Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1999 BAKERSFIELD Randy Rowles, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, December 6, 1999 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 8 AND NOVEMBER 22, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORTS 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Metro Bakersfield freeway status report 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding allowing churches in a Commercial zone B. Review and Committee recommendation regarding regulation of leaf. blowers C. Review and Committee recommendation regarding parking of vehicles for purposes of sale and parking vehicles on unpaved surfaces D. Set meeting dates for 2000 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT jSv~;°:I"jI~\U rba n Dev ~9dec06agen'wpd [~ ~[~ ~ DRAFT BAKERSFIELD ~~"~ ~ Randy Rowles, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, November 8, 1999 1:15.p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 1:15 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, acting chair; and David Couch Absent: Councilmember Randy Rowles, Chair 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Bakersfield freeway status report Jack LaRochelle gave a brief update on the status of freeway projects and distributed an informational report. He indicated that the tier I environmental document for route 58 was being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration. m AFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ~' "- '''~'- AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 8, 1999 Page -2- B. Staff report regarding Charrette Process Jack Hardisty gave an update on research into the cost of conducting a Charette process. He indicated that a professional facilitator could Potentially cost $25,000 plus incidental expenses. He said there may be some funding available from the Great Valley Center, since they have an interest in promoting such community planning efforts. Jack also indicated that there was interest expressed by the local chapters of the American Institute of Architects and the American Planning Association to assist with a charrette process. The representative from the BIA expressed some concerns regarding using the Great Valley Center since they have taken an advocacy role in certain statewideplanning issues. They were more agreeable if the focus of the charrette process was local needs. CouncilmemberCouch clarified that the focus should be on the downtown area. Staff will continue to gather additional information, make contact with the Great Valley Center and report back to the Committee. C. Report and possible committee recommendation on regulation of manufactured homes and impacts of potential ordinance chang.es Jack Hardisty provided a chart showing the numbers of Mobile Homes installed annually in order to show the potential impact if a proposed change to the city ordinance were approved which would not allow a permit for homes older than 10 years. Staffwill prepare a draft ordinance and meet with the Bakersfield Board of Realtors to get their input then bring this item back to the committee for further action. D. Discussion and possible committee recommendationregarding possible incentives to encourage planting of trees in the downtown area and proposal submitted by Kern Tree Foundation John Stinson explained that staff had met with representatives from the Tree Foundation, and the Downtown Business and Property Owners Association (DBA) to discuss the proposal submitted by the Tree Foundation to plant more trees in the downtown. Staff explained that they reviewed with both groups the City's current plans to expand the streetscape beyond Chester Avenue with funds currently budgeted and additional grant funds which were recently applied for. Staff also explained some of the difficulties in planting .trees in the downtown including issues of property ownership, locating utilities, having to cut sidewalks, providing irrigation, and conformance with the Council adopted Master Street Tree Plan. Based upon discussion between staff and the two groups it was suggested that the Tree Foundation could more effectively focus their tree planting efforts in areas adjacent to downtown where there were existing grass strips between the sidewalk and street (parkways). This would eliminate the need for concrete cutting, tree grates, and irrigation and could be done with the consent of the property owner to provide maintenance. Also the size of trees proposed to be planted by the Tree Foundation would be more acceptable to the City in these areas. The Tree Foundation was supportive of this approach and indicated that they would coordinate their tree planting efforts with city staff including following the types of trees specified in the Master Street Tree Plan to provide DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 8, 1999 Page -3- consistency in the downtown. The DBA indicated that they would continue to work with the City in the formation of maintenance districts in the downtown to provide for the maintenance of the expanded streetscape areas funded by the City or though grants. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Councilmember Couch asked if there was any possibility of getting PG&E to do some landscaping of their facility at Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road. Staff indicated they would contact PG&E and see what could be done. 8. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 3:10 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen,. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Public Works Engineering Services Manager Jack LaRochelle, Public Works Parks and Landscape Designer Don Hoggatt, Economic Development-Developmeht Associate Donna Barnes, Assistant Recreation and Parks Director Allen Abe, and Parks Supervisor Ed Lazaroti. Public: Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Renee Nelson; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; Dana Nelson, Tree Foundation; Rick Hewett, Tree Foundation; Graham Kay Eddie; Linda Robinson, Tree Foundation; Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Board of Realtors. s:John\UrbanDev\UD99Nov08summary.wpd flANDOWI~ NOVEMBER 8'1'B MEETING November 8, 1999 STATUS OF FREEWAY AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA Public Works Department Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager Kern River Freeway (S.R. 58 Adoption Study) Little has changed for this project in some time. The Tier 1 Environmental Document is currently being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). Once the review is complete, those comments will be submitted to CalTrans who will incorporate them into the document. Preliminary work is also continuing on fight of way and design. It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately I to 3 years. Construction Should take approximately 2 years to complete. S.R. 58 Southern Alternative {Crosstown Freeway) NO new information is available at this time. We are still awaiting a follow-up meeting with CalTrans to scope the project. South Beitway Early in 1999, the preferred alignment was presented to the Planning Commission. After much discussion, the Planning Commission was uncomfortable in supporting Staff's recommendation due to the routes proximity to existing neighborhoods. Staff was directed to consider an alternate route located approximately I mile south of Taft Highway (State Route 119). A draft environmental document of the new alignment was recently submitted to the City for review and will be presented to the Planning Commission as an update item November 18, 1999. State Route 178 ~ Fairfax Road The Project. Study Rep,,rt (PSR) waq competed in 1997. It was our hot~e that KernCOG would fund the necessary Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA&ED) and subsequently fund its construction. Several requests have been made to KernCOG to move forward with the project, however, KemCOG has been reluctant to advance the project. Staff is proposing that the City move ahead with the necessary environmental work as well as purchase of the necessary right of way with the use of funds from the Traffic Impact Fee program. State Route 99 ~, White Lane The PSR is nearly complete to widen the existing bridge from four to six lanes. CalTrans is currently reviewing the final document. Once this is complete, the environmental work can begin. The currently schedule is to complete the Environmental work this fiscal year, complete the Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) in the 2000/2001 fiscal year followed by construction the following year. State Route 178 ~,, Commanche Drive/Alfred I-larrell Hwy All funding is now in place and staff is currently working on the design. Right ofway acquisition is nearly complete. The project is scheduled to be under construction in the spring of 2000. Hageman Flyover Staff has begun the PSR process necessary for CalTrans approval. Aerial topography is complete. We are scheduling meetings with CatTrans to formally begin the process with that agency. IL~/~DOUT - NOVEMBER 8TH MEETING MEMORANDUM November 4, 1999 TO: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director FROM: Dennis Fidler, Building Direc(or~ SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME INSTALLATIONS (1994-1999) The following numbers for Mobile Homes may actually be a little high. It is difficult to determine between new mobile home installations or seismic retrofits. Residential Mobile Homes 1994 1435 7 1995 1567 5 1996 1335 4 1997 1436 4 1998 1599 4 1999 1482 (up to Sept. 30) 13 (1/2 of these were in Casa Loma area annexation). DF:beb DRAFT BAKERSFIELD ~ (v~ ~~ Randy Rowles, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, November 22, 1999 4:30 p.m. City Manager's Conference-Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:42 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; Mike'Maggard and David Couch 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 3. NEw BUSINESS A. Request from the Downtown Business and Property Owners Association's Vision Committee to meet with the Urban Development Committee a. Presentation and discussion regarding Downtown Vision effort Ray Watson, Chairman of the Downtown Business and Property Owners Association gave a brief overview of their efforts and distributed a draft copy of the Vision Committee planning report. He indicated the Vision Committee was interested in working with the City to improve the downtown, and was supportive of city efforts in that regard. Herman Ruddell the Chairman of the Vision Committee gave an overview of their report and discussed items DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 22, 1999 Page -2- included in the report such as transportation planning, possible formation of a Parking Authority and other issues. There was discussion by Councilmembers and staff regarding various downtown planning issues. Councilmember Couch asked if staff could identify properties in the 'downtown that were too costly to relocate. The Urban Development 'Committee thanked the Vision Committee for the report and indicated that they and staff would review it and that the Committee would schedule time after the first of the year of about a half-hour each meeting to review the topics identified in the plan in more detail. The Committee also asked that the DBA prioritize the list of topics and provide them to staff in order to schedule them for upcoming meetings. b, Discussion regarding High Speed Rail resolutions and Mag-Lev video presentation There was no discussion or presentation made. c, Committee comments and/or possible recommendations None. 4. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 6:15 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Economic Development Director Jake Wager; Planning Director Stanley Grady; and Public Works Engineering Services Manager Jack LaRochelle. Ray Watson, Chair, Downtown Business and Property Owners; Cathy Butler, President, DoWntown Business and Property Owners; Herman Ruddell, Co-Director of the Downtown Business and Property Owners and Chair of the Vision Committee, and Michael Green, reporter, The Bakersfield Califomian. s:John\UrbanDev\UD99Nov22summary.wpd -DRAFT- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHURCHES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-O (pROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE) ZONE OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield initiated a proposal to amend Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; specifically, inserting church as subsection A.6. to Section 17.20.020 (and renumbering the following uses of the section 7-34) and rescinding subsection B.7. (and renumbering items 8-33 to 7-32) of Title 17 of the Bakersfield. Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission through its Secretary set Thursday, __ at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said Commission on said.ordinance, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner prescribed in the Municipal Code and the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.~ recommending approval of the proposed ordinance amendments and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council through its City Clerk set Wednesday, __ at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place to consider said ordinance; and WHEREAS, the ordinance was found to be exempt from the .provisions of CEQA and the law and regulations as set forth in CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and this Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at said public meeting, considered the ordinance, all relevant facts, and public testimony, and the Council adopted the findings made by the Planning Commission as contained in the Commission's Resolution. JE: P:~Church in C-O ordinance.wpd 1 OeC~ 3, 1999 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection A.6. is hereby added to Section 17.20.020 to read as follows with ° the previous items numbered 6-33 to be renumbered to 7-34: A.6. Church. SECTION 2. Subsection B.7. is hereby rescinded with the previous items numbered 8-33 to be renumbered to 7-32. SECTION 3. 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. .......... 000 .......... JE: P:~Church in C-O ordinance.wpd I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBER CARSON, COUCH, DEMOND, MAGGARD, ROWLES, SALVAGGIO SULLIVAN NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ' ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY By:. JE: P:~Church in C-O ordinance.wpd ovuument ~etneval h~p:#www.legin~.ca.gov/cgi-bi~...02225089+0+0+0& WAISaction=re~ieve BILL NUMBER: SCR 19 CHAPTERED 05/21/99 RESOLUTION CHAPTER 35 FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE MAY 21, 1999 ADOPTED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 17, 1999 ADOPTED IN SENATE APRIL 19, 1999 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 1999 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 5, 1999 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 18, 1999 INTRODUCED BY Senator Burton FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 19--Re!ative to leaf blowers. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SCR 19, Burton. Leaf blowers. This measure would memorialize the State Air Resources Board, on or before January 1, 2000, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as provided, summarizing the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers and including recommendations for alternatives to their use. The measure would also request each governing body of a city, including a charter city, or county to refrain from enacting any new ordinance that prohibits the use of l~af blowers until the state board submits that report to the Legislature. WHEREAS, Questions and concerns have been raised about the potential environmental impacts and health hazards associated with the operation of leaf blowers; and WHEREAS, The potential impacts from exhaust, noise, and blown dust affect both the operators of leaf blowers and the public at large; and WHEREAS, There is no comprehensive review available of existing studies of the impacts of leaf blowers on leaf blower operators and on the public at large, or of the availability and actual use of protective equipment for leaf blowers; and WHEREAS, A comprehensive review would aid in answering these concerns about the use of leaf blowers and clarify the public debate; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature hereby requests that the State Air Resources Board, on or before January 1, 2000', use data and information in existence at that time to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature summarizing the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers and including recommendations for alternatives to the use of leaf blowers and alternative leaf blower technology if the state board determines that alternatives are necessary; and be it further · Resolved, That the Legislature hereby requests each governing body of a city, including a charter city, or county to refrain from enacting any new ordinance that prohibits the use of leaf blowers until the State Air Resources Board submits' its report to the Legislature, as requested above; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the Executive Officer of the State Air Resources Board. I of 2 12/2/99 8:49 AN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-95 SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS For several months, the Legislative and Litigation Committee has been gathering information from other cities, residents, and staff on the effects of gas-powered leaf blowers. Committee members have discussed the.issue with those who support a ban as well as those who Support continued leaf-blower use. The Committee feels there are legitimate concerns regarding the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, some of which are noise and irritants in the immediate areas where they are being used. Opponents of the leaf blowers have not cited City Parks staff as negligent. Gas-powered leaf blowers are used by most of the City's more than 400 licensed gardeners. Parks staff have suggested use of an educational program f°r licensed gardeners and affected businesses to assist' in eliminating noise and dust problems associated with the blowers. The Committee supports the use of the educational format as proposed by Parks staff which includes that business licensees LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-95 September 13, 1995 PAGE -2- be notified and that educational information be made available to local gardening businesses for distribution to their leaf- blower customers. The Committee also feels that citizens should be asked to be responsible consumers as well as responsible business people. Those who use gas-powered leaf blowers, either through gardening services or for their own use, are encouraged to be considerate of others nearby who may be affected by the noise and dust. Therefore, the Legislative and Litigation Committee recommends the City Council accept this report and take action as deemed appropriate. Respectfully submitted, C~hair C~ember Irma Carson Council:tm embef'Jacquie Sullivan- MEMORAND'OM TO: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST~.. FROM: FRANK FABBRI, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT ~.~ SUBJECT: GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS (BROCHURE-FLYERS) DATE: JULY 3, 1995 At the last Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting, on May 11, 1995, the leaf blower issue was addressed. Discussion centered around restricting their use to a total ban. The Committee felt enforcement would be difficult and an education process would be more practical. They requested input on a procedure to educate the gardeners and public. Staff is recommending the following: Develop an informational brochure outlining the ways to minimize complaints from the use of blowers. These brochures could be made available to commercial gardeners, landscape contractors, homeowners and others involved in landscape maintenance through one or more of the following channels: * Issuance or renewal of business licenses * Local Gardeners Association * Local members of the California Landscape Contractors Association * Retail suppliers of blowers * Media * Other Public Agencies involved in landscape maintenance Information contained in the brochure would include the following: ** Power blowers are useful, versatile, and time saving machines - but improperly used, they can also cause noise and mess that annoy your customers, their neighbors and the public. Below are recommended rules that, point out "smart" ways to use power blowers in an effort to keep your customers and community supportive of blowers. 1. Operate blowers only at reasonable hours - not early in the morning or late at night when people might be disturbed. Recommended hours of operation would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2.' Be aware of the surroundings. Use common sense when directing the discharge nozzle towards people and private property. GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS--JUNE 29, 1995 2. Operate power blowers at the lowest possible throttle speed to do the job. Full throttle is not always necessary. Try running it at half or three-quarter throttle. 3. Watch out for pedestrians, children, pets, open windows or freshly washed cars; blow debris safely away. 4. Use the blower nozzle extension so the air stream can work close to the ground, minimizing complaints. 5. Do not blow debris into the street or onto property of others. 6. Be polite and promptly clean up debris. Attached is the above information on the Park Division's letterhead. Other alternatives would be to place the information on the Mayor's or the Community Services Department's letterhead. Parks staff has held meetings with the Park Maintainers to make them aware of the Citizens concerns and to also instructed them on the recommended usage for power blowers. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney Allen Abe, Assistant Parks Superintendent July 1 995 DON'T LOSE YOUR PRIVILEGE Power blowers are useful, versatile, and time saving machines - but improperly used they can also cause noise and dust that annoy your customers, their neighbors and the general public. Some cities in California and other cities throughout the country have placed bans or restrictions on the use of power blowers. Below are recommended rules that point out 'smart' ways to use power blowers in an effort to keep your customers and community supportive of blowers. 1. Operate blowers only at reasonable hours - not early in the morning or late at night when people might be disturbed. Recommended hours of operation would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2. Be aware of the surroundings. Use common sense when directing the discharge nozzle towards people and private property. 3. Operate power blowers at the lowest possible throttle speed to do the job. Full throttle is not always necessary. Try running it at half or three-quarter thr.ottle. 4. Watch out for pedestrians, children, pets, open windows or freshly washed cars; blow debris safely away. 5. Use the blower nozzle.extension so the air stream can work close to the ground minimizing complaints. 6. Do not blow debris into the street or onto property of others. 7. Be polite and promperly clean up debris: THANK YOU, FRANK FABBRI Parks Superintendent ;101 TRUXTUN AVENUE .3AKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 (805) 326-3117 MEMORANDUM May 31, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: JUDY.K. SKOUSEN, City Attorney ', SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT OF THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO LEAF BLOWERS I was asked to clarify what is enforceable under the existing nuisance ordinance for the Legislative and Litigation Committee. This request is made in relation to the question of addressing residents' complaints regarding leaf blowers. Section 9.22.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code states as follows: 9.22.010 Noise generally. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or allow to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to persons residing within one thousand feet of the noise source. B. The standards which may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The level of the noise; 2. The level and intensity of any background noise; 3. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; 4. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise occurs; 5. The density of habitation of the area within which the noise occurs; 6. The time of the day or night the noise occurs; 7. The duration of the noise; 8. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. THIS MEMORANDLrM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEX-CLIENT AND ATTORNEX WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE Memo to Mayor and Councilmembers Re: .Enforcement of Nuisance Ordinance -Leaf Blowers May 31, 1995 Page 2 It may be argued that leaf-blowing does not fall within the definition of "unnecessary'. noise. Such an argument might be that leaf blowing, similar to lawn mowingi is loud but a necessary part of suburban life. ' Additionally, enforcement of this ordina . officer of the e ~ ............. nce requires an .... nf~.~ ~=nuy 50 De able to personally hear and evaluate the level, extent, duration, character e The police denartme-- ~- -~ ..... 5 tc. of the noise. ~ "~ ~o ~= ~n~orc~ng agency ~or this ordinance. The problem with enforcement against operators of leaf blowers is similar to that of enforcing the ordinance prohibiting barking dogs. Complaints must first be called in to the police department which, appropriately, does not consider such complaints a high priority. Response to such a call would typically be hours after the call was made, when the noise presumably would no longer be a problem. At that point, the officer has no means of determining the extent of the problem, or whether the noise fits the description set forth in the ordinance. Enforcement of the existing ordinance, therefore, is not an efficient means of addressing a noise problem related to leaf blowers. JKS/meg 1KSICO~gs.i/LFA~oiS.M~ cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst Laura C. Marino, Assistant' City Attorney THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED B~ THE ATTORNEX-CLIENT AND ATTORNE~ WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE WRIT OF MANDATE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN J.M. Rademacher R.M. Scheloski J.F. Licastro Petitioners V ,Respondent ( s ) Code Enforcement Agency ( s ) City of Bakersfield, California PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1. Petitioners, J.M. Rademacher, R.M. Scheloski, J.F. Licastro, et al, are individuals as United States Citizens, residents of the City of Bakersfield, California, U.S.A. 2. Respondent(s), are those Officials of the City of Bakersfield, Califor- nia, considered' to be responsible for enforcement of City Municipal Codes; namely, that Agency known as CODE ENFORCEMENT. 3. For the City of Bakersfield, CODE ENFORCEMENT is .considered to be the responsibility of and at the direction of Mr. D. Fidler, within the Building Department. WRIT OF MANDATE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY .OF KERN · 4. Petitioners seek a Writ of andate to enjoin the City Bakersfield, CODE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; to respond to calls '/...'":'..'.. from Neighborhood Watch Groups, and City Residents to :. violations that are constant, recurring, at all hours, .. week ends, that disrupt the quality of neighborhood life. To Wit: Violations of Municipal Code, Title 9, NOISE: specifically defined to limit residential noise to a .~' threshold of 50 Decibels, with an established gone of Abatement of 1,000 feet surrounding a given residence. ' Such Code as duly enacted, and included within the volume.· .... ." of documents of the Municipal Codes for the City of Bakersfield, California. Petitioners believe it a travesty· /.." that Residents must bear the onus to petition this Court''!~ :%:'~''-' for proper and vigorous enforcement of a Municipal..Code i~.." .~("-'. which should have been resolved as a Code Enforcement Duty prior to Citizens involvement. 5. Petitioners believe that Municipal Code, .Title-9 was en-. acted to provide peace and quiet quality of living within residential neighborhoods; and that apathy and indifference not be selectively applied. WRIT OF MANDATE i SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~':~"'" COUNTY OF KERN 6. Petitioners believe that we have exhausted all previous means available to seek mitigation, or relief, and in ..:..~. fact request that Municipal Code Title 9, Noise, be abided by the City Enforcement Agency(s), and that all ..'?:.':~ .i'"i. duly enacted Municigal Codes would be enforced and/or ':'~' .' mitigated in a vigorous manner. 7. The facts are that residential areas are now constantly bombarded with noise from aircraft,animals, autos, stereos, and the industrialization of residential neighborhoods by yard operators who are indifferent, some arrogant and disr~pectful of Municipal Codes. Homeowners(Employers) who may bear responsibility to comply with Title 9, are' reluctant to even consider complying until there is some mitigation, or discretionary direction from Code Enforce'' ment. Some yard equipment, "Blowers" operate and emiit noise levels of 90 Decibels plus, with two in operation- at a single small residence, or six operating. within a square block. WRIT OF MANDATE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA .... }(:'... :. COUNTY OF KERN ~ '" " 8. In 1994, Petitioners original opposition was based upon Nuisance, Noise, Rule 4102 per San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District, and Public Health Issues of Asthma, Allergies, Valley Fever, and our deteriorating air quality as to particulates, etc. ". a.~A signed petition was submitted to City council, 'thr~ Mayor; preliminary hearings with Council Members, and City Attorney; our petition was bypassed without due'' discussion, and "Do Nothing" Report was issued. b. Followed meetings with 7th Ward councilman and Bakers- field Police Dept. "cannot enforce Title 9 since City Attorney would not support enforcement. c. Appointment with Code Enforcement Agency(17th/Chester) "Title 9 would not be enforced". d. Followed discussions with City Attorney( B. Thiltgen . REFER EXHIBIT A CONSISTING OF 17 SEPARATE, DATED DOCU- .- MENT~, AS ADDENDUM. ~' 9. Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandate since Respondents have failed to perform Duties as defined in CLASS SPECIFICATION 727, "CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" PER EXHIBIT A. WRIT OF MANDATE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 10. Petitioners present to the Court: PERTINENT CASES: a. LePa~e v Oakland(1970) 13CA 3d 689 re: Police Officer claim against City to perform duties described by City Charter; MANDAMUS PAR 27, proper remedy to compel Council/Civil Board to perform duties. b. Johnson v Contra Costra Fire Distr.(1972) 23CA 3d 868 re: Fireman petitions Distr. for disable pay; ~ANDAMUS PAR 2Q proper remedy to enforce duties of Public Officers resulting from an Office that law specifically states.' c. Hartsook v Merritt(1928) CA 431 271P 381; re: while~ · ~ANDAMUS does not lie to compel a Public Official to exercise discretion in any particular manner; a clear refusal of duties is a clear and proper remedy for MANDAMUS. d. McA1pine v Baum~artner(1937) 10 C2d 409; re: compel City Council to appFopriate funds as required by Sect. 506 of Los Angeles City Charter.. MANDAMUS proper. e. Calif. Teachers Assoc. v Ingwerson(1996) 46 CAL App4th ~60; MANDAMU~ proper to require Public Officer to perform duties; City Clerk refused to certify petition. WRIT OF MANDATE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN -'.:.. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray: 1. That the Court issue a Peremptory Writ in the first instance commanding .TRespondent(s)% to~·: IN FACT, RESPOND, AND NOT REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE REQUESTS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS OR CITY RESIDENTS WITH COMPLAINTS OF CONSTANT AND EXCESSIVE NOISE GENERATED SURROUNDING ONES RESIDENCE, AND HOPEFULLY BY MEANINGFUL DISCRETION, MITIGATE, OR RESOLVE THE ENFORCEMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 9, WHICH IS SIMPLY, SPECIFICALLY, AND SUCCINCTLY DEFINED AS A ZONE OF ABATemENT OF 1,000 feet, AND A THRESHOLD NOISE LEVEL OF 50 DECIBELS, WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. FURTHER, THAT CITY OFFICIALS, DULY ~.RCTED, AND THOSE APPOINTED, PER THE ORGANIZATION CHART FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFI~.D, PER ITEM 1., OF EXHIBIT A: WHICH MAY BE THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAC~R OFFICES, CITY ATIORNEY OFFICES, BAKERSFI~.D POLICE DEPARTMENT; SHALL VIGOROUSLY SUPPORT THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO IMPLF~ENT, AND CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THIS WRIT OF MANDATE. Dated Attorney We, J.M. Rademacher, R.M. Scheloski, J.F. Licastro, are 'Petitioners in this] Petitioners in this proceeding, have read the foregoing; the facts are true and within our personal knowledge. J.M. Rademacher ' R.M. Scheloski J.F. Licastro .. Signatures ADDRESS WRIT OF MANDATE SUPERIOR ~ OF C~T.T~C~NIA O~TY OF KE~.q EX~TRIT A , consisting of 17 Documents, as follows: 1. Organization Chart, City of Bakersfield, California 2. Class Spec. 727; Duties Chief Code Enforcement Officer 3. Copy of Municipal Code, Title, Noise 4. Petition to Mayor/City Council(Jan., 1994) 5. Nuisance Rule, 4102, S.J.V.Air Pollution District 6. Letter to Hearing Co~.(Apr. 13, 1995) 7. Letter to Hearing Comm. /Mayor/City Mgr. (Apr. 13, 1995) 8. Letter to Council Members (Jul. 13, 1995) 9. Letter to Bakersfield Police Dept. (Nov., 1997) 10. " " " (Sgt. P. Clarke, Jan. 29, 1998) 11. " " Councilman Salvaggio(Feb. 17, 1998) 12. " " " and City Atty.(Skousen)(Apr. 17, 1998) 13. " " Code Enforcement(D&R Fidler, Jun., ' 23, 1998) 14, 15, 16, 17. Letters to City Attorney(B. Thiltgen): Jan. 18, Mar. 15, Apr. 19, Jun. 30; all in the year of 1999. Dated . Petitioners: J.M. Rademacher R.M. Scheloski ~ . J.F. Licastro · Signatures / :'~:'' e,~ ','~ :':',~.:: .'. ~' .'~.' ',." ' City of Bal ersfield FY 1999-2000 Organizational Chart CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CLASS SPECIFICATION: 727 UNIT: GENERAL SUPERVISORY EE04: PROFESSIONALS CLASS TITLE: ,:CHIEF CODE ENFORCE~ O~~ CLASS SUMMARY: Under general direction of the Assistant Building Director, as a code enforcement officer wearing a badge, performs work as a first-line supervisor requiring specialized skills to secure compliance with zoning regulations and the Municipal Building Codes (including the Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and Property. Maintenance Codes). Work involves supervision and training of subordinates; establishing rapport with other agencies, City departments, etc.; assisting in the development of policies and procedures; and recommending revisions to ordinances and codes. Employees in this class intervene in the more difficult and complex conservation issues and exercise discretionary authority to bring matters to resolution. Incumbents have citation authority as well. Performs other work as required. REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES: The following typical tasks and responsibilities are representative of all positions in the class. They ' are descriptive, not limiting. Essential Duties: As a code enforcement officer wearing a badge, supervises the Code Enforcement Section; schedules and assigns conservation cases to code enforcement staff; supervises the investigation of complaints, preparation and processing of appropriate corrective orders and acts to gain compliance to zoning, housing and Municipal Code violations; ensures that all cases are completed with prol~r documentation and follow-up; evaluates employee performance and administers progressive · discipline; assists in the development and presentation of training programs; recommends revisions to ordinances and codes; assists in the development of policies and procedures; analyzes complex conservation problems and recommends effective solutions; interacts with the public in potentially volatile situations; resolves disputes regarding conservation matters in a tactful and productive manner; assists in the preparation and administration of the division budget; and utilizes a personal or mainframe computer. ·DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: The Chief Code Enforcement Officer is differentiated from Code Enforcement Officer II in that the prior supervises code enforcement staff including Code Enforcement Officer II, intervenes in the more difficult and complex cases, exercises discretionary authority to resolve issues and assists in developing policies, procedures and training. Chief Code Enforcement Officers must be skilled at working with people to solve problems. QUALIFICATIONS GUIDE: Knowledge of:. public administration principles and methods including goal setting, policy and procedure development and implementation; employee supervision including work scheduling, selection, training, evaluation and discipline; budget development and administration; Uniform Housing Code, Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and Bakersfield Municipal Code pertaining to code enforcement; State Health and Safety Codes; laws and ordinances regulating building construction and zoning; legal documents and affidavits, police reports, inspection and abatement warrants and dangerous building orders; legal and courtroom procedures; right-of-entry; due process;· collection and analyses of evidence; equipment and procedures used to research ownership of properties being investigated; state and local enactments governing building construction, use and occupancy; peysonai computer applications related to work. CLASS TITLE: CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT oFFICER ·. Ability to'.. supervise the Code Enforcement Section; plan, organize, coordinate, supervise, assign, ... review and evaluate work; train code enforcement staff; analyze complex conservation problems and "" recommend effective solutions; intervene in the more difficult and complex conservation ca~es; a~sist . .'.~-: of division budget; interpret regulations with firmness, tact and impartiality; recognize a dangerotm .... situation and react accordingly; handle volatile conservation issues with a potentially irate public in a tactful manner and reach equitable solutions; deal with confrontational situations; establish and maintain effective working relationships with contractors, architects, property owners, other agencies, public calling in complaints and people believed to be in violation of various codes; properly document conservation cases; conduct meetings including preparing and presenting appropriate information; present evidence in legal proceedings. Training and Experience: Graduation from an accredited high school or G.E.D., successful completion of an acceptable course in building codes AND six years of experience in code enforcement, building construction (electrical, plumbing, carpentry or mechanical) at the journey-level, inspection, architecture, design, plan permitting or related field, including at least two years as a Building Inspector II, Building Inspector III or a Code Enforcement Officer II ~ at least one year experience supervising conservation staff. College coursework in Architecture, Engineering or related field may substitute for the general experience on a year-for-year basis to a ma:dmum of two (2) years. Licenses, Certificates and Special Requirements_'. Possession of a valid California Class "C" Driver's License. (Employees will be required to operate City vehicles on a daily basis.) An approved code enforcement seminar may be required within the first year of emPloyment. In addition, incumbents may be required to successfully complete training in Police procedure including issuance of citations, attend a Police Academy and pass a psychological examination. Physical Conditions or Special Working Conditions: Incumbents will be required to make on-site inspectiuns and investigations in tl~e field. This position emphasizes communication skills as contacts may involve volatile situations. Approved by the Miscellaneous Civil Service Board: November 15, 1994 Approved by the City Council: December 14, 1994 C:\WP5 I'~)OCS\CLASS IF~CHFCEO 9.22.010 (, ~i~~' 9.22 i.' engineer has directed that work be performed between · such hours to alleviate potential traffic congestion. NOISE B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this :';':"" ;:'"" ":::" ':'"' chapter, if the city 'manager determines that the public Sections: health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, 9.22.010 Noise generally, demolition, alteration or repair of any bfilding or the 9.22.020 Noise during construction, excavating and grading of land, streets or highways 9.22.030 Assessment of service fee. between the hours of nine p.m. and six a.m., and if he further determines that loss or inconveuicnce would result ~.9.22.0i0.' Noise genernlly, to any party in interest by virtue of the requirements · A. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully provided in subsection A, he may grant a permit for such make or continue, or allow to be made or continued, any work to be done between the hours of nine p.m. and six loud, unnecessary noise which disturbs the peace or quiet a.m., upon application being*made at the time the permit of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or for the work is awarded or during the progress of the annoyance to persons resi.ding within one thousand feet work. Such permit may be granted for a .period not to of the noise source, exceed three days, and may be extended by the city' B. The standards which may be considered in deter- manager for a period not to exceed three days. mining whether a violation of the pwvisions of this C. The provision of this section shall not apply to section exists may include, but are not limited to, the any work of construction performed one thousand feet or following: more from the nearest residential dwelling. (Ord. 3254 § 1. The level of the noise; 1, 1989) 2. The level and intensity of any background noise; 3. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping 9.22.030 Assessment of service fee. facilities; In addition to the penalty provided for in Chapter 1140 4. The nature and zoning of the area within which of this Code, a property owner shall be assessed a service the noise occurs; fee pursuant to Chapter 3.70 herein if the Bakersfield 5. The density of habitation of the area within Police Department responds more than one time in a ,(.. which the .noise occurs; thirty day period for violation(s) of this chapter. (Ord. 6. The'time of the day or night the noise occurs; 3793 § 1, 1997) 7. The duration of the noise; 8. Whether the noise 'is recurrent, intermittent or constant. C. Refrigerator trucks shall be permitted to operate in any commercial or manufacturing zone at all hours; provided, however, that such use does not emit noise or vibration detrimentally impacting neighboring residential properties and the occupants thereof between ten p.m. and seven a.m. For purposes of this section, noise measuring . fifty decibels at the property line of residential property shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of excessive noise. (Ord. 3254 § 1, 1989) 9.22.020 Noise during construction. A. Except as provided herein or in subsection B or C of this section, it is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, demolish, alter or repair any build- ing, or to grade or excavate land, streets or highways, other than between the hours of six a.m. and nine p.m. on weekdays, and between eight a.m. and nine p.m. on ~ekends; provided, however, that city crews and those of the city's contractors performing street work between nine p.m. and six a.m. are exempt herefrom if the city 341 :..RuLE 4102 'NUISANCE (.Adopted May 21, 1992,Amended Deeemb.er 17, ~119. 9.2) .. "L0 Purpose · ?. .~ .... · . The p of this rule is to protect the th and safety ot~'th¢ pubh¢. This rule'':~hilll apply' 'to any Source. operati°n'.which ~rnits ' .. Conta/'ninants or other materials. 3.0 Exemption "' 3.1 The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agn . ...... operations in the growing of crops or raising of £owl or animals as defined l?,ul¢ 4103 (Open Burning). 4.,0,, ' Requirements ' . ..... 4.1 A person shall not digcharge from any s. ourc¢ whatso¢.v, er'$u.ch Clu.axgi ":~ir contaminants or other materials which cause inj,ury~'~lei~rl~:nt~ or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the 1: . . · he comfort, repose, health _or sa.fety o.f any suc. o endanger t . cause or have a natural tenclency to cause m.lury or pubh¢ or which . .':.? '.!,~,,,.~..~ JACK M. RADEMACH£R ,, . ,. CONSULTING ENGINEER ', · : .?'.~ 13~wrST~RN DRIV~ ...:i' ."~ · ' BAK[RSFII~I.D, CALIFORNIA 93309 :.,'.,.; ': .... ..?.... . ~. ': 7::r.~.,'.'~.... :_ .'- To: The Honorable Hearing Committee: Irma Carson, Galen Chow, Randy Rowles... .-; '" Fr: Jack Rademacher · ' ":'" Subj.: Letter of transmittal, re: Hearing of petition herewith; dated January_ 28. 1994. ! offer this letter upon behalf of petitioners and grass root supporters. .'. '. ~""::~ Facts: A.Our city is in serious non-compliance with air quality standards for ozone and particulates... There were more than 100 unhealthful days in 1994...) B. Valley Fever, allergies, lung disease are a health threat... C.Assembly Bill AB2766, and ValleyAir Pollution Control District Rule 4102, attempt to reduce 'mo- bile emissions"... ' ' D. Proliferation of use/misuse of blowers is self evident to anyone who traverses our city.., there are now sometimes two (2) blowers in operation for an average size residence, and four (4) may operate simultaneously around a given home! The relocation of particulates blown onto adjacent property owners, into the air, onto streets and gutters, and incessant noise is unbearable.., the immediate environment is not residential but like an industrial park... ' ' ;"' :'~(?, '~ ~''' E. Our air quality is a high risk priority reason for persons to depart residence from our city ..... F. It is now becoming routine that Saturdays/Sundays and any hour of the day, that blower eqUip. ment may be in operation . . · there are many personal incidents and innumerable residential' ... encounters where now, one cannot walk without being sprayed with this equipment..." :.. -.. '.:' We petitioners and silent supporters offer our assistance voluntarily, in order to restrict and]or gate this equipment as suggested herein, for the.'peace and well being of city residents ... we request that this committee understand our concerns, ahd act decisively.. · ,. J.M. Rademacher Resume J.M.R. 1. Native of Bakersfield, California. 2. Grad. U.C. Berkeley: degrees Engineering and Chemistry; 1.5 years in GradJResearch. :: "' 3. Survey/mapping for Alcan Hwy.; U.S. Government. " "4. Entered Military Training: U.S. Naval Officer WWII - PhilipPines, Okinawa, Japanese occupation. 5. Ten (10) years Petro-Chem processing - Bay Area/Bakersfield refineries. ...., 6. Assoc. with Consulting engineer. ' '" ' ' 7. Opened Consulting Engineering office, retired after 30 years in private practice. ',' ', · 8. State licensed Professional Engineer in Mechanical Engineering and Chemical Engineering. 9. Volunteer member of Kern Couhty Air Pollution Hearing Board in early 1970's. .:' Volunteer member Kern County Hazardous Waste Committee. Volunteer member of S.J.V.U.A.P.C.D. Evaluation Committee - implementingAssembly Bill AB2766. To: The Honorable Hearing Committee: Irma Carson, Galen Chow, Randy Rowles; Mayor Bob Price; Council Members; City Manager Alan Tandy... Fr: City Residents, listed herein.., et al. Subj.: Petition to bar the use of garden 'blower equipment" within residential areas of the city of Bakersfield... Submitted and Included Herewith: .... A. Copy of original petition with signatures as submitted January 28. 1994 thru office of Mayor Bob Price... B.Copy of Rule 4102, adopted by San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District as added justification for this petition... ..' ',.i;' ' C.Copy of an additional more recent group of ~ity residents subscribing to this petition... A re-summation of our ~etition: tO wit: 1. The use/misuse of'blowers' is rapidly growing and is a threat to city residents: a) There are seven (7) different garden operators within some city blocks - some four (4).may operate simultaneously, others in succession, with incessant noise and. air pollution! b) The emitted noise level from each blower exceeds 90 decibels, exceeding generally accepted standards and OSHA requirements... c) Particulates are blown and re-distributed onto adjacent property, streets and gutters, into our '. air, to become a serious Valley Fever, lung, allergy, health threat, with probable liability conse- quences... d) Exhaust gas pollutants from these fossil fueled 2 cycle engines degrade neighborhood and val- ley air quality which is in serious non-compliance. The city of Bakersfield can lead the state in enacting a meaningful restrictive ordinance for. peace and well being of its residents, and be a catalyst.for other cities residents ..... We petitioners believe the only practical/workable solution, is to bar the use ofbloWer equipment within residential areas; with specific, limited usage permitted only thru prescribed "request for variance' procedures... ' We petitioners are available to voluntarily assist City Council to implement the intent of this petition, and suggest the following possible prescriptions for your consideration: A. Prescribe acceptable equipment specifications: ' ' 1. ~Vacuum' in lieu of`blowing'... 2. Noise level not to exceed 60 decibels @ 20'... 3. Non fossil fuel powered; or exhaust pollu, tants limitations · · · · '.~:. '. B. Prescribe residential gardening cleanup: 1. Residential walks, driveways, streets, gutters to be raked or broomed and grass cuttings depos- ited into containers, not onto streets or gutters... 2. Walks, driveways, gutters to be lightly sprinkled... C. Permit and allow designated areas/zones/streets/blocks to be declared 'blower free"; by initiative, etc. We believe the above should provide a level competitive 'playing field" for operators and greatly reduce the health threat to residents and the working gardener. · ~ We petitioners respectfully request this committee to: 1. Consider "Karen" and her twin asthmatic children who suffer, thru blower use on Wetherly Drive. 2. Please do not approve or condone the use of 'blower equipment" by doing nothing regarding this petition... Respectfully submitted, (~~ ~,,, ' Petitioners herein, and silent grass root supporters To: Honorable Council Hearing Committee, Randy Rowles, Irma Carson, Galen Chow Subject: "Garden Blowing Equipment"... Our Petition To Bar From Use In Residential Areas Date: Jul3' 13, 1995 ..'. Overview: ' 1. We submitted petition via Mayor's office on January 28, 1994 ... we received no reply, no acknowledgment of receipt; which we residents expect should be an act of just plain courtesy... 2. Some weeks later a subsequent hearing was held, our group was not informed, which apparently she!red tho .... petition from full council and public discussion. ~. 3. A packet consisting of the original hand written list of petitioners, an additional list of petitioners, With': i. attached supporting reasoning, was presented to each committee member (Rowles, Carson, Chow) at tho (! hearing of April 13, 19~5. ::~ preSent Situation: .::.. ::... · 1. We thankfully appreciate the letter of July 7, 19~}5, from Trudy Slater, to be informed of this hearing of July 13, 1995. :" ' 2. Our petition is based upon Nuisance/Health/Noise/Pollution and 1192.0_4.1~ as adopted by the San Joaqu(n" Valley Air-District; and residents concerned with degradation of living and environment within neighborhood. " 'i 3. Two California cities: Beverly Hills and Berkeley councils banned the use of this'equipment. .. a. Beverly ltilis By a simple council member motion and full council approval! (Ph. 1-310-285-1055). · b. Berkeley Through a citizen's petition with similar concerns to and approved by council in 1993. There has. been full cooperation inforce their total ban (residential and commercial) with mahy ..~. acceptable and innovative methods utilized,'(Ph. 1-510-644-6480 Pub. Wks. Dept.) · · . , $: .'!'~...... "...... Summary: ' . ' .".~'-':.' "' We petitioners respectfully request that this committee, or a member thereof, will acknowledge this petition f0r.:'}:i~i.'.: full q:onncil and public comments and discussion of this issue toward a satisfactory resoiu'tiom ' Respectfully, " Petitioners Con3J~tee and Supporting Residents Fr: Residents, City of Bakersfield .. ?i Subj: Enforcement of C.O.B. Municipal Code; Specifically; Title 9 - "]'¢oise" ' ' '. ....... .~. . :' I" and Title ~5. - "Bu.~inc.~s License_". · · ': Date: Nov. 19, 199"/ ,~:, ::.' ..,,. . : .,.. To Wit: Please recall our previous meeting o[' Sept. 12, regarding this subject· It is a fact that residential neighbdrhoods are subject to a barrage of exhaust fumes, airborne particulates, :i':...-.":' and noise of the order of 90-100 decibels, generated from lawn power (blowers) equipment''' ';"'i" . · ·.. this noise and medical consequences are a sever, e strain upon city residents': ' there'is." .. "' .. a continuous barrage fro'm many (sometimes 7) different operators in a. residential city. '~.'-'. block, that the resident must contend with during a day, weekends, and odd hours; WI/ich" are at the whim of the operator. · · and in violation of'XJ.l!.e~: which specifically state, s: ~ "unlawful to make loud noise within 1,000 ft. of residence - "noise" louder than 50 decibels .. " is in violation". · · Title 5: states'"the business license must be with thc person, if not a · - fixed place of business" (this has not been evident). · · ':' ' ' We believe the quality of life within residential neighborhoods must be respected and .... .':..':.. of the Municipal Code be enforced please inform us'.'?-:.; ::".': request that Title 9 and (~'-nent this enforcement.., our group is ready and. willing to'? as to how a resident may attempt to resolve this issue· .. may we receive your reply. ;.~' '!.,'3:1'i" ' meet with whomever, to """ ',:;:. . ,' . Respect fu Ily '-, ".:" .'.?' "." · ' . '";'~;'. L".'.'. ,j, ~r I~, L~ C~.'~TC~:::' i~N.~,~ iZ. ~T, ........ __.,. yc o 4 i. Ay, · ..' ......... i .~__.L . ·'- --. ; "1' 'Z.:.L:'.:.:;.. · - ;-...': :-. '-' .... ";:.' ':'. E;-F 4xL "' "To: "Sgt. Phil Clarke, Law Enforcement, B.P..D. ~. Fr: Neighborhood Watch, C.O.B. ResidentS,.et' al ........ ~" Subj : Our letter dated Nov. 19, 1997, and recent discussion~ ,, '~ '~ h'~'729,':.1998 ~, ,~'~ ~.'. Date .. ~' ' Following our recent meetings of Jan.26, 1998(Joe L./Jack your office; we, residents of concern, met, discussed, and' these general comments: 1.. We are.extremely disappointed.- the response to our concerns was "do nothing" to enforce Title 9(Noise), and . TitI~'5 (Bus ;'L: as clearly defined in C.O.B. Muni Code... from law enfc ' (BPD) and city Atty(V. Gennaro)..... 2.'We, then question-the value of Neighbor~o0d Watch,'wh6''~°uld expect that City codes would be enforced; then,.why'sh~uld' ~'~' Watch Groups provide vol.' support for a.ny.endeavor:of enforcement? This is sad! ... 3..There are certainly ways and means,' to satisfy c6ncerns; :~. 'to "back away", indicates a lack ofileadership t°,eve~a~ toward a solutioh.;~ and in fact, condones unlawful'noiSe apathy; this is tragic! ' ' "~'~' 4. A question... Where-was Law Enforcement to p~rmit this''' to start/develop in violation of City Municipal code?',. >'.~.:~-' we residents will continue to persevere, thru ev er.y avai to alleviate neighborhood noise and associated health effects stress the importance of C~O.B. codes! Ir'is regre~able that. Enforcement is unresponsive .... Thank you f6r you kindness to receive us in your pleasure to meet you... Kind regards, Joe L /Bob S./Jack R. · ' ' '~': · ~, ~.' ':. TO: MARK SALVAGGIO, COUNCILMAN 7th WARD FR: NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS, CITY RESIDENTS, ET AL ...... ""' SUBJ.: C.O.B. MUNICIPAL CODE : DATE~ ~EB. 17, 1998~' ·., THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU:.. THERE ARE HOOD NEEDS; AND THERE ARE THE WANTS OF OTHERS... A BASIC NEIG, HBORHO( NEED IS FOR QUIET WITHIN ONES HOME FOR PEACEFUL CONVERSATION~'"'.''F' THERE IS NOW DISRUPTIVE LOUD NOISE FROM (1)LOW FLYING HELICOPT~-RS (2)AUTO EXIIAUST (3)STEREOS, (4)ANIMALS, (5)LAWN POWER EQUIPMENT. THAT IS INTERMITTANT OR CONSTANT; MORNING, DAILY, NIGHTLY~ ON...A'.: SEVEN(7) DAY BASIS... THE MOST OFFENSIVE IS THE 'LAWN POWER BLOWER, WHICH SURROUN. DS:A'.HO! WITH PARTICULATES, EXHAUST EMISSIONS, AND LOUD NOISE.. IN:' · ~ ~': ~.., VIOLATION OF C.O.B. MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 9! ..~".;'. -. LOUD NOISE, PURE AND SIMPLE, VIOLATES C.O~B.:"MuNI CODE~'. ENFORCEMENT(BPD/CITY ATTY) HAVE A DO NOTHING'APPROACH TO.BACK.',~UP NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS IN THEIR QUEST TO COMPLY WITH SAME'.~-'~ REFUSAL TO UPHOLD LAW AND ORDER... INDICATES TO .US THAT SOMETHING': IS AMISS (HEREWITH IS ~OME RELATED CORRESPONDENCE RE:'·BPD ME~TINGS . . . .. . ,. :...'" ~ ..: WE SEEK YOUR COUNCIL AND LEADERSHIP ' '";"~' "i.'"" 1. WHY SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT "DO NOTHING" TO ENFORCE THE '.: EXISTING CITY MUNICIPAL CODES: TITLE.9(NOISE), AND ANCILLARY TITLE 5(BUS. LIC.)? 2 WOULD YOU DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SEEK A T.R.O. THRU' JUDICIAL SYSTEM. . . TOWARD ENFORCEMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL" OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS, ET AL, OFFE~ OUR VOLUNTARY SUPPO~' FOR ANY WORTHY ENDEAVOR TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE;. AND OFFER A OF OUR OWN SOLUTIONS. . ........... RESPECTFULLY, Jack .Rademacher 321 9248/324 540~... . .. ,..--~- ~ .. Joe Licastro 324 8696. ::'~'""' · '.::,:, ,.:. Bob Scheloski 323 9806 .... TO: MARK SALVAGGIO, COUNCILMAN 7th WARD FOLLOW UP'. .... ~'.. DATE: APRIL 17, 1998 . i "" :'?:' :~ "..' ' 'n our time for a'subsequent meetin.~.':?".'~:'~.".:< Sincere thanko for provld~ g y ...... . ...... to hopefully address and arrive a~' a sat~s~'actory'so£utxon... position... "TITLE 9 is being violated; NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH Also re the anti smoking law; the Homeowner(Employer) should.b~'~'.l.".~,' , . . ~.~ ', ~...:~.~,:~..:~ responsible; and Residents should be made aware ..... ....~.~::~!~:...~:: · . ' Note: Pertinent backup literature ~s included herewith ......... ,.... , · ~,. MEMO: APRIL 17th,~19~8 .... FRIDAY... MEETING WITH MARK SALVAGGIO, CITY ATTY. JUDY sKOUSEN, AND ASST. CITY ATTY. CARL MARTINEZ... IN CITY ATTY'OFFIC~, 2nd FLOOR OF CITY HALL... @ 3:45 to 4 PMk... HANDED CORRESPONDENCE PACKET TO MARK SALVAGGIO AND SKOUSEN FOR THEIR REVIEW... AND FILE... UPON DEPARTURE, MARK SALVAGGIO "KEEP IN TOUCH"... MARK SALVAGGIO EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT COUNCIL WOULD BE TOUGH TO ENACT BLOWER ANTI SENTIMENT: REBUT "COUNCIL NOT INVOLVED, THIS IS A MUNI CODE TITLE 9 VIOLATION RELATING TO NOISE, PURE AND SIMPLE, WHETHER IT BE ANIMAL, ~AUTO,~~ STEREO, ETC.; NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS WOULD EXPECT THAT C.O.B. CODE BE ENFORCED... TO: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CODE ENFORCEMENT FR: NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS, ET AL ...... SUBJ.: C.O.B. MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE:,~JUNE 23, 1998 · . IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT TAKES SUCH A C~A~ER ATTITUDE TOWARD UPHOLDING OUR EXISTING MUNI_CODE... IN PARTICULAR: · TITLE 9 NOISE... "UNLAWFUL ..... TITLE 5 BUS. LIC. AND APPLICABLE "NUISANCE REGULATIONS" MANY, MANY RESIDENTS, SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO WITHSTAND NOISE FROM OPERATING EQUIPMENT, SURROUNDING ALL SIDES OF THIER HOME. JUST CASUAL CONVERSATION IS IMPOSSIBLE: AND DAY AND NIGHT, AND WEEK ENDS... WE SHOULD EXPECT SOME LEADERSHIP, REGARDING THE ISSUE, NOT A DO NOTHING ATTITUDE... PERHAPS YOUR DEPARTMENT MAY.OFFER'US SOME HOPE TO MITIGATE, OR FORCE SOME ACTION TOWARD OUR BEHALF... OUR GROUP(S) OFFER VOUUNTARY SUPPORT TO ASSIST/SUGGEST, ETC TO RESOLVE THIS EVER GROWING VIOLATION OF OUR'MUNICIPAL CODE... HEREWITH IS SOME PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., 'TO ADDRESS, AND REQUEST RESPONSE RE THE ISSUE... THANK YOU FOR A POSITIVE EFFORT... NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS... ET AL.~· JACK M. RAD£MACH£1~..:~ ~' ~-".*~'.~ ... .~ ~: .~ To: Mr Bart T hiltgen, City Attorney Fr: ack M. ~demacher..- Et A1 ., Et A1  ~.-.~y'. · . . . . · . ':~,:~. . .. . ' Subj: Code Enforcemgnt < "'~'~'~ Date: jan. 18, 1999' ;'.':.'~;~ . . '. · ~ ~: .' .. ~.'.' , . · ~.~.:] ,.. ~. - . NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AND RESIDENT GROUPS WELCOME-YOU TO OUR~ .......~. ~...~ CITY, AND WISH YOU WELL..- IT IS 'ALSO OUR WISH THAT YOUR .-"..'~':~'~'~'~?'~.:~'~ NEW LEADERSHIP WILL BRING A FRESH APPROACH TOWARD THE ' ' '~" ENFORCEMENT OF CITY MUNICIPAL CODES-. ONE IN PARTICULAR · ' .~.~.:.' .'.;:-' ..... ;~.~. '.~ IS THE RECURRING EXCESSIVE, RESIDENTIAL NOISE WHICH DE- · " '~"'~. ~ · ' · .'. % .... ~)~' ~ ...' ~D~S OU~ ~U~ 0~ ~V~ D~D ~ C.O.~ ~ 9"* ' .... '' ~'v:"";':~' *.. .. ~.~ * . ~./- · . . ... .. ....:,~ .,:,~..:~. . .~'1 '..~,~' ·....?[ ... PERTINENT SPECIFICS CAN BE AIRED ONLY THROUGH DISCUSSIONS, ...... .~,.~ . . .... ~ "?,~.. DURING A LATER APPOINTMENT ·- ' '"":"" .'..,.. ~ . ~,,~.. . "'. . .... PE FOR NOW, YOU WILL ALLOT TIME FOR .... . :...'.~:~'.-~ %~. O , .RATION OF ALL ASPECTS OF '"'. THOUGHTFUL AND bE~AL CONSIDE ' '.'~".'~':~" TITLE 9-NOISE AS APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS; AND · ...,.,~.'. ....... FOLLOW WITH DISCUSSIONS TO WORK TOWARD A SATISFACTORY . . ;...:..~<. :.. :.. RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE..- . · '~T . THANK YOU FOR pROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU. :'":~;~: "~'"~' · . · .... · ....~ ~, ~.~' · . . ;;.'~ ~.~ .... , .:~ .. :~.;.: {¥,:. - · . ...: TO: Mr. Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney,. City of BAKERSFIELD FR: Jack M. Rademacher, ET AL .... SUBJ: General Discussion, No. 2... Marc'~-15, 1~9'9~91~'i'?"i' THANK YOU KINDLY FOR ALLOWING SO~E TIME TO LISTEN, AND FOR YOUR FRIENDLY, FRANK, AND OPEN DISCUSSION... IT WAS A PLEASURE... OUR CITY IS INDEED FORTUNATE-! ~'~ TO RECAP: WE ARE JUST A BUNCH OF PEOPLE; NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AND OTHERS WHO ESPOUSE AN AGENDA FOR OUR CITY TO RESPOND TO SOME BASIC NEEDS; AND HOPEFULLY, ENHANCE OUR QUALITY OF LIVING WITHIN THE CITY..- AGENDA: ~ NOISE ABATEMENT.- AS PRESCRIBED IN TITLE 9 OF MUNI- CODE.. ENFORCE OR RESCIND.-- WHY WAS NOT INVOKED PRIOR TO THE PROBLEM?. AIR POLLUTION, PARTICULARLY PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION~ AS AFFECT UPON HEALTH.. ALLERGIES, VALLEY FEVER~ ASTHMA? R RESIDENTIAL UPKEEP/MAINTENANCE TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS; -- RESPECT FOR' NEIGHBORHOODS- L LITTERING OF STREETS/PARKS/PARKING/RESIDENCES.. STREET MAINTENANCE/REPAIR/REPLACEMENT''' ( COULD CITY SWEEPERS PROVIDE A WATER SPRAY DURING SWEEPING..- AGAIN, OUR GROUP(S) APPRECIATE YOUR COUNSEL AND LEADERSHIP TO HOPEFULLY INSTILL AN AWARENESS OF CIVIC PRIDE AND RESPECT FOR NEIGHBOR..- WE LOOK FORWARD TO FUTURE DISCUSSIONS--- KIND REGARDS, AND THANK YOU, FOR CARING .... J.M. RADEMACHER TO: Mr. BART THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY OF BAKERSFIELD FR: JACK M. RADEMACHER, ET AL RE: APRIL 19, 1999... DISCUSSION NO. 3~ PLEASE RECALL SOME ITEMS OF DISCUSSION AND SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS. NOISE ABATEMENT: OUR GROUPS DISCUSSION AND THEIR INPUT... 1. COULD SHERIFF COPTER BE RESTRICTED FROM HOVERING ABOVE HOMES; TO RESTRICT CONVERSATION, RATTLE DISHES, WITH SEARCHLIGHT INTRUSION INTO YARDS. IS. IT POSSIBLE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THEIR ZEAL DO NOT REALIZE "SIDE EFFECTS: OF A MISSION UPON NEIGHBORHOODS. ' 2. "QUIETNESS" IS ALLY OF HOMEOWNER TO BE ALERTED TO "BREAK INS";' COPTER NOISE HAS PROVIDED BREAK IN OPPURTUNITIES.. ALSO, IS COPTER PATROL COST EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVE WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER METHODS? ..~:~ 3. COULD SHERIFF COPTER 'BE LIMITED TO 911 RESPONSE: RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS WOULD BECOME ALERT.. 4. THERE IS CONSTANT AND RECURRING NOISE AND NUISANCE DUST GENERATED FROM YARD POWER EQUIPMENT.. PARTICULARLY SO CALLED "BLOWERS".. FROM AN ARRAY OF YARD OPERATORS, AT ALL HOURS AND WEEK ENDS.. 5. STREETS/WALKS/GUTTERS ARE C.O.B. PROPERTIES, NOT TO BE "BLOWN" BY OPERATORS.. SPEWED PARTICULATES ARE NUISANCE AND HEALTH HAZARD... RESIDENCE UPKEEP/LITTER/STREET REPAIRS ..~. ~..../ 1 ADOPT/ENFORCE MINIMUM STANDARDS... i~:~/~-~.i~/ SUMMARY... SOME GROUP HARDBALL. COMMENTS... A. C.O.B. MUNI CODE TITLE 9 IS SPECIFIC; LOUD NOISE(50D.B.+) 1,000 FT. FROM SOURCE IS A'RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT... RULE "' 4102 SJAPCD IS NUISANCE STATEMENT. THESE ARE CODE ENFORCE- .. MENT RESPONSIBILITIES.. B. HOMEOWNER(EMPLOYER) SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE. C. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR YARD OPERATORS TO INVADE A RESIDENTIAL AREA, TO DISRUPT/VIOLATE/DICTATE TO DEGRADE THEi QUALITY OF LIVING; BASED UPON "EXPEDIENCY".. ONE MAY EXPOUND THE SAMEREASON FOR EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT.. D. NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS COULD BE AN IMPORTANT'FIRST LINE DEFENSE IN SUPPORT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT AND SHOULD BE ENTITLED · , TO RESPONSE WHEN REQUESTS TO THE AGENCY ARE MADE.. NOT APATHY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTEOUS AND FRIENDLY DISCUSSIONS, TO: MR'. BART THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FR: NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS,, ET AL...( J.M. Rademacher ) SUBJ.: GENERAL DISCUSSION NO. 4 ..... 'DATE:'~-JUNE 30, 1999'11" COPIES OF BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 9(NOISE),AND SVAPCD RULE 4102(HEALTH/SAFETY); PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AND DISCUSSED. A. CODE ENFORCEMENT: OUR CITIZEN GROUPS ARE PERTURBED THAT OFFICIALS INTERPRET "CODE ENFORCEMENT" IN A SELECTIVE AND RESTRICTED VIEW... PLEASE BE A~ISED THAT THE C.O.B. ORGANIZATION CHART INDICATES "CITIZENS OF BAKERSFIELD" AS HEADING UP THIS CHART../ WE CITIZENS NOW MUST CONSIDER THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM(T.R.O.)t RATHER THAN RELYING UPON CIY OFFICIALS EVEN OFFERING TO ATTEMPT TOWARD RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE. B. RESIDENTIAL UPKEEP: NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCES ARE DETERIORATING' THRU OCCUPANT NEGLECT OF THEIR PROPERTY... TO EVEN A MINIMUM STANDARD... CODE ENFORCEMENT IN THIS AREA HAS BEEN ATTENTIVE, AND WE KNOW IT IS FRUSTRATING... OUR GROUPS SUGGEST PERHAPS ANOTHER APPROACH .... IN LIEU OF CII'ING OCCUPANTS NOT MEETING MINIMUM STANDARDS; THAT C.O.B. AWARD "MEDALLIONS" OF APPROPRIATE DESIGN AND SIZE TO POST UPON .THOSE RESIDENCES THAT MEET THES~TANDARD OF UPKEEP PRESCRIBED ...... TO HOPEFULLY INFLUENCE A RESPECT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT... REGARDS, JACK M. RADEMACHER, et al ..... ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDING SECTIONS 10.32.150 AND 10.32.160 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 10.56.080 BY DELETING SUBSECTION 10.$6.080(E)ALL RELATING TO PARKING OF VEHICLES FOR PURPOSES OF SALE AND PARKING VEHICLES ON UNPAVED SURFACES. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there has been an increase in the parking of vehicles upon private property, including vacant lots, for purposes of selling such vehicles; and WHEREAS, the parking of such vehicles for sale is frequently upon unpaved surfaces and upon property wherein such sales are not permitted under applicable City zoning .ordinances; and WHEREAS, the parking of such vehicles for purposes of sale is contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare in that use of private property for the sale of vehicles is often without the knowledge of the property owner and it is not practical to require the property owner to take measures to prohibit such unauthorized use of the property by others; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the parking and sale of vehicles on private property in violation of city zoning ordinances contributes to blight and causes dust, trash, rubbish and other public nuisance problems associated with such sales, all to the detriment of the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that the parking of vehicles for the primary purpose of sale on' city streets may be regulated by the city pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, as provided for herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.32.150 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.32.150 Parking for purpose of sale prohibited. · (A) No person shall park any motor vehicle, trailer, camper, boat or other mobile equipment upon any public or private parking lot or any public or private property for the primary purpose of displaying such vehicle thereon for sale, hire or rental, unless the property is duly licensed and zoned by the city to transact that type of business at that location. -- Page 1 of 4 Pages -- (B) Subsection A of this section shall not prohibit persons from parking any motor vehicle, trailer, camper, boat or other mobile equipment belonging to the owner thereof for sale on private residential property, provided such is parked on a paved surface. (C) Any person violating subsection A of this section shall first be given a 24-hour warning notice that the vehicle is parked in violation of subsection A before a citation is issued. Signs may be posted upon private and public property giving notice of the prohibition of subsection A. Where such signs are posted, the 24-hour warning notice need not be given. (D) No person shall park any vehicle, as such term is defined in Vehicle Code section 670, on any street or public right-of-way when it appears because of a sign or placard on the vehicle that the primary purpose of parking the vehicle at that location is to advertise to the public the private sale of that vehicle. (E) Any peace officer or regularly employed and salaried employee engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations of the city may remove a vehicle located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act when the vehicle is found upon a street or public lands if: (1) Because of a sign or placard on the vehicle it appears that the primary purpose of parking the vehicle at that location is to advertise to the public the private sale of that vehicle; and (2) Within the past thirty days the vehicle is known to have been previously issued a notice of parking violation, under this section which was accompanied by a notice containing all of the following: (a) A warning that an additional parking violation may result in the impoundment of the vehicle; (b) A warning that the vehicle may be impounded pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22651.9, even if moved to another street, so long as the signs or placards offering the vehicle for sale remain on the vehicle; (c) A statement that all city streets and public lands are subject to the provisions of this Section; (3) The notice of parking violation was issued at least twenty-four hours prior to the .removal of the vehicle; (4) Vehicle Code Section 22852, incorporated herein by reference, applies to the removal of any vehicle pursuant to this section. SECTION 2. Chapter 10.32.160 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby added to read-as follows: 10.32.160 Parking on unpaved surfaces. (A) No person shall park any motor vehicle, trailer, camper, boat or other mobile equipment on any unpaved area in any front yard (as defined in section 17.04.670 of this code) or on any side yard (as defined in section 17.04.690 of this code). Page 2 of 4 Pages -- (B) Any person violating subsection A of this section shall first be given a 24-hour warning notice that the vehicle is parked in violation of subsection A before a citation is issued. SECTION 3. Chapter 10.56.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.56.080 Unlawful parking -- Peddlers, vendors and taxicabs -- Permits. A. Except as othenNise provided by ordinance, no persons shall park any vehicle, wagon, or pushcart from which any foodstuffs or merchandise are sold, or offered for sale, except at the request of a bona fide purchaser and for a period of time not to exceed ten minutes at any one place. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to persons delivering foodstuffs or merchandise upon order of, or by agreement, with a customer, and when delivery is made from a store or other fixed place of business or distribution. B. No person shall erect or place a stand for the display of merchandise, foodstuffs, papers, or periodicals on any street without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the traffic authority. The permit, when issued, may be revoked at the discretion of the traffic authority. C. No person shall park or stand any vehicle, or wagon used or intended to be used in the transportation of property for hire on any street while awaiting patronage for such vehicle or wagon, without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the traffic authority, which 'permit may-be revoked for cause at the discretion of the traffic authority. D. No person shall park or stand any taxicab or other vehicle used to convey passengers for hire within the city, except as is provided for and authorized in Chapter 5.50 and amendments thereto. E. Whenever any permit is issued under.the provisions of this section or under any ordinance referred to in this section, no person shall stand or park any vehicle, wagon, or pushcart on any location other than as designated in the permit. -- Page 3 of ~4 Pages -- SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ......... oOo .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council Of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN CITY ATTORNEY By: CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH;ISC:d~r P.:~3rkvehicle.sale.wpd -- Page 4 of 4 Pages -- SCHEDULED MEETINGS JANUARY 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 2000 BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING (7:00 PM) O BUDGET HEARINGS & DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS WORKSHOP-CLOSED SESSION (5:15 PM) HEARING, 8/14/2000, ADOPTION 8/28/2000 @ 7:0 MONDAYS BEGIN AT NOON HOLIDAYS- City Hall Closed WEDNESDAYS AT 5:15 PM ~ URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS (Stinting Time 4:00 P,M,) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 3 4~5 6 7 8 6 7 8[ 91 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10 111 121 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 12 13 14~] 16 17 18 161:~!!~!~!~i~!, 18~19 20 21 22 20~i:i 22~'~ 24 25 26 19~ 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 23 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 I 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 3:: ~::! 5 6 7 8 6~ 8 9 10 11 12 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 9 9~ 11~__~.12 13 14 15 13 14 15r~ 17 18 19 10 11 12[--~ 14 15 16 16 17 181 191 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17~ 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29~--~ 31 24 25 26~-~ 28 29 30 30 31 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 I 2 8~9 10~'~ 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 911i0 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15~[1~ 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 16 17 18 10 11 12["'~ 14 15 16 ., 22 23 24~] 26 27 28 19~ 21~'' 25 17 18 19'~20 21 22 23 29 30 31 26 27 28~ 29~ 30 24:~::i:~: 26 27 28 29 30 31 AdOpted by Resolution No. 159-99 on November 3, 1999 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: November 17, 1999 ~1 AGENDA SECTION: Consent I I ITEM: 8. c. I TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ~AI~PRO~D FROM: Development Services-Building DEPARTMENT HE~D -~-~-~ DATE: November 3, 1999 CITY ATTOR~,Y~/'"~ ~ CITY MANA/GER ~ SUBJECT: .An ordinance adding Sections 10.32.150 and 10.32.160 to the Bakersfield Municipal Code and deleting Section 10.56.080(E) relating to parking of vehicles for purposes of sale and parking vehicles on unpaved surfaces. (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to Urban Development Committee. BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the parking of vehicles on vacant lots and other private property for the primary purpose of selling the vehicle. The sales are occurring on properties where zoning does not allow the sale or the zoning would allow such sales, however, the property has not been properly developed to City standards in order to allow the use (e.g., sales on a vacant dirt lot zoned for commercial use). The parking and sale of vehicles on private property in violation of city zoning ordinances contributes to blight and causes dust, trash, rubbish and other public nuisance problems associated with such sales. Use of private property for the sale of vehicles is often .without the knowledge of the property owner and it is not practical to require the property owner to take measures to prohibit such unauthorized use. Having to give the property owner a misdemeanor citation seems to be a misdirection of our efforts to solve the problem. The Development Services Department, in cooperation with the Police Department, proposes amending the Code to allow City personnel to issue "traffic citations" to vehicle owners. Traffic citations carry a minimal fine, but serve as a deterrent to repeat violations. A 24-hour warning will be.given before a citation is issued, unless the property is posted with signs, in which case a warning need not be given. Proposed section 10.32.150 adds language to accomplish these purposes Current City Code provisions address parking of vehicles on City streets for purposes of sale. However, those provisions need to be updated to meet current State Vehicle Code requirements. This will be accomplished by removing current section 10.56.080(E) and adding language to proposed section 10.32.150. Finally, proposed section 10.32.160 would allow for issuance of a "traffic citation" for vehicles parked on unpaved surfaces such as residential side yards and front yards. The same 24-hour warning provisions wit% apply as noted above. no17b1 November 9, 1999, 4:11PM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDING SECTIONS '10.32.'150 AND '10.32.'160 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTION '10.56.080 BY DELETING SUBSECTION '10.56.080(E)ALL RELATING TO PARKING OF VEHICLES FOR PURPOSES OF SALE AND PARKING VEHICLES ON UNPAVED SURFACES. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there has been an increase in the parking of vehicles upon private property, including vacant lots, for purposes of selling such vehicles; and WHEREAS, the parking of such vehicles for sale is frequently upon unpaved surfaces and upon property wherein such sales are not permitted under applicable City zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, the parking of such vehicles for purposes of sale is contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare in that use of private property for the sale of vehicles is often without the knowledge of the property owner and it is not practical to require the property owner to take measures to prohibit such unauthorized use of the property by others; and WHEREAS, .the City Council finds that the parking and sale of vehicles on private property in violation of city zoning ordinances contributes to blight and causes dust, trash, rubbish and other public nuisance problems associated with such sales, all to the detriment of the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that the parking of vehicles for the primary purpose of sale on city streets may be regulated by the city pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, as provided for herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.32.150 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: '10.32.t50 Parking for purpose of sale prohibited. (A) No*person shall park any motor vehicle, trailer, camper, boat or other mobile equipment upon any public or private parking lot or any public or private property for the primary purpose of displaying such vehicle thereon for sale, hire or rental, unless the property is duly licensed and zoned by the 'city to transact that type of business at that location. - Page I of 4 Pages - (B) Subsection A of this section shall 'not prohibit persons from parking any motor ~"~- vehicle, trailer, camper, boat or other mobile equipment belonging to the owner thereof for sale on private residential property, provided such is parked on a paved surface. (C) Any person violating subsection A of this section shall first be given a 24-hour warning notice that the vehicle is parked in Violation of subsection A before a citation is issued. Signs may be posted upon private and public property giving notice of the prohibition of subsection A. Where such signs are posted, the 24-hour warning notice need not be given. (D) No person shall park any vehicle, as such term is defined in Vehicle Code section 670, on any street or public right-of-way when it appears because of a sign or placard on the vehicle that the primary purpose of parking the vehicle at that location is to advertise to the public the private sale of that vehicle. (E) Any peace officer or regularly employed and salaried employee engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations of the city may remove a vehicle located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act when the vehicle is found 'upon a street or public lands if: (1) Because of a sign or placard on the vehicle it appears that the primary purpose of parking the vehicle at that location is to advertise to the public the private sale of that vehicle; and (2) Within the past thirty days the vehicle is known to have been previously issued a notice of parking violation, under this section which was accompanied by a notice containing all of the following: (a) A warning that an additional parking violation may result in the impoundment of the vehicle; (b) A warning that the vehicle may be impounded pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22651.9, even if moved to another street, so long .as the signs or placards offering the vehicle for sale remain on the vehicle; (c) A statement that all city streets and public lands are subject to the provisions of this Section; (3) The notice of parking violation was issued at least twenty-four hours prior to the removal of the vehicle; (4) Vehicle Code Section 22852, incorporated herein by reference, applies to the removal of any vehicle pursuant to this section. SECTION 2. Chapter 10.32.160 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.32.160 Parking on unpaved surfaces. (A) No person shall park any motor vehicle, trailer, camper, boat or other mobile equipment on any unpaved area in any front yard (as defined in section 17.04.670 of this code) or on any side yard (as defined in section 17.04.690 of this.code). -- Page 2 of 4 Pages - i~_.. (B) Any person violating subsection A of this section shall first be given a 24-hour warning notice that the vehicle is parked in violation of subsection A before a citation is issued. SECTION 3. Chapter 10.56.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.56.080 Unlawful parking -- Peddlers, vendors and.taxicabs -- Permits. A. Except as otherwise provided by ordinance, no persons shall park any vehicle, wagon, or pushcart from which any foodstuffs or merchandise are sold, or offered for sale, except at the request of a bona fide purchaser and for a period of time not to exceed ten minutes at any one place. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to persons delivering foodstuffs or merchandise upon order-of, or by agreement, with a customer, and when delivery is made from a store or other fixed place of business or distribution. B. No person shall erect or place a stand for the display of merchandise, foodstuffs, papers, or periodicals on any street without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the traffic authority. The permit, when issued, may be revoked at the discretion of the traffic authority. C. No person shall park or stand any vehicle, or wagon used or intended to be used in the transportation of property for hire on any street while awaiting patronage for such vehicle or wagon, without first obtaining a written permit to do so from.the traffic authority, which permit may be revoked for cause at the discretion of the traffic authority. D. No person shall park or stand any taxicab or other vehicle used to convey passengers for hire within the city, except as is provided for and authorized in Chapter 5.50 and amendments thereto. E. Whenever any permit is isSued under the provisions of this section or under any ordinance referred to in this section, no person shall stand or park any vehicle, wagon, or pushcart on any location other than as designated in the permit. -- Page 3 of 4 Pages - SECTION 4. (~ This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ,o0o I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council Of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN CITY ATTORNEY By: CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:lsC:d~r P:~oarkvehicJe.sale.wpd - Page 4 of 4 Pages -