikes and other motorized uses (expressly naming Class I/II/III e-bikes, motorized scooters, boards, etc.) •Option 2: –Amend the Code to clearly prohibit all e-bikes and other motorized uses (expressly naming Class I/II/III e-bikes, motorized scooters, boards, etc.) •Option 3: –Amend the Code to allow only specific motorized uses, for example only Class I e-bikes and motorized scooters, expressly prohibiting all others Next Steps •Based on Committee direction, staff will prepare proposed ordinance(s) and return to Leg. & Lit. Committee for review –CAO recommends that amendments occur to clarify language, regardless of policy decision regarding particular uses •Eventually, take proposed final ordinance to City Council •Once effective, implement appropriate signage Questions