The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/07/2003 BAKERSFIELD David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, April 7, 2003 3:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 3, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees- Rojas B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding landscape ordinance/enforcement - Stinson C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding additional review of issues related to the General Plan - Hardisty D. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding space needs-Tandy E. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding leaf blowers - Slater 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHl~Council Committees\Urban Development 2003\ud03apr07.doc DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D (~ ~'~' ~~ D,vid Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City M~n~ger Sue Benh~m Staff: dohn W. Stinson Mike M~gg~rd AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, March 3, 2003, 3:00 p.m. Gity Manager's Gonference Room - Gity Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 3:05'p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard Councilmember Mike Maggard arrived at 3:20 p.m. 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 3, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees Public Works Director Raul Rojas stated work is progressing. Since the last Committee meeting in February, Marian Shaw, Public Works Civil Engineer, has met twice with County staff. They will be meeting again next week to check information with the traffic model. The information is being entered into the computer; however, there is nothing new to report. This item will be put back on the Committee agenda. (Committee Member Maggard absent for this item) B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding group homes Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained State statutes preempt local zoning controls over residential care facilities. For facilities serving six or fewer persons (does not include care givers), State law states this is a residential use and, therefore, cannot be treated differently from a typical family living situation. The City cannot require any special permits, business license, home occupation permit, fire code restrictions, DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 2 - building codes, etc., unless such is required of any other residential dwellings. The operator is required to have a license from the State. There is legislation being proposed to amend requirements on group homes to require notifying the local jurisdiction when a group home is proposed to be opened. At the present time no notice to the City is required for group homes serving six or fewer people, except the State notifies the City in cases where facilities are closer than 300 feet to each other (except for foster and elderly care). If closer than 300 feet, an exemption must be granted by the City, otherwise the State license is denied. This separation exemption does not apply to licenses issued by the State Department of Alcohol and Drugs for rehabilitation homes. For group homes serving seven or more people (does not include care givers), a conditional use permit is required in all residential zones, except R4 for people with disabilities. These group homes are permitted by right in a commercial or industrial zone that permits commercial uses. Also, a City business license is required. The conditional use process is discretionary and conditions can be imposed to regulate the homes. These conditions can include occupancy limits, fire sprinkler, alarm systems and vehicular prohibitions. Because the permit is discretionary, it also may find use incompatible in a neighborhood and denied. Committee Member Benham spoke regarding over-concentration of group homes. She has received calls from residents in her ward who are very concerned about clusters of group homes in some neighborhoods. She requested staff to check with the State agency to see if there is some administrative approach or proposed legislation to avoid over-concentration of group homes in residential areas. Committee Member Maggard asked if there were any notification if a resident in a group home is a sex offender. He requested staff to check with the State agency to see if there could be an exception made or legislation proposed to exclude sex offenders from reSidential group homes. City Manager Alan Tandy explained realistically everything the State does in regard to group homes is designed to preclude cities from knowing or having any influence. There may be hope of getting some refinement of statutes relative to the over- concentration issue, excluding sex offenders from the eligible list, and perhaps certain types of. criminal activity. Committee Member Maggard explained another issue was brought to his attention where a group home is going in and it is three houses down from a deputy' district attorney. There are concerns clients living in the group home may have been prosecuted by the same district attorney. While staff is exploring exceptions, he would like this issue explored for an administrative and/or legislative remedy. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 3 - Committee Member Maggard asked if a group home is not complying with ordinances and statutes they operate under, what recourse does the City have and how can that be expedited to preclude them from continuing. There was an instance of illicit behavior occurring late at night. How much can the City influence what occurs in the home through City ordinances and can the ordinances be extended to further control these types of activities and/or a legislative remedy. Jack Hardisty responded for group homes with seven or more, the City can regulate activities through the Conditional Use Permit process. For group homes with six people or less, any ordinance would have to be in the context that certain activities are prohibited in single-family residential neighborhoods. For group homes with six or less, the State can be called to investigate activities. Committee Chair Couch requested the City Attorney's Office to sort through the rules for cases where someone is conducting a business and has, for example, 10 or 12 group homes in Bakersfield serving six or less clients to see if it would be possible to require the business owner to have a City business license, not the group home itself. Staff was asked to research the information requested and report back to the Committee. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding northeast bluffs steep-slope issues This item was referred to the Committee for review by the Council due to a request to increase the setback for permitted structures to 200 feet for development on the bluffs to maintain the view for the public and prevent erosion. Assistant Building Director Jack Leonard explained the current requirements that regulate development on the bluffs are found in the California Building Code. Basically, the setback requirement is a function of the height of the hill and the steepness of the incline. The higher the hill and the greater the incline, the further the setback needs to be. · This code requirement is to ensure the structure is placed on stable ground. An example was given for a home placed on a hill 100 feet high. The building code requires the setback to be the height of the hill divided by three (h/3). For this example the setback would be 100 feet/3 = 33 feet. The setback is measured from the footing of the structure to the edge of the slope. The maximum required setback for a structure is 40 feet. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMAFIY FIEPOFIT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 4 - For vertical, cliff-type situations, the setback is measured on a one to one basis (45 degree angle), plus the height of the hill divided by three. Examples for this type of situation were given as: 1) a vertical cliff 100 feet.high would 'required a setback of 100 ft. + 33 ff. = 133 foot setback; 2) a vertical cliff 200 feet high would require a setback of 200 ft. + 40 ft. (the maximum setback) = 240 foot setback. There are exceptions to these requirements. If a soil slope stability or geotechnical study is provided and shows the slope stability can accommodate a lesser setback, the building director may approve a smaller setback. Also, if a soils report has findings of unstable soil, a larger setback may be required. There is also an exception for a swimming pool to be built one-half the distance of the required setback for a structure (h/6). There have been pools placed on the edge of a slope, but this would be considered an exception and a slope stability study was required. The bluffs in the northeast have many variables relating to height, incline, and soils type. Due to this, each development needs to be addressed on a case by case basis in this area. Craig Smith, Bakersfield Bluff and Open Space Committee, explained what they wanted to refer to the Urban Development Committee was to study development on the northeast bluffs, not a particular setback. He had concerns about trees being watered and swimming pools draining water over the edge of the cliffs. Their Committee is asking City staff to review development standards in the northeast, have public workshops/meetings to review development standards including locations for fencing, lot lines, soils, open space, maintaining views, and the homeowner-caused erosion issues. Michelle Beck, Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space Committee, spoke regarding a plan to develop the whole northeast bluff area, instead of considering each development separately. Clay Maynard, landowner, spoke regarding purchasing 40 acres, 25 years ago, to build a retirement home and to develop the balance of the property as an investment. He lives and works in Yuba City and cannot come to meetings requested by people who do not live in the area. He spoke about property owners' rights to develop their land within state and local laws. He expressed issues regarding trails, soil erosion and site development should be left to the experts and civil engineers who make decisions based on facts. Patricia Stockton Leddy, representing their family, trust who own choice property on the edge of the bluffs, expressed if the City establishes one rule for the entire bluffs, you DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 5 - will be taking their land. The City should just follow the State Building Codes and stay with the ordinances now in place. Their plans are to continue grazing sheep on their land and if requirements are made for trails on their property (before it is developed), it Will Prevent them from grazing sheep. Robert Kapral, General Holdings, Inc., spoke regarding their property in the northeast. They have already participated in meetings and workshops with City staff and landowners in the area over several months. During those meetings was the time everyone was supposed to put all their concerns' on the table. It was agreed that there were not going to be any special restrictions for development in the bluffs, other than those in place at that time. Landowners/developers were to make the decision of how much land they wanted to sell to the City for open space and to work with the City on how the trails are going to be integrated into their property. General Holdings has hired engineers and architects and development should be left up to the experts. The General Plan is already in place and it is too late to go back and change the rules now for developments already in progress. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultant, stated he also participated in Councilmember Maggard's meetings to review open space in the northeast. There was a lot of participation by property owners and special interest groups for recreation, parks and trails. Some of the best parcels are now coming forward with site plans for development and he would encourage the Council to support these early developments that will be economically successful to encourage development of the northeast. 'Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh Associates, explained a couple of years ago the Building Industry and the City worked together to establish the hillside ordinance that covers hillside grading. Building density is already reduced in this area by the State Building Code which addresses setbacks and the grading ordinance. This makes development in the northeast very expensive with the infrastructure associated with the slopes. There is also a large sewer assessment for the sewer trunk lines. He expressed this is not a public policy issue, but it is a private-property rights issue. Tom Carosella spoke regarding private property rights and development of the premium lots on the bluffs. The view is what will make development in the northeast profitable. There would be no view with a 200 foot setback. Craig Carver spoke about the bluffs being torn up over the last 50 years with all kinds of vehicle traffic. They are planning to put common fencing and trees in the backyards of their development. He spoke in favor of designing the trails system and parks master plan now, as this will allow others to share the area. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 6 - Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, spoke regarding her appreciation of the view and the architecture of the hills. She expressed concerns about soil erosion and in support of the trails master plan. Committee Member Maggard stated there was a list of landowners and addresses established during his meetings on open space. He requested staff to notify everyone on that list when this issue is going to be on the Urban Development Committee agenda in the future. City Manager Alan Tandy explained the hillside ordinance was established through a public process over a long period of time with public input. The City must remain aware to impose any setbacks above those required by State Building Codes/City ordinances that would deny landowners of their property through inverse condemnation may require the City to purchase their property. There is an active program to acquire portions of the bluff areas for permanent preservation and this affords an opportunity to achieve balance between development and preservation. Committee Member Maggard explained the comments made by the property owners today are 'in agreement with the discussions during meetings he had with the staff and landowners in the bluffs area. If their land is developable, they could develop it. There was agreement the City would purchase .land volunteered for sale by landowners for open space, but would not take their property. The land may be ravines and areas that are unbuildable. The 2800 open space area that was discussed at length will only happen if the landowners are willing to sell their property. If the way we require development to occur makes it less economically feasible for the landowners to sell the surplus property, we will not have the 2800 acres of open space. In response to a question, Committee Member Maggard explained the nature of the blUffs area is very different on the west side and on the north face than it is on the eastside and some property has two faces. Because the topography and soils are so different, each development needs to be considered separately. Staff has been working on the master trails plan as developments are proposed, but it is difficult because there are many landowners and undeveloped parcels with no roads. Parks .sites have not yet been designated. Committee Member Maggard requested staff to provide examples of the setbacks for: 1) the west exposure of Mr. Kapral's property; 2) the north and east slopes where Mr. Maynard's property is located; and 3) Mrs. Stockton's property (hang-glider' hill). This will give the Committee a better sense of the setbacks in those areas with the current Building Code and ordinances. Also, interface the Fire Code setbacks with the Planning issues. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 7 - Committee Chair Couch requested a five minute recess. Committee Member Benham had a prior commitment and left the 'meeting. The meeting was reconvened at 5:15 p.m. B, Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding off-road vehicle recreational facility Development Services Director Hardisty stated staff has looked at various locations for an off-road vehicle recreational facility and looked into obtaining grants (green sticker monies). The green sticker money is collected by the State from off-road vehicle owners to be used at a later time for off-road facilities. The grant program is difficult and funds are hard to access. The State has indicated that only grants of $1 million or less are being considered. To purchase a suitable piece of property for an off-road vehicle park will cost from $5 to $7 million. CORVA (California Off-Road Vehicle Association) has been looking into pursuing legislation remedies to move the funds into' an account that will allow the funds to be disbursed to construct off-road vehicle parks. Dick Taylor, Kern OHV Association, spoke regarding the difficulty in obtaining grant funding for land acquisition and his appreciation for the help City staff has given. The Green Sticker Trust Fund is controlled by the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. The funds have been going to law enforcement, restoration of areas and studies. The State Parks Department may have Green Sticker funds that could be legislatively designated for an Off-Road Vehicle Park. Committee Member Maggard explained the 2003 Convention and Annual meeting of CORVA will be held on Saturday, March 8th, and local legislators will be attending. Hopefully, the message can be conveyed to legislators about the need for land acquisition for an Off-Road Vehicle Park. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Committee possible special meeting dates There were no additional dates that worked with everyone's calendar at this time. Committee Chair Couch asked the Committee Members to review the list of referrals to the Committee and submit the two most urgent/important to them (staff was requested to call Committee Member Benham). Staff will then place the six requested, most urgent items on the next Urban Development Committee agenda. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 3, 2003 Page - 8 - 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Deputy City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Planning Director Stan Grady; and Assistant Building Director Jack Leonard. Others: Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh and Associates; Patdcia Stockton Leddy; Clay Maynard; Robert Kapral; John Cicerone; Peter J. Rudy, KUZZ; Brian Todd; Pauline Larwood; Craig Carver; Tom Carosella; Lorraine Unger; Craig Smith; Michelle Beck; Dick Taylor; Burton Ellison; and Dave Dmohowski. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Council Committees\Urban Development 2003\udO3maK)3summa~.doc RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES State' Law: Handout - March 3, 2003 State statutes exist that preempt local zoning controls over residential care facilities. If the facility serves six or fewer persons (this does not count the care givers), the law states this is a residential use and therefore, cannot be treated any differently than a typical family living situation. This means that the city cannot require any special permits, business license, home occupation permit, fire code restrictions, building codes, etc. unless such is required of any other family dwellings. Occupancy (number of people) is limited by the Uniform Housing Code which applies to all dwellings .and is based on the size of each bedroom. The areas under state law cover a number of different types of residential care homes. These preemptions are found as follows: · Health facilities (care for developmentally disabled and skilled nursing care) California Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1267.9 · Community care facilities (covers all other types of care not already noted for adults and children) California Health and Safety Code Sections 1566.3, 1567.1 · Residential care facilities for the elderly California Health and Safety Code Sections 1568.083, 1568.0831, 1569.85 · Alcoholism recovery and drug abuse facilities California Health and Safety Code Sections 11834.02 - 11834.30 · Family day care homes (day care for children) California Health and Safety Code Sections 1596. 70. 1596. 795; 1597.40 - 1597.47,1597.65 · Homes or facilities for mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent and neglected children CMifornia Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5115 - 5120 A facility is required to be licensed by the state before the city will recognize the preemption. Otherwise, it is just a roominghouse which only allows no more than two people (BMC 17.04.510). Licenses are required for anyone who provides care or supervision and there is no distinction made for secular verses non-secular providers. Two agencies license these facilities. The State Department of Social Services licenses all day care, mental care and elderly care homes. The State Department of Alcohol and Drugs licenses only alcohol and drug rehabilitation homes. Both agencies conduct annual inspections of these homes and will respond to complaints regarding their operation. Over concentration of these homes was a concern by the state legislature. Therefore, licenses issued by the Department of Social Services (except for foster homes and elderly care) must be a minimum of 300 feet away from any other licensed home (as measured from the outside walls of the house - Section 1520.5 of the CA Health and Safety Code). If a home is less than the 300 feet, an exemption must be granted by the city, otherwise the license is denied. To date, the city has not granted any exemptions. This separation restriction does not apply to licenses issued by the State Department of Alcohol and Drugs for rehabilitation homes. Listings of licensed facilities may be obtained from both agencies either through the internet at www.calcarenet.ca, gov. They may also be contacted for listings or complaints as follows: · State Department of Social Services: Fresno - (559) 445-5692 (elderly, disabled and day care homes) · State Department of Alcohol and Drugs: Sacramento - (916) 445-0834 (alcohol and drug rehab only) September. 2001 Local Law (City of Bakersfield):' If a facility serves more than six people, city regulations require a conditional use permit in a residential zone (except in the R-4 zone for people with disabilities). These facilities are permitted by right in a commercial or industrial zone (if the industrial zone allows commercial uses) subject only to the city's site plan review process. In addition, a business license is required. The conditional use process is discretionary and conditions can be imposed to further regulate the home. These conditions can include occupancy limits, fire sprinklers, alarm systems and vehicular prohibitions. Because the permit is discretionary, it also may be found incompatible in a neighborhood and denied. Those homes which are not licensed and exceed two boarders, are considered a roominghouse (boardinghouse is another term for this). The zoning ordinance permits anyone to rent no more than two rooms (one to a person) by right. Once that number is exceeded, the use of the home is considered a roominghouse which requires a conditional use permit. An ongoing problem is people who believe they can operate a group home without any state license but still be allowed to have six people. Under the ordinance, if no state license has been issued, they are considered a roominghouse unless they only board two people. Septembe~2~l Summary sheet: RESIDENTIAL CARE OR GROUP HOM'F. Facility serves 6 or fewer people (count does not include live-in owners or help): · is permitted by right in all residential zones (considered by state law a residential use) · no city business license or home occupation permit is required · the operator must have a license from the State of California Facility serves 7 or more people (count does not include live-in owners or help): · a conditional use permit is required in all residential zones (except R-4 for people with disabilities) · a city business license is required (however, no home occupation is needed) · the operator must have a license from the State of California (These care facilities are providing non-medical care to persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for their daily living. This can include care for the elderly, juveniles, physically and/or mentally disabled, alcohol/drug rehabilitation, halfway homes, etc. --any facility where care and/or supervision for the specific condition is provided and such facility is licensed as such by the state.) ROOMINGHOUSE A roominghouse: · is any building containing 3 or more guestrooms rented for compensation is not the same as a residential'or group care home as no care or supervision is given to the residents, though meals can be provided · requires a conditional use permit in any residential zone (except R-4) · requires a city business license (In any residential zone, a person can legally rent up to 2 rooms (1 person in each room) as a permitted use. Once they rent 3 or more rooms and/or have 3 or more renters, a conditional use permit is required. If the homeowner states that they are running a group care home for 6 or fewer persons believing this to be a permitted use but they have no state license for such a facility, then they are not a residential facility but a roominghouse. They must either obtain approval of a CUP or reduce the number of people and rooms being rented to 2 so as to remain a legal use without a CUP.) FAMILY DEFINITION: A family is defined as an individual or group of individuals, related or unrelated, living together as a single housekeeping unit, including necessary servants. A family does not include a residential facility, group care, rest home, dormitory, roominghouse, motel or similar uses. (A single housekeeping unit means that the occupants have common use and access to all living and eating areas, bathrooms, and food preparation and service areas. In addition, court cases have recognized that a family represents an intentionally structured relationship between the occupants implying a permanent, long- term relationship as opposed to one that is short-term or transient. The latter includes roominghouses, halfway and sober/drug-free living homes where the person is at the home for a defined period and then is required to move to more permanent living arrangements once they ~,e satisfied their time or recovery period. There is no maximum number of people that can' live in a home by definition since the city cannot discriminate between related and unrelated persons as ruled by the Supreme Court. Occupancy limits are a health and safety issue enforced by the Uniform Housing Code as it is based on a person per room or minimum square footage requirement which can be applied equally to all persons regardless of relationship.) September. 2001 Clay & Marilyn Maynard 3311 Brandywine Drive Yuba City, CA 95993 Handout - March 3, 2003 (530) 822-9822 February 12, 2003 Bakersfield City Council 1715 Chester Avenue. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Opposition to any Bluff Setback Ordinance Change City Council: We purchased 40 acres of bluff view property over 25 years ago for eventual development and our future retirement home site. The reason we purchased the land was because of the fantastic view that we believed was worth a lifetime investment and paying the taxes for all of these years. We had some concerns when the open space issue surfaced, but eventually supported the open space plan after receiving assurances from Councilman Mike Maggard, City Staff and Michelle Beck that they were only interested in the steep portions of our property whereby the bluff rims would not be affected. The assurances were provided at a Planning meeting on August 3, 2001 whereby I was permitted to record the meeting. Attached is my letter of understanding dated September 11,2001 as per the audiotape of that meeting. This was our agreement. We were shocked to read in the Californian newspaper of February 12, 2003 "Group calls for setback to protect bluffs".. When we first met Michelle Beck, we assumed she was a person of integrity, but her quoted statements in the paper are completely opposite from what she told us at the taped planning meeting. We feel that we have been deceived. At the November 14, 2001 City Council meeting, the Sierra Club requested a "viewshed ordinance" requiring increased setbacks from the edge of the bluffs. The Sierra Club representative waited until the last few minutes of the public comment portion before speaking and presenting his paper to the City Council. This exhausted the time for public comment so that a rebuttal was not possible. He indicated that private individuals should not be allowed to have homes on the bluffs with dramatic views. He said that the bluffs are needed for people to walk whereby they should be reserved for public use. In his paper, he referred to those who would have homes on the bluffs as "those lucky few". As a retired Navy Pilot, I put my life on the line many times to earn ihe money to buy our 40 acres. The Sierra Club refers to those who work hard and invest their money in real estate as "the lucky few" instead of the hard working few. This great Country was built because people worked hard to make their dreams a reality. There is nothing in our Constitutioq that justifies a "Taking" of private property for others to enjoY the view. Sincerely, ~ ~_.__._.~ ............................................. Clay Maynard Clay & Marilyn Maynard 3311 Brandywine Drive 'Yuba City, CA 95993 Home (530) 822-9822 Office (530) 790-6611 Fax (530) 790-6950 September 11,2001 Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield Planning 1715 Chester Avenue BaXersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Assurances Provided at Meeting of August 3, 2001 Dear Marc, Tn:s letter is to confirm the assurances provided on August 3, 2001 at the Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Planning meeting. Regarding our property in Northeast Bakersfield, my wife, Marilyn, and I are in support of open space so long as it does not limit our property rights for residential development especially on the bluff rims. As you know, we had concerns about what impact the open space planning process might have upon our property. These were addressed to our satisfaction at the August 3, 2001 meeting and tape recorded with your permission. The meeting of August 3, 2001 clarified my major concerns regarding the fourth paragraph ~n your letter of August 1, 2001. As property owners, we will not have the ' fina! say in trail locations on land purchased by the Oity, but we are assured that trails and/or easements will not be planned across the property we retain. in summary, it is our understanding that you and Councilman Maggard confirmed that ...'e nave the following assurances: i The present R-1 zoning will not be changed as a result of the open space planning process without our voluntary agreement to sell that portion of our land. 2. There will be no required trails and/or easements along the view areas (bluff r,ms) on our property. 3. Trails and/or easements on our property will not be required unless they are part of a development plan whereby they will not be required on the view areas (bluff rims). ,",'e fee! comfortable with these assurances and will continue to support the open space ':.encebt If our understanding is different from yours, please let us know prior to the next meel~Ng. ~ =:. ,Maynard C~ Mike Maggard, City Councilmember, Ward 3 2001 CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODE EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18 ,,,/,-' ~tACE OF I~OOTINGi TOP OF ~ SLOPE · ,~^o~ o~ ~: ::/' -'"~ ~ / TOE OF ~ /,~r 'VHI3 BUT NEED NOT H J ~I" SLOPE ~ ~ ' EXCEED 40 FT. / f ///A\,~,// ~ ,~N~ H!~!=XGI::E~ '15 FI. {4572 mm} MAX. {1~ 102 mm) MAX FIGURE 18-1-1--SETBACK DIMENSIONS B :A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 25, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JOHN W. STINSOI~S~ISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: HANDOUTS AT THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING ON MARCH 3, 2003 At the March 3rd Urban Development Committee meeting, there were binders with materials relating to the northeast bluffs provided to the Committee Members by Craig Smith and Michele Beck, Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space Committee, which would be difficult to copy. The materials are available in the City Manager's Office: (1) A binder with colored photos showing erosion on the bluffs; and (2) A binder with a report on Northeast Bluffs Steep Slopes The following documents pertain to the: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE meeting of Monday, April 7, 2003 at 3:00 PM. BANDOIIT APRIL 7, 2003 URBAIq DEVELOPI~IENT COI~ffilTTEE LITTLE THINGS CAN HURT San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Printed on Recycled Paper r pollution in our Valley affects us all. It is especially harm- H OW DO E S TH E DISTRICT H E L P? ,. ful to'children since their lungs are not fully developed. It also The Valley Air District adheres to the standard~ impacts the elderly and anyone with respiratory problems such determined by the Environmental Protection Agency to as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema or individuals who are in help reduce the levels of PM and air pollution by fragile health, implementing programs for: . Dust control . Smoking vehicles Most people think that air pollution forms only in the summer. While ground-level ozone can become dangerous during the · Wood burning · Agricultural burning summer months, particulate matter is a serious problem during the winter months. That's why your Valley Air District wants you /" ..... to know that particulate matter (PM) is among the most harmful /,/Tho medicol costs'\ of all air pollutants. /' associated with the '\ / effects of Particulate YOU CAN HELP TOO! I Matter are estimated To help reduce the levels of ~ at nearly $4 billion o~r WHY 15 PARTICULATE/V~ATTER HAR/v~FUL? air pollution and particulate matter : billion is lost from ~\ each year. Another $3 Particulate matter is made of tiny particles of soot, dust, that affects you and your family: \,Nmissed work and / ~other materials, including droplets of liquid. These particles · Avoid using your fireplace N, school. are much smaller than we can see (seven times smaller than the when air pollution levels width of a single strand of hair). Because these particles are so tiny, are elevated. they can easily invade the body's natural defense system and · Drive slowly on unpaved roads and other dirt lodge deep in our lungs. This can cause damage to our lungs, surfaces. · Avoid using leaf blowers and other equipment that creates dust. SOURCES ~1~ HEALTH EFFECTS SUFFERING FROM A RESPIRATORY ILLNESS? · Get regular check-ups. Common sources Seasonal allergies can be · Limit outdoor activities on poor air quality of particulate matter are: confused with the effects of days. · diesel engines air pollution. Check with · power plants your doctor if you are experi- · industries encing: FOR /v~ORE INFOR/v~ATION, CONTACT: · fireplaces · headaches · woodstoves · eye irritation ~'~!~~ The Valley Air District · wind-blown dust · coughing -~- 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue · throat irritation Fresno, CA 93726 · aggravated sinuses (559) 230-6000 Web site: www. valleyair, org r~ BAI~DOgT -APRIL 7, 2003 ~ URBAI~ DEVELOPI~I~]T COI~ITTEE I~IEF. TII~IO BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEM'ORANDUM January 10, 2002 SUBJECT: LEAF BLOWER RESEARCH This memorandum encapsulates research relatinglto both sides of the leaf blower dialogue as requested by the Urban Development Committee at its meeting of December 3, 2001. The issues of air pollution, dust and noise are reviewed as well as others. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) focuses on standards for mobile sources and fuels. CARB instituted engine emission standards on leai blowers in 1995 and added stricter standards in 2000. The standards relate to hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen emissions. (The restrictions are attached.) CARB reports that manufacturers have!developed several different methods to comply with Certifying and producing engines that are below the regulated limits. Dust from leaf blowers is not monitored. The investigation and reduction of noi§e emissions is not part of CARB's authority or mission. PM10 and PM2.5 are specifically addressed through the State planning process as criteria air pollutants. There are no explicit federal, state, or Ibcal standards governing leaf blower fugitive dust emissions. ' Local air pollution control districts, such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SSJVAPCD), develop plans and implement contrbl measures which primarily affect stationary sources such as factories and plants. They also conduct e~ucation and outreach programs (i.e., Spare the Air days). Some cities and counties deal with leaf blower issues at the noise/nuisance level. A city of Modesto survey which lists cities which have banned or restricted the use leaf blowers is attached. Types of Local Regulations. CARB reports that existing local restrictions on leaf blowers generally fall into four basic categories, with many cities employ~ing a combination of approaches: 1) Time of day/day of week are the most common approaches and are used to control when leaf blowers can be operated. 2) Some cities regulate leaf blower use based on poise levels recorded at specified distances from the operator. ~ 3) Some cities stipulate usage restrictions on!¥ in residential areas or within a certain distance of residential areas. 4) Cities sometimes couple .area restrictions with user guidelines such as operator education on noise and environmental issues. John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager January 10, 2002 Leaf Blower Research Page 2 A question/answer page (pro and con) relating to air, dust and noise pollution issues raised in the leaf blower dialogue is attached. Further research on leaf blowers elicited the following information: Mufflers. While some leaf blowers come with or offer mufflers, CARB only monitors mufflers relative to backpressure or catalytic converter engine emissions and not as a noise or dust issue. Engine. mufflers are not required. Air Districts. On checking with other air districts (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District), I found that while they had regulations on fugitive dust leaf blower dust was not addressed. Ms. Jackie Lourenco, Manager, Off Road Control Section of CARB indicated that she was unaware of any regional air district which had standards relating to the use of leaf blowers. Universities. An abundance of information on the leaf blower debate was available on the Internet, although little data, other than periodical, was available at the local library, the Cai State Bakersfield library, or the UCLA on-line library. Most periodical-related data related to the City of Los Angeles ban. One article mentioned a local Scarsdale, New York justice had overturned its leaf blower ban. Buyback Program. Regarding the SSJVAPD "buyback" program, the program relates to electric vs. gasoline-powered lawn mowers wherein individuals could exchange their gas-powered mowers for electric ones. The program is expected to be reinstituted in the upcoming year. Kelly Malay, SSJVAPD Air Quality Educator, indicated this program was feasible as alternative technology (i.e., electric vs. gas-powered lawn mowers) is available. (The City provided $5,000 toward the gas-powered lawn mower exchange program.) Alternatives to gas powered leaf blowers do not currently exist on a widespread basis. Electric leaf blowers are hindered by length of cord; battery-operated leaf blowers are heavy and not effective for long-term use. Contact Local Organizations. Contact with local Lung Association staff elicited information that the local Lung Association does not have an official stand regarding leaf blowers nor was staff aware of a position at the state level. A call to Project Clean Air elicited a return call from an individual who was unaware of an official stand regarding leaf blowers. When contacting Mr. Larry Jack of the Bakersfield Gardeners Association, he indicated that he felt an educational program was a good approach. There was a concern that non-licensed gardeners in the city caused many of the problems residents experienced and that new regulations would impact legitimate operators while not the others. Enforcement would be an issue. Articles. Attached is a selection of articles relating to the use or banning of leaf blowers. A complete copy of CARB's report to the Legislature is available upon request. Please let me know if you need anything further. (P:~JS~M0201101 -LeafBIowerResearch) Attachments City of Modesto Survey Results regarding Leaf Blower Bans/Restrictions Belvedere (1987) It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to operate any portable machine powered with a gasoline engine used to blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks~ driveways, lawns, or other surfaces. Berkeley (1991) ...it shall be unlawful for any person, including any city employee, to operate any portable machine powered with a gasoline engine used to blow leaves, dirt, and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns or other surfaces within the City limits Beverly Hills (1976) It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to use or operate· any portable machine powered with a gasoline engine used to blow leaves, dirt, and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns, or other surfaces. Cannel (1975) The operation of a combustion engine blower for the purpose of displacing, removing or blowing any materials from or about public or private property in a manner which allows the engine to be heard on public property and causes the materials to be blown into the air in a manner which allows them to settle on public property or on private property not belonging to the same owner on which the blower is being operated is declared to be a public nuisance and unlawful. Claremont (1991) ...Whereas, the city council finds the operation of gasoline powered leaf blower use results in dust, engine emissions, and noise pollution...Whereas, the city council finds that gasoline powered leaf blowers exceed the noise standards as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Land Use and Development Code...whereas, the Air Quality Management Dish-itt (AQMD) in its twenty year Clean Air Plan recommends a ban on gasoline powered blowers...Now, therefore, the city council does ordain...Internal combustion engine (gasoline) powered leaf blowers shall be prohibited in the city after March 1, 1991...Use of any type of leaf blower on any city owned or maintained property is prohibited... Del Mar (total ban) It shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate within the City, any portable machine, powered with a gasoline engine or electric motor, to blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns, and other surfaces. City of Modesto Survey Results regarding Leaf Blower Bans/Restrictions Page 2 Hermosa Beach It is unlawful to use within the city limits or cause to be used electrical (total ban) or gasoline powered backpack/leafblowers, such as commonly used by gardeners, landscapers and other persons. Indian Wells (1990) Leaf blowers shall be prohibited in all zones within the City except: (i) individual property occupants may operate a single electrically powered leaf blower with use confined to his/her property; (ii) golf course operators may operate gasoline powered leaf blowers during the months of September 15th through December 1 st of each year. Lawndale (1997) (not yet obtained) Laguna Beach The use of electrical or gasoline powered blowers, such as commonly (total ban - 1993) used by gardeners and other persons for cleaning lawns, yards, driveways, gutters, and other property is prohibited at any time within the city limits. Los Altos (1991) ...it shall be unlawful for any person within the City to use or operate any portable machine powered with a gasoline engine used to blow leaves, dirt, and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns, landscape areas or other surface. Los Angeles (1998) ...no gas powered blower shall be used within 500 feet of a residence at any.time. Both the user of such a blower as well as the individual who Contracted for the services of the user, if any, shall be subject to the requirements of and penalty provisions for this ordinance. Malibu ...the following acts and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared to be in violation of this Chapter:...Leaf Blowers. The use or operation of any portable machine powered with a combustion or gasoline engine used to blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns and other surfaces. Menlo Park (1998/ Original ban ovemaxted by referendum. Certified Leaf Blowers may be 1999) operated in the City Mondays through Fridays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Certified Leaf Blowers may be operated by residents of the City on Saturdays between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. to maintain their property. Operation of Certified Leaf Blowers in the City is prohibited on Sundays, observed Federal holidays as defined by the City and on "Spare the Air" days as declared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. City of Modesto Survey Results regarding Leaf Blower Bans/Restrictions Page 3 Mill Valley (1993) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a gas-powered device to blow leaves, dirt or other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns or other surfaces within any area of the City: Piedmont (1990) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a gasoline-powered device used to blow leaves, dirt or other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns or other surfaces within any area of the City except that gasoline-powered leaf blowers may be used by public agencies on publicly-owned or operated facilities. Santa Barbara (1997) It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to use or operate any portable machine powered with a gasoline engine, or gasoline powered generator, to blow leaves, dirt, and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns, or other surfaces. Santa Monica No person shall operate any motorized leaf blower within the City. (total ban) West Hollywood The purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit the use and operation of (1986) gasoline powered leaf blowers in the City of West Hollywood. These devices, used to blow leaves, dirt and debris, create an excessive and unusual mount of noise, often operating at up to ninety decibels. The sustained operation of leaf blowers at this decibel level is literally deafening to persons who reside and work within earshot of the many gardeners and property owners who utilize the devices. The sound is extremely annoying and distracting and not only causes disturbance of those in the vicinity of users of leaf blowers but has the potential to cause hearing damage. In addition, leaf blowers tend to blow dirt, dust and other particulate matter in the air, thereby reducing the air quality in West Hollywood, aggravating persons with allergies and asthmatic conditions and depositing such debris on other public and private property. There are many alternate methods of disposing of leaves available to gardeners and property owners, including electric blowers, rakes, brooms, vacums and water. The use of gasoline powered blowers is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance by virtue of the detrimental effect such blowers have on the community and residents of West Hollywood. (P:XJSXLeafBlowerSurvey-Modesto) N~NDOUT - APRIL ?, 2003 ~ URBAN DEVELOPHENT COI~IITTEE NEETING B A'K E R S F I E'L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM December 3, 2001 TO: JOHN W. STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST III ~-~ ~ FROM: SUBJECT: GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS The cities of Stockton, Sacramento, Fresno, and Modesto, generally considered to be "comparable" to Bakersfield, were contacted regarding whether they had leaf blower bans. Of these cities, none has a gas powered leaf blower ban. Sacramento has restrictions on the times gas powered leaf blowers am allowed in residential areas. The large city of Los Angeles has a gasoline-powered leaf blower ban within 500 feet of a residence; the use of electdc and battery powered leaf blowers adjacent to residences is permitted. The large city of San Diego, under its leaf-blower ordinance, restricts the use of engine- powered leaf blowers to specified times and requires functional mufflers. (P:~JS\M0112031) HANDOUT - APRIL 7, 2003 '~ URBAN DEVELOP~4ENT CO14~IITTEE ~IEETING EditOdai page editOr..::' ':i.. · .' ;:. "".,: ! .'....:~ .· - .......' IIVl Dianne H~{rdisty /395~7414 · .. . . . email: opiniOn@bakerSfield.com'. ', "' ..:.. ..... .. ,,~ ..... .,~ ~' · C O'*'M M.U..WII T¥';' .,, I'C'E'S · d' Anti-pollution welcome'. _ Valley..Sl~c~, jthose b~S .woUld' rienclng sh(x-'mess ofbmalti, Pain remove Vehicles from the ,road tha~ . ., is2rPollufi0nControlDistrict~42~g49of emit excessive exhaust and limit. .: : Kern County's 642,495 residents were ~oOd-b~m~g flre~e~ ' · affected by asth~ ~ 200~ ~ ~ 6,7 Coming.from a legislator represent-': ' percent of our lng the he~t.of California's f0rmland,.. ~]are-p°r~le -- were amo~g~he Istro~lysupportoursen~spdlit- ical moW. But.understanding ~ very Afour-year study completed ~ It is time to stop merely ~ . pleh~ourcommunity, Flomzistaidnga , B°~rdand~YesnO~ea~KaiserPem~ time to move forward with a plan to put the heal~ of 0ur residents flmt_ betweenimxeasedsmog~dincre~sed FloreZ has presented a viable and strivipgfor clem~ airfor san J~. hospital Vis~ Tl~e study documented' significant solution to us that aims to valleY~dentstobreathe. · .. tl~forpecple Wi~ chronicb~ protect the health of everyone ishome ~o some ofthe dirtiest airin the m~i~'ion incre~ as much as ?:.SP~'., - 'Yes, fl~isis theboldeSt pl~. to cu~ air t levelozone.(Smog)audairb°rneparlJz climbed6.5percentfor~10-mi°m' Valley, but the resUtts.of a.(x~ed: .exceedfedemlhealt~Standardsin~e For .~ose with 'acute breathing brealtte; and l~ereisno quesliont~ ~J0aquin' Valley... i' . pr°blemssachasaslhnm'h°sp~lJz~- be~ter air will result i~.:bett~'heai~ . - '.~j./...: - ~., · . "" "::'.!;.i'~ ' '' . "' . · .. !- .. :.....c.; ..?: . .",:: ./~.~.~:,:';~e~ . ;~;>.-)~-~....~!.~ ~... ...:~.... ~.~!. '' : . · .. ....... ~,, ~.... ~c ~ _. - - ' ' ' ' ' "'i ' ' ' '~ ' : ''~ ";' ;' !:: . .'. ':'-.,!.'- '-"i":;i:'.. · - ' ' .'. . · · . · ?;-.' ':~ ~.:! .:, ..... ;~::.~ ", .'~.: :'" - · : '." : i'; " ItAIqDOUT - APRIL 7, 2003 '~ ~ URBAN DEVELOP14ENT COI~ffilTTEE I~IEETING DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: January 10, 2002 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Start Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks L/"~ SUBJECT: Back Pack Blower Vs. the Broom The Recreation and Parks Department maintains about 330 acres of parks and streetscapes in the Maintenance Distdct and about 310 acres in non Maintenance District areas. This would include high profile areas such as the Centennial Plaza, Chester Avenue Streetscapes, and City Hall. We have 90 regular park employees and 45 temporary employees dudng the peak season that maintain over 640 acres within the city limits. The Parks Division budget for the 2001-2002 fiscal year is $7,929,500 to perform all the maintenance tasks within the city. The back pack blower is a major component of our maintenance function. Staff uses the blowers to clean sidewalks of dirt and debris, clean out flower beds, blow off basketball and tennis court surfaces, swimming pool decks, bike paths, trails, picnic areas and street areas. This function is done because we want areas clean, projection of a good image and areas that are safe for our users. We also use other equipment to minimize the use of back pack blowers. Our median mowers have mulching units on them to minimize the amount of debds on sidewalks and streets. We have several "turf sweeper" units that pick up turf clippings and leaves so the blowers don't have to be used as often. This department compared maintenance tasks using brooms versus back pack blowers over a pedod of time. These sampling areas consisted of parks, streetscapes and median areas to determine the times required by the broom and back pack blower. The results produced a ratio of 4 to 1 which meant that it took an employee 4 hours to clean an area with a broom and 1 hour to clean that same area with a back pack blower. Our ratio is very close to that of the City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department which was 5 to 1. In discussing this issue with a City of Los Angeles department official, he described the ban on blowers as a disaster. Their current maintenance schedule is directed by phone calls and complaints regarding the lack of maintenance. Current man power with brooms only allows them to respond to calls and not capable of maintaining a regular maintenance schedule. Comparing the Maintenance Distdct labor costs of using .a back pack blower at $302,000 a year and the costs of using a broom at $1,209,000 a year. This would be an increase cost of $907,000 to the annual Maintenance District budget, $2,918,819 which is a 31% increase. Also, this increase only accounts for expenses in the Maintenance Distdct while the City has other non Maintenance Distdct areas that would experience similar costs and increases. Accordingly, if we change our maintenance operation to the use of brooms and the required staffing and funding is not available, then our maintenance standards would decline. There would be a slight savings in the purchase of brooms, $15,300 versus blowers, $22,100 in a year and the net would be $6,800. This department'continues to look at new technology and enhancements to improve efficiencyl safety, Iow emissions and noise. Basically we feel we are using the state of the art back pack blowers currently on the market and available to the'City. We try to use the best technology and information available on blowers and also continually train our employees on the proper methods of operating their blowers and being "good neighbors" such an example would be operating our blowers at "half throttle". A "good neighbor" uses this equipment only when necessary and needed and monitors when it should be used. In summary, the large amount of parks and landscaping in the City that we are responsible for maintaining and the high use of these areas by our citizens require our maintenance crews to be efficient in every way. Staff would not recommend the use of brooms because it is not cost effective nor efficient in our park operations as demonstrated in our survey of "Brooms versus Blowers". Industry standards and citizen expectations of properly maintained areas can best be met with the Back Pack Blower. HAI~OI~f -APRIL 7, 2003 URBAN DEVELOPI~NT' COI~II??EE CrIT OF BAK P FI I O Recreation 8 Parks Blower Users: The City of Bakersfield encourages the proper use of blowers by professional gardeners, homeowners, and its own city staff as well as respecting the rights of others. We would like all user's to spend a few minutes in reading the following information on the proper operation of blowers. A "Thank You" goes to the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA) for the information on blower operation. PROPER OPERATION OF LEAF BLOWERS 2. Check all exposed bolts, nuts Know Your Blower-Read the and screws and tighten any that Operators Manual! may be loose. Before operating your blower, it is 3. Check the muffler and remove important that you read the operator's any excess carbon buildup. manual. 4. Check the cylinder fins and fan Pre-Start Equipment Inspection area to make sure they are free of dirt and grime. You do this by performing a pre-start inspection that will alert you to any 5. Check the hoses and clamps, maintenance or operating problems and and make sure they are in good reduce the risk of injuries, condition and fastened securely. Place your blower on a flat, hard surface 6. If you are using a backpack and disconnect the spark plug following blower, check the harness for the instructions contained in your proper fit and in good condition. operator's manual. Move the spark plug wire well away from the spark plug. A note of caution! Should it be Check to be sure the ignition switch is in necessary for you to inspect your the "off" position. Now, you're ready to blower after it has been operating, begin the inspection, do so only with extreme caution. During and after operation, certain 1. First, check the fuel tank for parts of your blower may be hot leaks. Make sure the fuel cap is enough to burn. closed tightly. Wipe off any fuel that may have spilled on the tank. Protective Equipment- safety 5. Wear Iona pants to protect your First! legs. Safety must be a first consideration 6. If you are working in dry or dusty for all equipment operators. It is key conditions, wear a dust filter to proper blower operation, mask or respirator. Operators must be in good physical condition and wearing the proper 7. When working' near high traffic protective equipment whenever they areas, wear a briahtlv colored, are using their blowers, reflective vest so you stand out to drivers. If you are ill, tired or taking medication that may cause dizziness Worksite Safety Inspection or drowsiness, do not operate power equipment. Never operate power Just as you inspect your equipment equipment if you are under the before starting to work, it is always a influence of alcohol or drugs, good idea to inspect your work area. Look for hidden hazards, like rocks, Full protective gear should always stones and debris, such as broken be worn when operating power glass, bottles, wires or anything else equipment. Proper blower operation that could cause property damage or requires that users wear the injuries to you or others. Watch out following protective gear: for beehives, anthills, poison ivy or poison oak and uneven or unstable terrain. 1. Eye Protection: Never operate Proper Leaf Blower Operation a power blower unless you are wearing approved eye Operating your power blower protection, correctly ensures that you work more efficiently, and reduces the risk 2. Ear Protection: Always wear of accidents and mechanical ear protection when operating breakdowns. The following ten rules your blower. Repeated and are important for every blower prolonged exposure to loud operator to know and follow. noise can cause hearing loss or impairment. Either foam Rule #1: Be considerate earplugs or the large earmuff style are acceptable. The first rule for all power equipment operators is to be considerate of 3. Work qloves: Improve your grip other people and their property. on the blower and can protect against burns. Be considerate of those who might be working at home, ill or sleeping. 4. Always wear boots or hard Operate your blower at the lowest shoes: That provide good possible throttle speed and only during traction, ankle support and reasonable hours. Clean up any debris protection. Never wear sneakers and check to make sure you haven't or sandals' when operating your blown dirt or debris on neighboring blower, areas. Watch out for pedestrians, children and pets and give them plenty Rule #8: Protect the environment- of room. limit noise Rule #2: Operate your blower at the One of the most apparent issues lowest possible throttle speed, concerning power blowers is noise. To lower the noise levels associated with It is rarely necessary to operate your blower use, throttle down whenever blower at full throttle. Use the lowest possible-lower speeds mean less noise. possible throttle speed necessary to get Also limit the number of power tools in the job done. operation at any one time. Rule #3: Use rakes and brooms to Rule #9: Protect the environment- loosen debris or move big piles, limit .dust. Another rule is to use rakes and brooms If you are working in dusty conditions, to loosen debris or move big, heavy reduce the throttle to lower airflow piles, speed. Do not blow dust beyond the street or property line where you are Rule #4: Always use the nozzle and working. place it close to the ground Rule #10: Protect the environment- Always use your nozzle extension to put use care when fueling your blower. the air stream close to the ground. As a general rule, it is always best to Rule #5: Be aware of what is going start your day with a full tank of fuel. on around you When it's time to refuel your blower, turn off the machine and put it down on a Look up often while you are using your flat, stable surface. Never attempt to blower to be certain that you know what refuel a blower without first turning off is happening around you. If anyone the engine. approaches your work area, throttle all the way down until they are safely clear. Before you refuel a blower that has been running, give it some time to cool Rule # 6 Operate only during down after shut off. Never set a hot reasonable hours blower down on dry leaves or twigs. Never smoke while you are refueling. Please be cognizant of others that may be nearby when operating blowers. If your blower has a 2-cycle engine, Such equipment should be operated carefully mix the oil with the gasoline during hours which would not disturb using the ratio specified in your those that may be sleeping, ill or during operator's manual. Be sure to store a period outside working hours, your gasoline in an approved fuel or flammable liquid container labeled for Rule #7: Clean up when you're two-cycle fuel. finished working. When you have finished filling the unit, When you are finished operating your wipe around the outside of the fuel tank blower, clean up by using proper trash to remove any fuel that may have spilled receptacles. Clean up completely, on the blower. Before re-starting your blower, move at professionalism and concern for our least ten feet away from the fueling environment, we can help to ensure that area. Lingering fuel vapors can create a the power blower continues as an fire hazard, so move away before important lawnandgardentool. starting your blower. Keeping Your Blower Operating At Its Best- Regular Maintenance · In addition to the recommendations contained in your operator's manual, here are some things you can do to ensure top performance and a long life from your blower. The part of your blower that requires the most frequent maintenance is the air filter. The air filter must be clean for good engine performance and dependability. Following the instructions given in your operator's manual, remove the dirty filter and replace it with a clean one. Before discarding the old filter, check your manual to see if it can be cleaned and reused. You should never operate your blower without a filter. Next, check and clean the cylinder fins and fan area. Dirt and grime can build up causing the engine to overheat. Finally, clean the blower of any oily grime. Use compressed air, paying close attention to the cylinder fins and fan area. If you don't have compressed air, use hot, soapy water. Once you've finished, re-attach the spark plug wire, and let the machine dry completely. You're ready for another day. Conclusion Power blowers are 'a valuable tool for today's lawn and garden professionals and homeowners alike. Everyone who uses this equipment needs to know and understand how to operate it properly. With high standards of safety, RECE-~ED: 4/ 7/03 9:36AM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; #541; PAGE 2 ¢~?~-07-03 HON 09:26 SJV~?CD SO REGION FA× NO, 6613266985 P, 02 ~ ~ HAI~OLI~ - APRIL 7, 2003 URBAI~iDEVELOpI~IEI~ CO['fl~IITTEEI~EETZNG LEAF BLOWER REPORT DATE: July 15, 2002 FROM: Robert Dowell, Director of Planning, San Joaquin Valley APCD TO: David L. Crow, Air Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley APCD BACKGROUND: Leaf blowers are classified as lawn and garden utility equipment, and they are used to clear debris. An indirect result of leaf blower use is the generation of inhalant particulate matter. In addition to particulate matter, gasoline powered leaf blowers emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and toxic compounds such as benzene from the exhaust. Currently, the District is designated "severe" nonattainment for ozone and "serious" for PM-lO. In the early 1970s the leaf blower was introduced to California as a lawn and garden maintenance tool and drought conditions facilitated acceptance of the leaf blower as the use of water for many garden clean-up tasks was prohibited. The issues usually mentioned by those who object to leaf blowers are health impacts from noise, air pollution, and dust. There are currently twenty California cities that have banned leaf blowers, sometimes only within residential neighborhoods and usually targeting gasoline-powered equipment. Municipalities regulate leaf blowers most often as public nuisances in response to noise complaints by citizens. For both fugitive dust and noise, there are few or no data specifically on leaf blower impacts. For all hazards, there have been no dose-response studies related to emissions from leaf blowers, we do not know how many people are affected by those emissions, and no studies were located that address potential health impacts from leaf blowers. Fugitive dust emissions impact a varying number of people, depending on one's proximity to the source, the size of the particles, and the amount of time since the source resuspended the particles. Exhaust emissions from leaf blowers consist of the following specific pollutants of concern; hydrocarbons from both burned and unburned fuel, and which combine with other gases in the atmosphere to form ozone; carbon monoxide; fine particulate matter; and other toxic air contaminants in the unburned fuel. Exhaust emissions from these engines, while high compared to on-road mobile sources on a per engine basis, are a small part of the overall emission inventory. Engine emissions have only been controlled since 1995, with more stringent standards having taken effect in 2000. The RECEZV~ED: 4/ 7/03 9:37AM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; #541; PAGE ~ ¢ ~PR~07-03 HON 09:27 SSV~PCD SO REG[ON FA× NO, 66i3266985 P, 03 exhaust emissions from leaf blowers are consistent with exhaust emissions of other, similar off-road equipment powered by small, two-stroke engines, such as string trimmers. There are also electric-powered models available that are exhaust-free. Data of fugitive dust indicate that the PM 10 emission impacts-from dust suspended 'by leaf blowers are small. Previous emission estimates range from less than 1% to 5% of the statewide PM10 inventory. The ARB previously estimated statewide fugitive dust emissions to be about 5 percent of the total, the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD estimated 'leaf blower fugitive dust emissions to be about 2 percent of the.Sacramento County PM10 air burden, and Aero Vironment estimates dust attributable to leaf blowers in the South Coast Air Basin .to be less than 1% of all fugitive dust sources. Noise is the general term for any loud, disagreeable, or-unwanted sound, which has the potential of caUsing hearing loss and other adverse health impacts. While millions of Californians are likely exposed to noise from leaf blowers as bystanders, given the ubiquity of their use and the increasing density of the Valley's cities and towns, there is presently no way of knowing for certain how many are actually exposed, because of the lack of studies. The sound quality of gasoline-powered leaf blowers may account for the high level of bystander noise complaints. Describing the impacts on the public at large is difficult because people's exposures and reactions to those exposures are variable. Bystanders are clearly annoyed and stressed by the noise and dust from leaf blowers. They can be interrupted, awakened, and may feel harassed to the point of taking the time to contact public officials with their complaints, write letters, or voice their complaints during city council meetings. These are actions taken by highly annoyed individuals who believe their health is being negatively impacted. In addition, some sensitive individuals may experience extreme physical reactions, mostly respiratory symptoms, from exposure to the suspended dust cloud. RECOMMENDATION For noise, the Valley's cities and counties should mandate controls on noise levels as the evidence seems clear that quieter leaf blowers would reduce worker exposures and protect hearing, and reduce negative impacts on bystanders. Local California cities and counties have been very active in regulating and enforcing noise standards. About twenty cities have banned the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers from use within their city limits, including a recent Los Angeles City ban on use within 500 ft of any residence. There are approximately 13% of Californians living in cities that ban the use of leaf blowers, and six of the ten largest California cities have ordinances that restrict or ban leaf blowers. All together, about one hundred California cities have ordinances restricting the use of leaf blowers specifically or all gardening equipment generally. Fugitive dust emissions are problematic. The leaf blower is designed to move relatively large materials, which requires enough force to also blow dust particles into the air. Banning or restricting the use of leaf blowers would reduce fugitive dust emissions, but 2 RECEIVED: 4/ 7/03 9:37AM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; #541; PAGE 4 '~ R~-07-03 HON 09:27 SJVRPCD SO REGION F~X NO, 8613288985 P, 04 there are no data on fugitive dust emissions. Dust emissions attributable to leaf blowers .are not part of the District's inventory of fugitive dust sources. ARB does not have official data on the quantity of fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blowers. A more definitive estimate of leaf blower fugitive dust emissions will require research to verify appropriate calculation parameters, determine representative silt loadings, measure actual fugitive dust emissions through source testing, and identify the chemical composition of leaf blower-generated fugitive dust. In addition, without a more complete analysis of potential impacts, costs and benefits of leaf blower use; potential health impacts of leaf blowers and the alternatives, any District regulation banning the leaf blowers based on fugitive dust may be premature. 3 HANDOUT - APRIL 7, 2003 ~ URBAN DEVELOPI'ffilqT COi~ffilTTEE lqEETING B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: 4~03~03 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From:~f_~, Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks ~ Paul Graham, Urban Forester Subject: Public Meeting on Permit Requirements for Private Tree Companies In preparation for the public meeting of November 12, 2002, thirty-two tree service companies were sent to letters to announce the meeting location and time (attached). A packet was developed including; · An executive summary (attached) · September 6th Memo to Alan Tandy regarding contractor permits · A redline version of B.M.C. Chap. 12.40, with permit language (attached) · The International Society of Arboriculture Publication "Tree-Pruning Guidelines" · A National Arborist Association brochure outlining educational needs and job descriptions for a Residential/Commercial Tree Care Company. The meeting had a very Iow turn-out, only one person from the private sector attended. C:\BUF Doc's~003~Administrative\Memo's\PublicMeetingBMCChap12.40.doc Paul Graham Page 1 4/4/2003 Tree Maintenance Professionals, 10/28/02 Bakersfield City Council and Urban Development Committee asked City staff to review the City's tree ordinance and make recommendations for proposed uniform standards for the selection, installation, maintenance, and removal of trees within the public right of way. City staff has been working with community groups and other governmental agencies to make recommendations for the needed changes to city ordinances. One revision being proposed would be a requirement for private contractors to obtain an annual permit for tree work within the public right of way. The city is recommending this change to provide for safe and consistent tree maintenance within the public right of way. The permit process would include and educational component providing information and requirements for city tree maintenance methods and standards to those performing such work. We will be conducting a meeting on Tuesday November 12th at 7:00 P.M. at the City of - Bakersfield Corporation Yard lunch room, 4101 Truxtun Ave. to discuss the proposed permit process including requirements for obtaining a permit, permit costs and other related information. Also at this meeting we will be sharing information about the work of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Tree Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; information regarding free educational materials and workshops on proper pruning techniques; tree worker and arborist certification and an update of activities of the Tree Foundation of Kem. Urban forestry has become an important component of our community and there has been increased public interest in the proper maintenance of trees throughout the city. Many new trees are being installed and maintained within the public fight of way in Bakersfield. It is vital that this important resource be properly maintained by trained professionals. We welcome your input and your attendance at this important industry meeting. Sincerely, Paul D. Graham, Urban Forester, City of Bakersfield Company Names Address Zip code Telephone Adams Tree Service 4311 Himalayas Dr. 93312 587-3657 Alpine Firewood and Tree Service 2312 Wible Rd. 93304 832-2870 Alspaw Tree Service P.O. Box 20129 93390 393-5101 Autumn Tree Service 6208 Norris Rd. 93308 399-7719 Bakersfield Tree Service 1017 Monna Ave. 93308 399-0378 Ben's Tree Service 122 East Belle Ave. 93308 393-7884 Bomar Tree Service P.O. Box 60181 93386 322-2553 Buford & Son's Tree Services 1601 El Toro Drive 93304 834-0753 Carrillo's Tree Services 3806 Argent St 93304 835-7051 Central Valley Garden & Landscape 708 Iris 93308 391-9400 Clagg's Tree Services 5330 Eucalyptus Dr. 93306 366-5626 Cox Tree Service 115 Ferguson Ave. 93308 393-3757 Dave's Tree Service 139 Western Dr. 93309 833-8796 Don's Tree Service 2100 S. Union Ave. 93307 836-8992 Ed's Tree Service 901 Edison Rd. 93307 366-4826 Frank's Tree Service 2010 Larcus Ave. 93307 328-2197 General Tree Service 521 Washington 93307 323-4365 Gungle Tree Service 3300 Renegade Ave 93306 872-3174 Hayes Landscape & Gardening 8711 Starfish Dr. 93312 589-3085 Irons Tree Service P.O. Box 5075 93388 325-9926 Jimmy's Tree Service 1636 Country Club Dr. 93306 872-1242 Lara's Gardening Service P.O. Box 3393 93385 871-5902 _ Marid's Tree Service 12712 Dove Creek Dr. 93312 328-7762 Mayes Tree Expert 2128 Jason 93312 589-3363 Michael K. Brown Landscape Maint. 3541 Alken 93308 589-7888 Monji Michael & Associates 13816 Via Contento 93312 588-2092 Nord Landscape Services Inc. 2828 Henry Lane 93308 588-1663 Oaks Tree Service 12712 Dove Creek Dr. 93312 587-0981 Quality Gardening Service 10700 Lonon Ave. 93312 589-1617 R&R Landscaping & Maintenance P.O. Box 60143 93386 873-9920 Sampson's Landscape & Maintenance 5701 Cherry Glen CT. 93308 399-8401 Scott's Tree & Landscape 1628 Art St. 93312 587-8980 Swen Tree Service 3505 Gulf 93308 322-6244 Executive Summary of proposed chanqes to chapter 12.40 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code reqardinq Street Trees. 1. Change Definition of Public Works Director to Director of Recreation and Parks or His/Her designee. 2. Addition of section 12.40.095 Permits for commercial tree contractors. "All' contractors that perform any type of work or maintenance on trees within the streets, parks, pathways and public places of the city are required to obtain a city-issued permit from Director prior to performing said work. The cost of said permit shall be set by resolution by the City Council and the permit does not supplant the requirement for an encroachment permit." This section is being considered by the city council in order to provide a more consistent level of maintenance within the public right of way. This section would result in the following: 1.An annual permit is required for maintenance or removal of trees in the public right of way by private contractors. 2. An annual permit will be required for each contractor. Individuals - performing work for that contractor will not be required to possess a separate permit for work being performed under the direction of the permitted contractor overseeing the work. 3.Does not apply to city contracts for pruning services. City bids will require ISA certification. 4. Does not apply to the pruning of palm trees 5.Does not apply to the pruning of trees outside the public right of way; i.e. private trees. 6.City permits will be valid for one year from date of issuance and is expected to cost approximately $50. Issuance Requirements · Contractors holding a valid ISA certified arborist certificate are not subject to any other validation requirements. · Contractors holding a valid ISA Certified tree worker certificate are subject to the minimum validation requirements. Paul D. Graham Page 1 4/3/2003 C:\BUF Doc'sk2002~Administrative reportsWlemo's\BMC12.41 ExecSumm.doc Contractors without ISA certification must demonstrate sufficient knowledge of acceptable tree maintenance practices and methods and follow City / ISA pruning guidelines regarding tree maintenance in the public right of way, including but not limited to the following: City/ISA pruninq quidelines. Specifically prohibited; topping, heading, lion-tailing, or crown thinning over 1/3 of canopy volume. Removals will be approved in writing by recreation and parks prior to start of work, · Education of consumer to proper pruning practices is required. Executing prohibited pruning practices at the customer's direction is not an acceptable defense in the permit revocation process. Primary purpose of pruning will be to develop strong permanent branch structure, reduce structural hazards, remove deadwood and maintain vehicle and pedestrian clearance. · Vehicle clearance is set at a minimum height of 16 feet and a maximum height of 20 feet; pedestrian clearance is set at a minimum height of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet. Revocation of permit All warnings and infractions are planned to be administered by an ISA certified arborist, employed by the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department, based on the severity of the incident. Minor damage incidents may be viewed as correctable problems and be bought to the contractor's attention without penalty. Overt and malicious behavior may result in revocation of permit and other penalties under the municipal code. Contractors failing to comply with city pruning standards or ISA guidelines may have their permit revoked for up to two years or longer, depending on severity of damage done. Paul D. Graham Page 2 4/3/2003 ' C:\BUF Doc's~2002\Administrative reports\Memo's\BMCl 2.41 ExecSumm.doc Benefits of Professionalism in tree trimminq and arboriculture service · Improvement of the trade services city-wide reputation · Level the playing field: same standards, same costs, same profits · Improved work quality · Educated clients --- Benefits of Professionalism as a qood business practice · A client's perception: I'm getting more than I'm paying for. · Additional services/information available to the public · A good reputation; distinction among your peers · Reduced costs and increased profits Benefits of ISA Certification: Tree worker or Arborist · Increase your credibility with the public - code of ethics · Improve your business · Assist you in doing your job · Improve your knowledge and practice of arboriculture The term "Arborist" has gained wider acceptance and recognition, and appears to suggest a higher level of professionalism than "Tree Expert" Benefits of Public Education · Professional standards and ethics matter to the Arboricultural community. · Cost is based on professionalism and quality work. · The industry is capable of policing itself. · The urban forest is a valuable commodity to property owners and the entire community and is to be treated with respect · ' Our trade and our livelihood are important to us and our successors Paul D. Graham Page 3 4/3/2003 C:\BUF Doc'sk2002~Administrative reports\Memo's\BMCl 2.41 ExecSumm.doc Chapter 12.40 STREET TREES Sections: 12.40.010 Title. 12.40.020 Definitions. 12.40.030 Establishment of comprehensive plan. 12.40.040 Jurisdiction and control. 12.40.050 Duties of adjacent owners to maintain. 12.40.060 Interfering with planting or caring for trees prohibited. 12.40.070 Killing or injuring trees prohibited -- Harmful substances. 12.40.080 Inspection and removal. 12.40.090 Duty of private owners -- Removal of hazardous trees -- Charging costs of work done by city ......... ~211~bi0g:5~,i,?,:?. p~r~its for:~rnme~ciai:.treei:~:~.n(:.~act0rS: 12.40.1oo No liability upon city. 12.40.110 Types prohibited. 12.40.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the "tree ordinance" and may be cited as such. (Prior code § 12.36.010). 12.40.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the words set out in this section shall have the followin.q meanin.cls: ~B. "Parkway" means and includes that area between sidewalks and that portion of streets ordinarily used for vehicular travel, or any other public area adjacent to sidewalks and streets ordinarily and usually used as and for planting areas. BC. "Public place" means and includes streets, avenues, highways, alleys, parks, parkways, sidewalks, sidewalk spaces, or any other place open to or for the use of the {3D. "Sidewalk" means and includes that portion of a street, other than the roadway, set apart for pedestrian travel. BE. "Street" means and includes any way or place, of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular or pedestrian travel. - (Prior code § 12.36.020). - - Page 1 of 4 Pages - - 12.40.030 Establishment of comprehensive plan. A. It is for the best interests of the city that a comprehensive plan for the planting and maintaining of trees within the city should be developed and established, and this chapter is adopted for the purpose of providing for such a plan, and for the purpose of establishing regulations relating to the planting and maintaining of trees in the streets of the city and other public and private places therein. B. The city planning commission is charged with the duty of determining the types and varieties of trees for planting along the streets. Such determination shall be made by the commission after consultation with city urban forester. When such determination has been made, the commission shall report its determination in writing to the city council in a report to be designated "Official Tree Planting List, Bakersfield, California." Said report shall be placed on file in the office of the city clerk, and after such filing, the same shall be the official determination of the commission. Thereafter said commission may, from time to time, file subsequent reports covering the same subject, each of which shall be complete in itself and each shall also be filed in the office of the city clerk. The latest of such reports so filed shall constitute the official list until supplanted by a subsequent list. C. The director of pub',lc Vv'Ork$ shall from time to time, at the request of the city council, prepare plans which shall designate, by means of a complete map of the city streets, a uniform method of street tree planting, the zoning of certain streets for certain types and varieties of trees, selecting suitable types for residential areas and special types of trees for nonresidential areas. Such plans shall show the intervals between said trees, and the place where each tree is to be planted. The director ~ shall submit such plan or plans to the city council for its approval or modification, together with the recommendation of the city planning commission. D. When the uniform plan in its original or modified form is adopted by the city council, it shall become the tree planting plan for the streets of the city, and shall be strictly adhered -' '"'" ...... "" and the city planning to in all future street planting projects. The director of ~,u,.,,,,. vv~,,,,o commission shall develop such plans together. Copies of such plans shall be made and kept on file in the office of the city clerk where they may be obtained by the public. (Prior code § 12.36.030). 12.40.040 Jurisdiction and control. The director ,.,, ~,u~,,,,. vw,,~,o ~,, the c:,t¥ shall have full jurisdiction and control of the designation of types and varieties, planting, setting out, locating and placing of all trees, shrubs and plants in the streets, parks, parkways and public places of the city, and shall likewise have supervision, direction and control of the removal, relocation and replacement thereof; provided, however, that in making such determinations and exercising such control, he shall be limited to the trees, shrubs or plants designated on the then current official tree planting list. (Prior code § 12.36.040). 12.40.050 Duties of adjacent owners to maintain. It is made the duty of all owners, agents, tenants or other persons having possession or control of real property within said city to properly cultivate, care for and maintain all trees, shrubs and plants now or hereafter planted or set out within any parkway or public place immediately adjacent to their respective real properties, subject, however, to the general supervision, direction and control of said director o~. (Prior code § 12.36.060). - - Page 2 of 4 Pages - - 12.40.060 Interfering with planting or caring for trees prohibited. No person, firm or corporation shall interfere with the director of pub',',c works or persons acting under his authority while engaged in planting, mulching, pruning, trimming, spraying, treating or removing any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, parkway or public place within the city, or in the removing of any stone, cement or other substance from about the trunk of any tree, shrub or plant in any such street, park, parkway or public place. (Prior code § 12.36.070). 12.40.070 Killing or injuring trees prohibited -- Harmful substances. A. No person, firm or corporation shall, in any way, harm, injure, destroy or kill any tree, shrub or plant growing upon any street, park, parkway or public place,, by any method whatsoever. B. No person, firm or corporation shall cause, authorize or allow any brine water, oil, liquid dye or any other substance deleterious to tree or plant life, to lie, leak, pour, flow or drip on or into the soil about the base of any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, parkway or public place in the city at a point from which such substance may, by lying upon or by flowing, dripping or seeping into such soil injure, destroy or kill such tree, shrub or plant. C. No person, firm or corporation, without the approval of the director shall place or maintain any stone, cement or other substance which might impede the free access of water or air to the roots of any tree, shrub or plant in any street,, parkway or public place in the city. (Prior code § 12.36.080). 12.40,080 Inspection and removal, A. The director of publlc, works may inspect any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, park, parkway or public place of the city, to determine whether the same or any part thereof constitutes a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on said street or public places. B. If the director of publ:,c works determines that any tree, shrub or plant is hazardous to the traveling public or impedes the progress or the vision of said public on any such street or public place, he may cause the same, or such parts thereof as are hazardous or impeditive, to be trimmed or removed so as to remedy such hazardous or impeditive condition. (Priorcode § 12.36.090). 12.40.090 Duty of private owners -- Removal of hazardous trees -- Charging costs of work done by city. A. It shall be the duty of every person, firm or corporation having charge or control of any lot or premises, either as owner, agent, lessee, tenant or otherwise, to trim or cause to be trimmed, or remove or cause to be removed, all trees, shrubs or plants or any part or parts thereof, growing or standing on said property, which may constitute a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on any street or public place. B. Whenever it comes to the attention of the director ,.,, ~,.,,.,,,,. vv~,,,,o that any tree, shrub or plant growing or standing on any private property constitutes a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on any street or public place, he shall give notice of such hazard or impediment to the owner or occupant of said premises together with a request to remove or correct such condition. Such notice and request may - - Page 3 of 4 Pages - - be given either by personal service or by mail, to the owner or occupant or other person in charge or control of said premises, or by posting notice upon said property and mailing a copy thereof to the owner or occupant. The owner or occupant of said premises shall, within ten days after the service or posting and mailing of said notice, remove or cause to be removed, such hazardous or impeditive condition. C. Should any person, firm or corporation fail, neglect or refuse to conform with the provisions of this chapter, the director o~pt~ shall have the power to carry Out such provisions and the cost thereof shall be charged to and become a valid claim against such person, firm or corporation, recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Prior code § 12.36.100). 1'2,40i095',~: :~ ~'. Permits..for c~meyciaI'tYee .contraCtors; "AIICOhti:actors th~t:Pbrform' any type of.work,or maintenance on trees'within the.sti:eetsl parksl, pathwavs::a'nd':PubliC places of;the citvare re~3uired to obtain.aCity-issued permit fi:On' Dii~eCtbr'!P:~i°i:.it° P'erfo~:min-cl Said.' work: :. ::.The COst.'iof..said permitSh'allbe :Serbv resolUtion by. the:CitvCouncil::iandl the' Permit does: not: su Pplant the 'requirement for'an :encroachment pe. rmit; 12.40.100 No liability upon city. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city, its officers or employees, nor to relieve the owners of any private property from the duty to keep any tree, shrub or plant upon his property, or under his control, in such a condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyOne traveling on any street or public place within the city. (Prior code § 12.36.110). 12,40,110 Types prohibited, It is unlawful for the owner, lessee, agent, tenant or any other person having charge or control of any lot, piece or parcel of land within the city, to plant, grow or permit to be planted or grown any female Populus fremontii wats tree or trees commonly known as female cottonwood trees or trees which bear seeds of a cottony, wingy or downy nature; the fruiting variety of Morus albo and Morus nigra tree or trees, commonly known as the fruiting variety of mulberry tree; or any Ailanthus tree, commonly known as tree of heaven within said city. (Ord. 2738 § 1, 1982: prior code § 12.36.120). C:~BUF Doc's~2OO3V~dministrative\Documents~BMC 12.40.wpd - - Page 4 of 4 Pages- - HANDOUT - APRIL 7, 2003 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM April 7, 2003 TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: RauI M. Rojas, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Phase III Transportation Impact Fee In February, staff presented a preliminary fee schedule to the Urban Development Committee. Since then, City and County staff have been able to do a preliminary evaluation of the facilities list.against the Kern COG traffic model. Attached is a another preliminary look at the possible impact fee schedule for "Phase II1" of the Transportation Impact Fee program based 'upon that updated list. Additionally, staff has met once with a representative of the Building Industries Association to review some of the updated information. Staff expects to receive additional input from the BIA prior to finalizing the fee schedule and facilities list. Before this fee schedule and facilities list can be taken to hearing, several things must happen: 1. Continue to refine the project total -- projects on the impact fee list must be evaluated against the KernCOG traffic model to determine if the are required to serve the expected new growth and maintain a Level of Service "C". 2.Revise and rerun the traffic model based upon the preliminary facilities list. 3. Check refined project list against new traffic model and revise project list as necessary. This can take several iterations. 4. Update the lane mileage and other factors. These factors come from the new facilities list and the model data. 5. Present update to Urban Development Committee, County Board of Supervisors. 6. Prepare nexus document in accordance with Government Code Section 66000 et al. S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\UrbDevPhase III TIF 4-7-03.doc 7. Prepare an environmental document such as a Negative Declaration or a Categorical Exemption. 8. Hearings before the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Notice shall be in accordance with Government Code Section 66018. 9. Preparation of the ordinance amendment and the resolution adopting the new fee schedule. 10. First and second reading of the ordinance and adoption of the fee resolution by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\UrbDevPhase III TIF 4-7-03.doc TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES PHASE III 46609.20 101082.95 $35 I $42 66344.33273 $41i $44 $37 $48 $64 N/A N/A 775095.69 $58,027,359 N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL PROGRAM COST = $400,000,000 S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\Fee\full fee 3_7_03.xls 4/7/2003 HANDOUT -APRIL 7, 2003 ~ URBAN DEVELOPI~IENT COI~ffilTTEE I~IEETING Transportation Impact Fee- Phase !!! Fee Update Background TranspOrtation Impact Fee - Phase !11 Fee Update Background Back_clround The Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee was adopted by both the City Council and the County Board of S.~upervisors in 1992. This Impact Fee is a development fee and the procedures laid out by [he State of California in Government Code Section 66000 et.seq, were followed in the adoption process, The fee program consists of an ordinance to implement the fee on new development, and a Resolution adopting the Regional Transportation Facilities List and a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The Facilities List included some of the facilities needed to maintain a Level of Service of "C" or better for new growth or to prevent the degradation of roads which are currently below Level of Service "C" as shown in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Circulation Element. The fee Schedule set forth the fees to be c~)llected from new development to mitigate the need for the facilities. When first adopted, the facilities list included only those projects which were considered too large for individual developers to fund and construct on their own. However, some additional mitigation was needed on a case by case basis to account for the local component of the traffic needs. The fee Program was updated in 1997 to eliminate the need for individual traffic studies to determine the local component of the traffic needs, and the facilities list was expanded to include many roadway segments and traffic signals. The funding of these items was the most common requirement of the local traffic studies, and there inclusion in the facilities list eliminated the need for these studies. The fee schedule was updated in 2002 to account for the increase in the Construction Cost Index from the time of initial adoption through 2001. Currently, both City and County staff have been tasked with a comprehensive update of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program to extend the program out to a new horizon year- 2020. In doing so, the socioeconomic data for the updated model has been thoroughly reviewed and a traffic model for the base year of 1998 and the horizon year of 2020 have been performed by the Kern Council of Governments (KCOG). The new facilities that are required to maintain a Level of Service of"C" or better have been determined and added to a new Facilities List. The various components that go into the computation of the fee schedule have been revieWed and updated. This paper documents the assumptions, equations, and values necessary to update both the facilities list and the fee schedule. Facilities List The transportation hetwork needed for the horiZon year of 2020 was derived after many iterations. Assumptions were made as to which of the lanes for the, roadways were going to be complete by the horizon year, and the traffic model was used 'to determine which of S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 2 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background those additional lanes was necessary to maintain a Level of Service "C". The criteria as to whether to add a segment to the facilities list were as follows: 1. If the LOS on any link is C or better in 1998, and isalso C or better in 2020, do' nOt add any lanes to the Phase III list unless the existing lanes are in the wrong location- i.e. 24' of existing paving on an arterial does not allow for the median and the existing pavement is usually entirely removed with the installation ora median. In this case, add the cost to remove the existing pavement and dispose of it and replace with toPsoil. 2. If the LOS on any link is C or better in 1998 and is less than C in 2020 - add the necessary lanes to bring the LOS in 2020 to C or better. 3. If the LOS is less than C on any link in 1998, add lanes as necessary to keep the same LOS in 2020. 4. If no road exists on the link in 1998, and 2020 shows 2 or more lanes needed for Los c or better, add the appropriate lanes. ' 5. If the adjoining parallel arterials are LOS C or worse in 2020, add 2 lanes to the intermediate collector. 6. If the land use is Ag, get the full right-of-way for the collector or arterial. It' the land use is Residential and the land is undeveloped or unoccupied, assume the additional right-or-.way will come with development. 8. If the land is Residential and is developed with homes, and the improvements or right-of-way are not in place, then add both right-of-way and the full improvements, including the expanded right-of-way if it applies. ·~ 9. If the link already has lanes on the Phase II list, keep the "old fee" lanes on this segment and update the "old fee" construction cost and, where applicable, the right-of-way and other costs (unless noted otherwise). 10. If an intersection has been recently constructed in the County (including curb and gutter), and the intersection is not expanded, leave it as is. 11. If the land is Industrial or Commercial and the full improvements are not in place, get right-of-way and additional travel lanes (if necessary), but not the remaining improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking lane) - businesses must pay their own way for their frontage improvements. The cost assumptions are as follows: 1. Land Costs per square foot: a. Residential $1.00 ' b. Commercial- Undeveloped $ 3.00 c. Commercial- Developed $10.00 d. Industrial - Undeveloped $ 0.57 e. Industrial - Developed $ 2.50 2. Existing Residences: lfthe existing home will meet the minimum setback requirement after the ultimate right-of-way is in place, then just purchase the additional right-of-way at the above cost. If the home cannot meet the minimum setback, then buy the hOme and lot for $250,000 (blended price for all of Bakersfield). 3. Road Construction Costs: a. Arterial $215,000 per lane mile x 1.0678 S:\PROJECTS~TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 3 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase ill Fee Update Background b. Collector $145,000 per lane mile x 1.0678 c. Removal of both existing arterial lanes in the wrong position(no median allowance): $25/CY for roadway excavation to a depth of 2 feet (including disposal) and replace with topsoil at $10/CY - 20' x 2' x 1' x $35/CY assume $52/L~F 4. Miscellaneous Costs:' a. Railroad Grade Separation: $9,000,000 Ea. b. Collector Grade Separation: $2,000,000 Ea. (at West Beltwa~)) c. Traffic signa! $ 130,000 Ea. d. At-grade RR Crossing $ 250,000 Ea. e. Curb, gutter and Sidewalk $ 29.25 / LF f. Additiona! Paving $ 2.50 / SF Fee Equation This is a brief outline of the equation used to determine the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and the development of the various constants and variables. For an in-depth discussion, see "Metropolitan Bakersfield - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE - Final Report" by Omni-Means Engineers Planners dated February, 1991. From page 46 of the Omni-Means Report: Attributable New Travel = [(Trips Per Peak Hour X Average Trip Length) / 2] X % New Trips New Lane Miles of Roads - Attributable Travel / Capacity Per Lane Total Cost- New Lane Miles Of Road X Cost Per Lane Mile Of Road credits = {[(Attributable Tr?el X Days Per Year) / Miles Per Gallon] X CaPital Portion of Motor Fuels Tax} x Present Value Factor Present Value Factor - sum from 1 to 20 of(1 / (1.08"), where n is the year from 1 to 20 Net COst - Total Cost - Credits Impact Fee = Net Cost Credits can be eliminated due to Senate Bill 45, therefore: Impact Fee = Total Cost S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc. 4/7/2003 Page 4 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background The constants and variables for the equation are the "Trips Per Peak Hour", the "Average Trip Length", the "% New Trips", the "Capacity Per Lane" and the "Cost per Lane Mile of Road". Also needed to develop the total number of trips for each land use Category is the number of new units (or square footage) from the base year of 1998 to the design Year of 2020. S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 , Page 5 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background "Trips Per Peak Hour" The constants for "trips per peak hour" are determined from the data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation", 6th Edition for each of the land use types in the fee schedule. These land use types are: 1. Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) 2. Apartment (Land Use 220) 3. General Heavy Industrial (Land Use 120) - used for Service Industrial also 4. General Light Industrial (Land Use 110) 5. General Office Building (Land Use 710) - generalized as Office Commercial 6. Shopping Center (Land Use 820) - generalized as Retail Commercial The peak trip rate in all cases is assumed to be the pM Peak of the adjacent street as the PM peak hour commute in Bakersfield is generally the most congested. Attached are excerpts from the Trip Generation manual for the various land uses. The following table summarizes the trip rates: ~' 13.74 10.11 7.01 '5:62 4.64 4.12 3.78 3.20 29.96 2.87 S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 6 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !11 Fee Update Background : "Average Trip Length" The average trip length is determined from the Kern Council of Government's traffic model. The model provides estimates of average trip length in minutes by trip purpose and the average speed of system-wide trips. The trip rate times the trip length in minutes divided by the average speed yields the trip length in miles. "% New Trips" The following is eXcerpted from the Omni-Means rePort: Many land uses, while attracting traffic, generate little if any new traffic (other than attracting traffic to a particular location). There are several reasons for this. First, the multiple purpose trip will tend to attract traffic to particular locations withoUt generating new traffic. Second, the capturing of an existing trip, such as stopping for a quart of milk on the way home from work, will not result in additional travel. Third, diverting a trip which already existed (such as taking the long way home from work to shop) will place limited new travel on the road system. Take, for example, the convenience store and the service (gas) station. The typical visit to these establishments is not a primary trip, especially during the peak hour, but rather are trips made by individuals who are going elsewhere, such as home or work. An example may help. Let's assume there is an individual driving from work to home. Assume that this individual stops at the day care center to pick up a child, a convenience store to get milk and a service station for gasoline. How many trips have been made? According to the standard methodology of transportation engineering, a total of four (4) trips have been made, with eight (8) trip ends. o Leaving work o Entering the day care center ~ o Leaving the day care center o Entering the convenience store o Leaving the convenience store o Entering the service station o Leaving the service station o Arriving home I we are to apply an average trip length of 7.1 miles to these trips, the result would be '~ 28.4 miles of travel, a vast over-statement of actual travel. This over-statement is corrected in impact fee analysis in two ways. First, a percentage reduction factor (% new trips), for trips to particular land uses which do not place additional travel on the roads, and second, to adjust the trip lengths for non-residential land Uses which more accurately reflect the travel patterns of trips visiting those land uses. The first, % new trips, is included in the Table below. The second, adjusted trip lengths, ar6 als° included in the S:~PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 7 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background Table below. Both of these adjustments are ultimately made in the basis of professional judgment. Such judgments, however, are based upon information provided in Trip Generation, several articles in the "ITE Journal" and specifically upon an article which appears in the May, 1984, issue of"Public Works". These articles were guides to the establishment of the % new trips. The only trip lengths that were adjusted were those associated with commercial/retail trips. The trip lengths were adjusted so that the average trip length is associated with the 200,000 to 299,999 square foot range; the "under 10,000 square feet" retail establishments is approximately 50% of the average and the larger commercial centers have a trip length 25% greater that the average. 8.90. 8.90 8.90 8.90 ~8.90 3.36 5O% 4.00 5O% 4.48 52% 5.98 53% 6.85 55% 7.70 57% 8.55 59% 8.55 '65% 8.55 70% A search of recent literature has not resulted in any new information to be added to that used in the Omni-Means report, and a review of the KCOG model has indicated that these trip figures are still reasonably accurate. S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 8 of 10 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase I!1 Fee Update Background "Capacity Per Lane" This constant is derived in part from the facilities list, and can be considered iterative until the final list is determined. The average daily per lane capacity of each of the roadway types for a Level of Service C is weighted by the number of lane miles of each type of facility. The capacity per lane is assumed as follows: 1. Freeways 15,000 per lane 2. Expressway 12,000 per lane 3. Arterials 8,000 per lane 4. Collectors 6,000 per lane The number of lane miles for each of the roadway types is determined from the facilities list. The capacity per lane is shown in the following table: Roadway Per Lane Lane Miles % Lane Miles Weighted Peak Type Capacity Average Weighted Average Collector 6000 98.7 17.62% 1057.1 105.7 Arterial 8000 356.8 63.69% 5095.3 509.5 Espressway 12000 36.3 6.48% 777.6 77.8 Freeway 15000 68.4 12.21% 1831.5 183.1 Totals 560.2 100.00% 8761.5 876.2 NOTE: ?hese values will chef'ge ax the~/bcilities l'ist is r~fined. "Number of Units" Residential trip generation constants are in "ADT~unit" or "Peak trip/unit" Units. The number of units for single family residential and multi family residential categories come from the KCOG data for the s6cioeconomic input for the traffic model. The number of new units in the period from 1998 to 2020 are 47,882 single family residences and 15,818 multi-family residences. The non-residential trip generation constants are in "ADT/1000 SF" or "Peak trips/1000 SF" units. The number of 1000's SF for non-residential uses are derived as follows: Assumption # 1 The increase in total employment (jobs) in Metropolitan Bakersfield between 2000 and 2020 from the Kern COG Model was used to determine the number of future jobs. This increase is anticipated to be 62,424 total jobs. Assumption #2 S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 9 of 10 · ' ~ ~ · Transportation Impact Fee. Phase ill Fee Update Background The percentages of growth in each employment category (retail, office commercial, service industrial, light industrial, heavy industrial) was determined from the percentages of jobs in each category County wide for 2002 as' shown on the County Snapshots of the Labor Market Information Division of California Employment Development Department (EDD). This gave the following percentages: Retail = 39% = 24,345 jobs Office Commercial = 27% = 16,854 jobs Service Industrial = 21% = 13,109 jobs Light Industrial = 7% = 4,370 jobs Heavy Industrial = 6% = 3,745 jobs (Service Industrial and Light Industrial are combined into Light Industrial (17,479 jobs) for our purposes,) Assumption//3 The original assumptions regarding employees per acre and percent building per acre (from Jim Eggert, City Planning Department) were used to determine future square footage to be built by employment type. These assumptions are as follows: Type ' Employees/Acre % building Retail 17 25 Office Commercial 34 25 Indus trial 10.5 20 These factors were then used as follows: Retail = [24,345 jobs / (17 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 25% bldg: 15,595,121 Sq. Feet Office Commercial -[16,854 jobs / (34 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 25%.bldg =5,398,237 Sq. Feet Light Industrial = [17,479 jobs / (10.5 j obs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 20% bldg - 14,502,576 Sq. Feet Heavy Industrial = [3,745 jobs / (10.5 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq.. feet/acre x 20% bldg = 3,107,280 Sq. Feet S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Equation.doc 4/7/2003 Page 10 of 10 HANDOUT - APRIL 7, 2003 IJRB.a~I DEVELOPI~NT COI~ITTEE MEETING B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: 4/03/03 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From:./,~,~ Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks ~ Paul Graham, Urban Forester Subject: Public Meeting on Permit Requirements for Private Tree Companies In preparation for the public meeting of November 12, 2002, thirty-two tree service companies were sent to letters to announce the meeting location and time (attached). A packet was developed including; · An executive summary (attached) · September 6th Memo to Alan Tandy regarding contractor permits · A redline version of B.M.C. Chap. 12.40, with permit language (attached) · The International Society of Arboriculture Publication "Tree-Pruning Guidelines" · A National Arborist Association brochure outlining educational needs and job descriptions for a Residential/Commercial Tree Care Company. The meeting had a very Iow turn-out, only one person from the private sector attended. C:\BUF Doc's~003~Administrative\Memo's\PublicMeetingBMCChap12.40.doc Paul Graham Page 1 4/4/2003 Tree Maintenance Professionals, 10/28/02 Bakersfield City Council and Urban Development Committee asked City staffto review the City's tree ordinance and make recommendations for proposed uniform standards for the selection, installation, maintenance, and removal of trees within the public right of way. City staff has been working with community groups and other governmental agencies to make recommendations for the needed changes to city ordinances. One revision being proposed would be a requirement for private contractors to obtain an annual permit for tree work within the public right of way. The city is recommending this change to provide for safe and consistent tree maintenance within the public right of way. The permit process would include and educational component providing information and requirements for city tree maintenance methods and standards to those performing such work. We will be conducting a meeting on Tuesday November 12th at 7:00 P.M. at the City of - Bakersfield Corporation Yard lunch room, 4101 Truxtun Ave. to discuss the proposed permit process including requirements for obtaining a permit, permit costs and other related information. Also at this meeting we will be sharing information about the work of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Tree Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; information regarding free educational materials and workshops on proper pruning techniques; tree worker and arborist certification and an update of activities of the Tree Foundation of Kern. Urban forestry has become an important component of our community and there has been increased public interest in the proper maintenance of trees throughout the city. Many new trees are being installed and maintained within the public right of way in Bakersfield. It is vital that this important resource be properly maintained by trained professionals. We welcome your input and your attendance at this important industry meeting. Sincerely, Paul D. Graham, Urban Forester, City of Bakersfield Company Names Address Zip code Telephone Adams Tree Service 4311 Himalayas Dr, 93312 587-3657 Alpine Firewood and Tree Service 2312 Wible Rd, 93304 832-2870 Alspaw Tree Service P,O. Box 20129 93390 393-5101 Autumn Tree Service 6208 Norris Rd, 93308 399-7719 Bakersfield Tree Service 1017 Monna Ave, 93308 399-0378 Ben's Tree Service 122 East Belie Ave, 93308 393-7884 Bomar Tree Service P.O, Box 60181 93386 322-2553 Buford & Son's Tree Services 1601 El Toro Drive 93304 834-0753 Carrillo's Tree Services 3806 Argent St 93304 835-7051 Central Valley Garden & Landscape 708 Iris .93308 391-9400 Clagg's Tree Services 5330 Eucalyptus Dr. 93306 366-5626 Cox Tree Service 115 Ferguson Ave, 93308 393-3757 Dave's Tree Service 139 Western Dr. 93309 833-8796 Don's Tree Service 2100 S. Union Ave, 93307 836-8992 Ed's Tree Service 901 Edison Rd, 93307 366-4826 Frank's Tree Service 2010 Larcus Ave. 93307 328-2197 General Tree'Service 521 Washington 93307 323-4365 Gungle Tree Service 3300 Renegade Ave 93306 872-3174 Hayes Landscape & Gardening 8711 Starfish Dr, 93312 589-3085 Irons Tree Service P.O, Box 5075 93388 325-9926 Jimmy's Tree Service 1636 Country Club Dr, 93306 872-1242 Lara's Gardening Service P,O, Box 3393 93385 871-5902 Marid's Tree Service 12712 Dove Creek Dr, 93312 328-7762 - Mayes Tree Expert 2128 Jason 93312 589-3363 Michael K, Brown Landscape Maint, 3541 Alken 93308 589-7888 Monji Michael & Associates 13816 Via Contento 93312 588-2092 Nord Landscape Services Inc, 2828 Henry Lane 93308 588-1663 Oaks Tree Service 12712 Dove Creek Dr, 93312 587-0981 Quality Gardening Service 10700 Lonon Ave. 93312 589-1617 R&R Landscaping & Maintenance P.O. Box 60143 93386 873-9920 Sampson's Landscape & Maintenance 5701 Cherry Glen CT. 93308 399-8401 Scott's Tree & Landscape 1628 Art St, 93312 587-8980 Swen Tree Service 3505 Gulf 93308 322-6244 Executive Summary of proposed chanqes to chapter 12.40 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code reqardin.q Street Trees. 1. Change Definition of Public Works Director to Director of Recreation and Parks or His/Her designee. 2. Addition of section 12.40.095 Permits for commercial tree contractors. "Ali contractors that perform any type of work Or maintenance on trees within the streets, parks, pathways and public places of the city are required to obtain a city-issued permit from Director prior to performing said work. The cost of said permit shall be set by resolution by the City Council and the permit does not supplant the requirement for an encroachment permit." This section is being considered by the city council in order to provide a more consistent level of maintenance within the public right of way. This section would result in the following: 1.An annual permit is required for maintenance or removal of trees in the public right of way by private contractors. 2. An annual permit will be required for each contractor. Individuals - performing work for that contractor will not be required to possess a separate permit for work being performed under the direction of the permitted contractor overseeing the work. 3.Does not apply to city contracts for pruning services. City bids will require ISA certification. 4. Does not apply to the pruning of palm trees 5.Does not apply to the pruning of trees outside the public right of way; i.e. private trees. 6.City permits will be valid for one year from date of issuance and is expected to cost approximately $50. Issuance Requirements · Contractors holding a valid ISA certified arborist certificate are not subject to any other validation requirements. · Contractors holding a valid ISA Certified tree worker certificate are subject to the minimum validation requirements. Paul D. Graham Page I 4/3/2003 C:\BUF Doc'sLl002~Administrative reporLs~demo's\BMCl 2.41ExecSumm.doc · Contractors without ISA certification must demonstrate sufficient knowledge of acceptable tree maintenance practices and methods and follow City / ISA pruning guidelines regarding tree maintenance in the public right of way, including but not limited to the following: City/ISA pruninq quidelines. · .Specifically prohibited; topping, heading, lion-tailing, or Crown thinning over 1/3 of canopy volume. Removals will be approved in writing by recreation and parks prior to start of work. Education of consumer to proper pruning practices is required. Executing prohibited pruning practices at the customer's direction is not an acceptable defense in the permit revocation process. Primary purpose of pruning will be to develop strong permanent branch structure, reduce structural hazards, remove deadwood and maintain vehicle and pedestrian clearance. Vehicle clearance is set at a minimum height of 16 feet and a maximum height of 20 feet; pedestrian clearance is set at a minimum height of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet. Revocation of permit All warnings and infractions are planned to be administered by an ISA certified arborist, employed by the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department, based on the severity of the incident. Minor damage incidents may be viewed as correctable problems and be bought to the contractor's attention without penalty. Overt and malicious behavior may result in revocation of permit and other penalties under the municipal code. Contractors failing to comply with city pruning standards or ISA guidelines may have their permit revoked for up to two years or longer, depending on severity of damage done. Paul D. Graham Page 2 4/3/2003 C:\BUF Doc's~002\Administrative reports~4emo's\BMC 12.41ExecSumm.doc Benefits of Professionalism in tree trimminq and arboriculture servico · Improvement of the trade services city-wide reputation Level the playing field: same standards, same costs, same profits · Improved work quality Educated clients Benefits of Professionalism as a qood business practice · A client's perception: I'm getting more than I'm paying for. · Additional services/information available to the public · A good reputation; distinction among your peers · Reduced costs and increased profits Benefits of ISA Certification: Tree worker or Arborist · Increase your credibility with the public - code of ethics · Improve your business · Assist you in doing your job · Improve your knowledge and practice of arbodculture - The term "Arborist" has gained wider acceptance and recognition, and appears to suggest a higher level of professionalism than "Tree Expert" Benefits of Public Education · Professional standards and ethics matter to the Arboricultural community. · Cost is based on professionalism and quality work. · The industry is capable of policing itself. The urban forest is a valuable commodity to property owners and the entire community and is to be treated with respect · Our trade and our livelihood are important to us and our successors Paul D. Graham Page 3 4/3[2003 C:\BUF Doc's~2002~dministrative reports~Vlemo's\BMC 12.41ExecSumm.doc Chapter 12.40 STREET TREES Sections: 12.40.010 Title. 12.40.020 Definitions. 12.40.030 Establishment of comprehensive plan. 12.40.040 Jurisdiction and control. 12.40.050 Duties of adjacent owners to maintain. 12.40.060 Interfering with planting or caring for trees prohibited. 12.40.070 Killing or injuring trees prohibited -- Harmful substances. 12.40.080 Inspection and removal. 12.40.090 Duty of private owners -- Removal of hazardous trees -- Charging costs of work done by city .......... '12701.0:951';:' !: P~mits .for ::.comme~cia.i '~i:!~.~ctors~ 12.40.100 No liability upon city. 12.40.110 Types prohibited. 12.40.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the "tree ordinance" and may be cited as such. (PriOr code § 12.36.010). 12.40.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the words set out in this section shall have the followin.q meanin.qs: A.': :,,DireCtor? ~e'ah~.i"Di'i~cto'i:'-ofRe~reatioh' and i pai;kS~.~or :designee:I ~B. "Parkway" means and includes that area between sidewalks and that portion of streets ordinarily used for vehicular travel, or any other public area adjacent to sidewalks and streets ordinarily and usually used as and for planting areas. BC'. "Public place" means and includes streets, avenues, highways, alleys, parks, parkways, sidewalks, sidewalk spaces, or any other place open to or for the use of the public. 6D. "Sidewalk" means and includes that portion of a street, other than the roadway, set apart for pedestrian travel. BE. "Street" means and includes any way or place, of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular or pedestrian travel. (Prior code § 12.36.020). - - Page 1 of 4 Pages - - 12.40.030 Establishment of comprehensive plan. A. It is for the best interests of the city that a comprehensive plan for the planting and maintaining of trees within the city should be developed and established, and this chapter is adopted for the purpose of providing for such a plan, and for the purpose of establishing regulations relating to the planting and maintaining of trees in the streets of the city and other public and private places therein. B. The city planning commission is charged with the duty of determining the types and varieties of trees for planting along the streets. Such determination shall be made by the commission after consultation with city urban forester. When such determination has been made, the commission shall report its determination in writing to the city council in a report to be designated "Official Tree Planting List, Bakersfield, California." Said report shall be placed on file in the office of the city clerk, and after such filing, the same shall be .the official determination of the commission. Thereafter said commission may, from time to time, file subsequent reports covering the same subject, each of which shall be complete in itself and each shall also be filed in the office of the city clerk. The latest of such r.eports so filed shall constitute the official list until supplanted by a subsequent list. C. The director of -"~'"' ...... '- ~,~,,,,. ,,.,, ,,o shall from time to time, at the request of the city council, prepare plans which shall designate, by means of a complete map of the city streets, a uniform method of street tree planting, the zoning of certain streets for certain types and varieties of trees, selecting suitable types for residential areas and special types of trees for nonresidential areas. Such plans shall show the intervals between said trees, and the place where each tree is to be planted. The director o~ shall submit such plan or plans to the city council, for its approval or modification, together with the recommendation of the city planning commission. D. When the uniform plan in its original or modified form is adopted by the city council, it shall become the tree planting plan for the streets of the city, and shall be strictly adhered to in all future street planting projects. The director o~ and the city planning commission shall develop such plans together. Copies of such plans shall be made and kept on file in the office of the city clerk where they may be obtained by the public. (Prior code § 12.36.030). 12.40.040 Jurisdiction and control. The director ,.,, ~,~,,.,,,,. ,,~,,,o of the city shall have full jurisdiction and control of the designation of types and varieties, planting, setting out, locating and placing of all trees, shrubs and plants in the streets, parks, parkways and public places of the city, and shall likewise have supervision, direction and control of the removal, relocation and replacement thereof; provided, however, that in making such determinations and exercising such control, he shall be limited to the trees, shrubs or plants designated on the then current official tree planting list. (Prior code § 12.36.040). 12.40.050 Duties of adjacent owners to maintain. It is made the duty of all owners, agents, tenants or other persons having possession or control of real property within said city to properly cultivate, care for and maintain all trees, shrubs and plants now or hereafter planted or set out within any parkway or public place immediately adjacent to their respective real properties, subject, however, to the general supervision, direction and control of said director of pub',',c works. (Prior code § 12.36.060). - - Page 2 of 4 Pages - - 12.40.060 Interfering with planting or caring for trees prohibited. No person, firm or corporation shall interfere with the director of pub',lc works or persons acting under his authority while engaged in planting, mulching, pruning, trimming, spraying, treating or removing any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, parkway or public place within the city, or in the removing of any stone, cement or other substance from about the trunk of any tree, shrub or plant in any such street, park, parkway or public place. (Prior code § 12.36.070). 12.40.070 Killing or injuring trees prohibited -- Harmful substances. A. No person, firm or corporation shall, in any way, harm, injure, destroy or kill any tree, shrub or plant growing upon any street, park, parkway or public place,, by any method whatsoever. B. No person, firm or corporation shall cause, authorize or allow any brine water, oil, liquid dye or any other substance deleterious to tree or plant life, to lie, leak, pour, flow or drip on or into the soil about the base of any tree, shrub or plant in any street,, park, parkway or public place in the city at a point from which such substance may, by lying upon or by flowing, dripping or seeping into such soil injure, destroy or kill such tree, shrub or plant. C. No person, firm or corporation, without the approval of the director of public works, shall place or maintain any stone, cement or Other substance which might impede the free access of water or air to the roots of any tree, shrub or plant in any street,, parkway or public place in the city. (Prior code § 12.36.080). 12.40.080 InSpection and removal. A. The director of pub',it works may inspect any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, park, parkway or public place of the city, to determine whether the same or any part thereof constitutes a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on said street or public places. B. If the director of pub::c works determines that any tree, shrub or plant is hazardous to the traveling public or impedes the progress or the vision of said public on any such street or public place, he may cause the same, or such parts thereof as are hazardous or impeditive, to be trimmed or removed so as to remedy such hazardous or impeditive condition. (Priorcode § 12.36.090). 12.40.090 Duty of private owners -- Removal of hazardous trees -- Charging costs of work done by city. A. It shall be the duty of every person, firm or corporation having charge or control of any lot or premises, either as owner, agent, lessee, tenant or otherwise, to trim or cause to be trimmed, or remove or cause to be removed, all trees, shrubs or plants or any part or parts thereof, growing or standing on said property, which may constitute a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on any street or public place. B. Whenever it comes to the attention of the director ,.,, p~b',ic ..... '"' ·,,.,,,,o that any tree, shrub or plant growing or standing on any private property constitutes a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on any street or public place, he shall give notice of such hazard or impediment to the owner or occupant of said premises together with a request to remove or correct such condition. Such notice and request may - - Page 3 of 4 Pages - - be given either by personal service or by mail, to the owner or occupant or other person in charge or control of said premises, or by posting notice upon said property and mailing a copy thereof to the owner or occupant. The owner or occupant of said premises shall, within ten days after the service or posting and mailing of said notice, remove or cause to be removed, such hazardous or impeditive condition. C. Should any person, firm or corporation fail, neglect or refuse to conform with the provisions of this chapter, the director o~~ shall have the power to carry Out such provisions and the cost thereof shall be charged to and become a valid claim against such perSon, firm or corporation, recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Prior code § 12.36.100). 12~40~095 ?ii!!' P~r~it~" f~'~:~ e~cia'l tr~ :contractors~ i~!:~:.:::i:i:Alilc~ntiact~fs that~i3e~':an~ ~be.'ofW0i:k or maintehanc~ 0n ti~e~s ~ithi'~i' the..:§t~e~tsi parEs!ii: Pathwa~§~:a~d.:bUbii~:::,biacesl-of:the ci~' a.rei..req.~ired t0. obtaina city:i~.ued i3~it fro~:: Di:i~e~t0r...ii3=~i~r':i.:to.~i::Perfo~in~ s.aid WOrk...:~ The ~ C.~St:..0f:: Said. permit:: Shall be i~et ~v res°iui:i°n '~¥ "th:~' :Ci~:iC0 bn~iia'nd'ith ~ iP~ii d°~: n~t :sLi~Plant .'the~ requiremeht .for:. an en~roac'i~.~e nt::. p~-~i{i: 12.40.100 No liability upon city. Nothing contained ·in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city, its officers or employees, nor to relieve the owners of any private property from the duty to keep any tree, shrub or plant upon his property, or under his control, in such a condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on any street or public place within the city. (Prior code § 12.36.110). 12.40.110 Types prohibited. It is unlawful for the owner, lessee, agent, tenant or any other person having charge or control of any lot, piece or parcel of land within the city, to plant, grow or permit to be planted or grown any female Populus fremontii wats tree or trees commonly known as female cottonwood trees or trees which bear seeds of a cottony, wingy or downy nature; the fruiting variety of Morus albo and Morus nigra tree or trees, commonly known as the fruiting variety of mulberry tree; or any Ailanthus tree, commonly known as tree of heaven within said city. (Ord. 2738 § 1, 1982: prior code § 12.36.120). C:~BUF Doc's~2003~Adrninistrative\Documents~BMC12.40.wpd - - Page 4 of 4 Pages - -