Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/2000 BAKERSFIELD David Couch, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, January 31, 2000 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JANUARY 20, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REQUEST OF MARTHA KNIGHT B. REVIEW AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE USE OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES ON THE BIKE PATH C. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO PROCEDURE OR POLICY FOR COUNClLMEMBERS PLACING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA D. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.28.090 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT 5. NEW BUSINESS A. 2000 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 6. ADJOURNMENT -FILE COPY DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Alan/~'~dy, City Manager David Couch, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Thursday, January 20, 2000 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:20 p.m. Members present: Councilmember David Couch, Chair Councilmember Patricia DeMond Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan (arriving 1:25 p.m.) 2. ADOPT DECEMBER 16, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee January 20, 2000 Page 2 $. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE USE OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES ON THE BIKE PATH Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater explained that the presence of the e-bike was requested at the last meeting and that Jim Burke Ford had graciously allowed the loan of the bike to the Committee for its meeting. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen reiterated that to allow the e-bike on the bike path would require a change in the City's existing ordinance. Rich O'Neil and Marci Cunningham spoke against and presented letters in opposition to allowing motorized vehicles on the bike path. Objections included: they pose a threat to the public safety of equestrians, pedestrians, bicyclists; the adverse effect on other animals within the E.I.R.; the preclusion of usage by others; possible negative effects on funding sources; and the difficulty in police patrolling to ensure compliance. They indicated they were opposed to any portion of the path being used by e-bikes. Jerry Cook and Kyle Northrup spoke in favor of allowing e-bikes on the bike path, indicating their customers have told them: they don't feel safe on a bike lane; the e-bike is slower than a regular bike; the battery has a gauge; it stops fast; and the e-bike meets Department of Transportation safety standards. The e-bikes are environmentally friendly and non-invasive. Councilmember patricia DeMond voiced concerns which included: the original intent to keep motorized vehicles off the bike path; the possibility of a person riding an e-bike being stranded along the bike path if they ran out of battery power; the availability of safe bikes lanes on city streets; the impact weight of the e-bike; and the bike path's inability (due to size) to take on another form of transportation. Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan indicated she felt at this time the ordinance should be left as it is, but this might not be the case in the future. There is the possibility of widening the path. Development in the e-bike industry is evolving. Chairperson David Couch indicated his first inclination was to allow the e-bike on the bike path. Councilmembers asked staff to provide information on the impact of allowing e-bikes upon the bike path relative to funding sources, to see if additional accommodations could be made upon surface streets, and whether something could accommodate the e-bike in future development and regional parks. Staffwas also asked to obtain a copy of the City of Ventura's ordinance allowing e-bikes. DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee January 20, 2000 Page 3 The item was deferred until further information was available. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REQUEST OF MARTHA KNIGHT City Attorney Bart Thiltgen indicated that Mrs. Knight was not informed of the meeting. He explained that an agreement was made between Mrs. Knight and the City and that he felt it was not appropriate to revisit the issue. It was agreed by the committee to discuss the issue when Mrs. Knight was present. Discussion centered on Mrs. Knight's unanticipated expenses relating to the water and utilities easement, the refusal of Mrs. Knight's neighbor to allow her to use the existing easement, eminent domain proceedings, the value of property Mrs. Knight traded to the City versus the significantly higher value of the property she currently owns, full disclosure laws, good faith efforts to "make whole," and whether the City's. financial agreement would have been different had it been known that there was no current easement availability to water and utilities. Councilmember Sullivan indicated she felt Mrs. Knight should be compensated for what it had cost her to add water and utilities. Councilmember DeMond asked how much it would have cost if the neighbor had allowed Mrs. Knight use of the easement. The item was deferred; Mrs. Knight is to be informed of the meeting date and time when the item will be discussed. B. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE 'ANNEXATION PROCESS WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUGGESTIONS FROM THE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE Several residents spoke on the topic, including Barbara Fields, Barbara Fowler, Brian Morrow, and Becky Kaiser. Comments included thanking the City for forward steps taken, the need for much more to be done, and the desire to have an ironclad standardized protest form completed for them. Resident responses to the Haynes' January 20 memo and the example "Guide to the Annexation Process" included " small neighborhood meetings won't work, notices should say annexation notice, objections to placement in the classified section, a desire to extend the published notice to 45 days, and putting the guide in plain language instead of legalese. Staff comments included limitations on what can legally be provided to residents and the necessity for staff to follow existing law. Staff will continue working on the DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee January 20, 2000 Page 4 guide. Councilmember DeMond asked that a section on de-annexing be placed in the book. City Manager Alan Tandy indicated there is a difference between the fiiing of a formal annexation procedure which must be done by the Council and the pre- annexation education efforts which the City has used, identifying Old Stockdale as an example of a situation where no formal procedure was filed. A book may need to have separately identified sections. Legislative and Litigation Committee member comments included: the push for annexation was a direction from Council, not staff; improvements have been and are being made to the process; Councilmembers generally follow the lead of the ward's Councilmember; and the need for residents to identify what they want and for staff to tell them if it can't be done. Chairperson Couch voiced a desire to have the residents identify what they wanted so that staff can provide it to them if possible, thus avoiding delay and wasted time. He indicated 'that the next meeting would be more structured and that he would like to delve more into details at that time and at future meetings. The item was deferred. C. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING READING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS SEPARATELY INTO THE RECORD, AS OPPOSED TO COMBINING ITEMS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TELEVISION AUDIENCE WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE AGENDA Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen and City Clerk Pam McCarthy briefly explained that the each item would be read individually for the viewing public. The agenda scrolls across the television screen prior to the Council meeting. Staff will investigate whether agenda items can be scrolled across the bottom during the Council meeting. Staff will monitor and make improvements. Councilmember DeMond moved and it was passed to set a special meeting for agenda items 5A and 6D and 6E within the next couple of weeks. D. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO PROCEDURE OR POLICY FOR COUNCILMEMBERS PLACING AN ITEM ON. THE AGENDA Deferred to meeting to be scheduled. n AFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee January 20, 2000 Page 5 E. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2,28,090 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT Deferred to meeting to be scheduled. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m. Staff Attendees: City Manager Alan Tandy, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Virginia Gennaro, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford, Deputy City Attorney Carl Hernandez; Assistant Recreation and Parks Director Allen Abe; Senior Real Property Agent Don Anderson; Planning Director Stan Grady. Other Attendees: Mr. Rich O'Neil, Ms. Marci Cunningham, Mr. Kyle Northrup, Mr. James Cook, Ms. Sharla McDuffie, Ms. Barbara Fields, Ms. Barbara Fowler, Becky and Richard Kaiser, Mr. Brian Morrow, Mr. James Burger (P:~L&L\L000120.MIN) ~'x x.:.. ~ ~.~ ..'1 .Mien M. W~r H. Pon. -~,~, ~. ~o~ CITY OF BA~RS~LD C~l Hc~z ~ ~ce $c~ O~GE OF THE C~Y ~nia Gc~ 1501 ~U~ ~w C. ~n BA~RS~LD. CA 93301 ~IST~ ~IST~ ~LEPHO~: ~1-326-37~1 ~n A. Aquil~ FACS~E: November 16, 1999 Mrs. Martha Knight 2420 C Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: 1601 13t" Street Dear Mrs. Knight: This letter is in response to your correspondence of October 16, 1999 addressed to Councilwoman Patricia DeMond. Ms. DeMond referred your correspondence to staff for comment and reply. In preparing this response, I have reviewed all prior correspondence and memos between yourself and the City, have spoken with City employees involved in this transaction and have reviewed applicable California law. Your citation to "Section 1102 of the Real Estate.Disclosure Law of 1989" is, unfortunately, of no assistance in resolving this matter as it pertains to residential property only (Civil Code section 1102 -"Disclosure upon transfer of Residential Property"). Even if an argument for application of this disclosure law to this tranSaction was accepted, Civil Code section 1102.2 specifically exempts transfers by eminent domain (1102.2(b)) and transfer or exchanges to or from a governmental entity (1102.2(j)). Additionally, liability for failure to disclose arises only as to known conditions (.section 1102.4). During the City's ownership of the property in question, it was vacant (undeveloped) and the City was not aware that the property was not serviced by water and/or sewer utilities. My review of Agreement No. 99-13 dated January 13, 1999, shows that you agreed that all claims, causes of action and entitlements arising from the transaction were resolved. Further, it is our understanding that prior to your entering into this transaction, you were afforded ample opportunity to inspect the property being exchanged, as well as MRS. MARTHA KNIGHT November 16, 1999 Page 2 the ability to seek legal representation. The funds and property which the City transferred to you in this mutually agreed exchange provided legally adequate consideration for your property. Access to sewer and water utilities at the vacant property was one element which was presumed to have been 'considered in your evaluation of the exchange. For the City to pay additional public money now that this transaction is complete would subject it to both criticism and potential liability for improper use of public funds. While it is certainly regrettable that your assumption of utility service to the City parcel was not found to be true, the City cannot assume any responsibility for this unknown condition. For all of the above reasons, I must unfortunately come to the conclusion that · recommends against you[ request for additional payment. Very truly yours, .. /:.°/~ ~ MICHAEL G. ALLFORI~ Deputy City Attorney MGA:lsc:alj:cj cc: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers S:\MGA\Letters\MKnight 1112.wpcl '0 ~i]/y~ C Street t ' i~ Bakersfield, California 93301 .~ October 16, 1999 Patricia DeMond Bakersfield City Council 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mrs. DeMond: As you prepare to discuss my request for reimbursement for water and sewer installation expenses on the lot at 1601 13th Street, which the City traded me to acquire my lot on 16th Street, I would like to direct your attention to' Section 1102 of the Real Estate Disclosure Law of 1989. Under this law, any party selling real property must disclose if the property lacks water and sewer utilities. I have been advised that this law applies to property exchanges as well as sales. Including the words "as is" in the contract does not absolve the City of its responsibility under the law to disclose the absence of water and sewer on the property. I accepted the lot on 13th Street "in good faith" expecting it to have utilities and it did not. I believe it is only fair for the City to reimburse me for the expense of adding these utilities to the property. 'Thank you for considering my case. Respectfully Yours, Martha Knight Bakersfield Ballet Theatre October 6, 1999 Martha Knight Bakersfield Ballet Theatre 2420 C Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Ms. Knight: Thank you for your letter of October 5, 1999, concerning the unforseen expenses you experienced on the relocation of your storage building. I understand the point you are making in your letter. While I have Some level of sympathy with your situation, lwo major points need to be added to provide the other side of the story, as follows: · 1 ) You and the City willingly entered into a contract. The City felt that you were offered far in excess of the value of the property, but a settlement is a settlement, and a contract should be binding, on both parties. -2) Your investment in the original building was $25,000. You now have an asset worth $75,000 to $105,000, after only owning the $25,000 asset fora few years. You, not the City, hold control, and you can evenlually sell that asset. Even with a cost to you of $12,000, that is a dramatic gain. We appreciate the difficulty that was placed on you by having .to move. but we bargained in good faith. A stal'f report is. enclosed. Under the circumstances, I cannot recommend further compensation by the City. Yours truly, Mayor BP:rs Enclosure bc: City C°uncilmembers Gregory Klimko, Finance Director Alan Tandy, City Manager 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield. Calif~,.~., October 5, 1999 Mr. Bob Price, ¢ C6'.'VED Mayor of the City of Bakersfield, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, 0u, 1 99 Bakersfield, California, 93301 MAYOF?S OFFICE Dear Mr. Price, I am writing ta you c~n~erning th~ City acquiring my property on 16th Street, the site of the proposed new Amtrak Station. Last December I traded to the City of Bakersfield my property and warehouse for a City owned lot at 13th and Eye Street.~, and a check for $75,660.00 to build a metal storage building. I vacated my property in February and have since been building the new warehouse. My friends at the Fox Theater have been graciously allowing me to store my scenery temporarily in their annex building. Starting with the $75,660.00, which was barely enough to build a basic 2,000 square foot building to replace my condemned building of the same size, I chose to make the building 400 square feet bigger, to increase the size of the roll-up doors, and to put down an asphalt drive area rather than a slurry coat. These, and some other small changes, were strictly optional and I paid for them out of my own personal funds. I have no regrets that I had to personally pay extra for these as they were choices which made the building more useful. The building is finished and has passed all the inspections. I am ready to move in. It is a fine building and will serve my needs well. I thank you for your part of it. The lot which it stands on is another story. The City traded this lot to me as a replacement for my lot on 16th Street. It is a fine lot of adequate size in a good location. I was very satisfied with the trade. When it came time to hook up to the sewer, however, we discovered that the lot had no sewer access. We learned that, some years ago, my lot and the property to the South were all one parcel which was later divided into two. The property to the South runs along the alley where the utilities are located. The lot I was given has no utility access. Because there had been a structure on the lot before, we all assumed that utilities would be there. We tried to persuade the other property owner to allow us to run a sewer line under the back of his property, but he refused to give us an easement. We ended up having to dig up the sidewalk down Eye Street, hook to the sewer, and then pour a new sidewalk The cost was $5,600.00. We thought at that time that we could put a one inch water pipe in that same ditch and be done with it, but the California Water Service would not allow it. The code requires that a water line be ten or more feet away from a sewer line. That meant that any water coming to my property would have to come from the alley up the center of Eye Street. The street would have to be dug up and replaced. I was further advised by the Water Company that it had been decided by the Public Utilities Commission that I had to put a six inch water main up Eye Street. All I need is a one inch pipe! The Water Company "estimated" that the cost to me would be $8,887.00 if they did the work. I was free to find an independent pipeline contractor who might charge me less. I have accepted a bid from ConCastCo for $4,981.00 to do the job. The Water Company will make me pay them 12% of that - $597.00 (don't know why). They also require a $1,000.00 hook-up fee. The cost to bring water service to my lot has become $6,578.00. Combined with the sewer cost, you would have to say the lot I received as a trade has cost me $12,178.00. I have a problem with having to pay this amount out of my pocket. The sewer and water were not added expenses I "chose" to have. They are forced upon me because the lot the City gave me was basically an unimproved lot. In order to make it into a buildable lot it has cost me over $12,000.00. This is an issue of fairness.. The lot I gave the City had water and sewer; the lot I received in trade should also have had water and sewer. I was happy in my old facility on 16th Street. I didn't choose to move, I was forced to. I wish I were still there without the negotiating ordeal, the loss of valuable time, and now a huge financial outlay. I feel it is not right for us to be taken out of out existing storage situation and then be forced to pay $12,000.00 to make it happen. Recently, when I was down at the new warehouse painting, (to save money), Don Anderson, the City Relocation Officer, came by to ask me, "Are you happy?" Certainly the building makes me happy. · It'S nice. But I shared with him the financial problems relating to the sewer and water issues. He expressed sympathy for my situation and offered to go back to his boss and see if there could be any relocation assistance given to me. The next day, he came to tell me that his boss, the Finance Director of the City told him "no". Mr. Klimko stated to him that the settlement agreement was final. It was nice of Mr. Anderson to try. Now, I appeal this issue to you. I feel that the fair thing to do would be for the City to reimburse me the $12,178.00 required to make the Eye Street lot buildable. In this way, the lot on 16th Street, taken by the City, would be replaced with a comparable buildable lot with water and sewer services. If it would be helpful to you, I would be happy to appear before you to answer any questions you might have. Sincerely Yours, - . Martha ~night / g| e-.53 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD scHOOL' O~S~. /-/ e-53 .. I l- I -I J' J (~ l. I F-' '"'"" "~"" """'""' "' MAY 0 $ '(9.96 ASSESSORS MAP N0..~.=5.3 ............. ~f~l IKITY f~l~ MEMORANDUM January 26, 2000 TO: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CARL HERNANDEz III, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING AND USE OF E-BIKES ON THE BIKE PATH At the last Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting, the following question was raised: Will allowing the use of e-bikes on the bike path jeopardize Transportation Development Act funding for the City's bike path? Generally, a certain portion of Transportation Development Act ("TDA")funding must be made available to counties and cities to construct facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles. TDA funds may also be allocated for maintenance of bicycle trails which are closed to motorized traffic. KernCOG has been designated by the state to establish rules and regulations which govern how TDA funds are allocated for bike path construction and maintenance. Based on a review of state law, if the City allows e-bikes on the bike path, KernCOG may be required to withhold TDA funds for constructing and maintaining the City's bike path. Though the City of Buenaventura passed an ordinance allowing the use of e-bikes on its bike paths, that city did not evaluate the effect such use would have on TDA funding. CH:lsc S:\Planning\MEMOS\Bjt. TDAfunds,wpd [ JAN 2 7 2000 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT "F' MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: RAUL DATE: JANUARY 27, 2000 SUBJECT: MOTORIZED BICYCLE EBIKE AND POSSIBLE USE ON CITY BIKE PATH AN BIKE LANES Pursuant to a recent request, attached for your review, is a copy of the report relating to Motortzed Bicycle Ebtl~e and its impact on City bike path and bike lanes. Attachment BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: January 25, 2000 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM- STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: REPORT ON MOTORIZED BICYCLE EBIKE AND POSSIBLE USE ON CITY BIKE PATH AND BIKE LANES As requested, I have investigated any restrictions to the use °fthe Ebike motorized bicycle on the City Bike Path and street bike lanes and how funding might be affected. I also researched how the bike path and bike lanes can be made safer. MOTORIZED BICYCLE: The Ebike meets the California Vehicle Code (CVC) definition of a motorized bicycle per CVC Section 406. The CVC requires that a motorized bicycle have a power output of less than 1000 watts and be incapable of going faster than 20 miles per hour. The Ebike specifications state the motor is a 400 watt device and the bike's top speed is only 15 miles per hour. BIKE PATH AND BIKE LANE USAGE: CVC Section 21207.5, prohibits the use of a motorized bicycle, such as the Ebike, on bike paths and street bike lanes. An exception is allowed if the local authority, such as the City Council, passes an ordinance to permit motorized bicycles on bike paths and bike lanes. The current Municipal Code Chapter 10.80.030, prohibits motorized cycles from operating on the bike path. I found no reference to allowing motorized bicycles on street bike lanes in the Municipal Code. To allow motorized bicycles on the bike path and bike lanes, Municipal Code Chapter 10.80.030 must be modified and an ordinance passed allowing use of the bike lanes by motorized bicycles. EFFECT ON FUNDING SOURCE: The main source of funding for bike lanes and bike paths is the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds. The funding source can be used for bike facilities, Page I of 2 bike storage lockers and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks. The bike paths and bike lanes must meet the requirements of design and use per the California Vehicle Code and the State Highway Design Manual. If ordinances are passed allowing motorized bicycles on the bike paths and bike lanes, then the requirements of the CVC and the Highway Design Manual are satisfied. If this is done the TDA Article 3 funding can still be used for bike path and bike lane funding. IMPROVING .BIKE PATH AND BIKE LANES: Much of the bike path and most of the bike lanes were built to the minimum width standards. The path is very popular and heavily used by both cyclists and pedestrians. The Highway Design Manual recommends that a bike path be more than 12 feet wide where there is pedestrian use along with the bikes since bicyclists tend to ride side by side on a pathway. Where dual use by pedestrians and bicyclists is heavy, the Manual recommends that the pedestrians be separated from the bicyclists on their own pathway. If the bike path is to be used by motorized bicycles, the need for separate pedestrian facilities is increased. In addition to wider or separated bike and pedestrian paths, the use of motorized bicycles will affect the design standards of the bike path and require some upgrading of the facility. Currently the bike path is designed for a 20 mile per hour design speed since no motorized bicycles are allowed on the path. The Highway Design Manual requires a design speed standard of 30 miles per hour when motorized bicycles are to use a bike path. Some of the curves in the bike path will need to be lengthened to accommodate the higher design speed requirements. The bike lanes in town are only the minimum 5 feet wide when adjacent to a curb and 4 feet wide when adjacent to curbside parking. The highway design manual recommends that the width be increased to 8 feet whenever possible to improve safety. Additional width is also recommended when the speed of motor vehicles is 40 miles per hour or more in the adjacent lanes. Increasing bike lane width will require additional right-of-way on new and existing streets. In summary, the recommended way to improve bike path and bike lane safety is to widen the facility. cc: Traffic Engineering File - eBike.report.bikepath.wpd slw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\eBike. report, bikepath.wpd Page 2.of 2 Se~t By: VENTURA CITY CLERKS OFF[CE; 6411046; Jan-25-O0 9:33AM; Page 2/5 ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.340.010 AND ADDING SECTION 16.340.035 TO THE-SAN BUENAVENTURA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ELECTRICALLY POWERED BICYCLES TO OPERATE ON CLASS I BICYCLE PATHS AND ESTABLISHING A SUNSET CLAUSE FOR THAT SECTION. The Council of the City of San Buenaventura does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Ordinance is adopted with reference to the following: A. The City of San Buenaventura is deeply committed to protecting the environment and: the health of its residents; B. Over use of gas-powered vehicles is harmful to people's health and the environment and contributes to the problem of noise pollution; C. Th~ City Council is aware that new technologies are available that allow manufacturers to design and manufacture electric bicycles that are an environmentally. friendly alternative mode of transportation; D. Electric bicycles will help reduce the amount of traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution in the City and improve the overall quality of life for City residents; E. Electric bicycles offer mobility to those who are physically unable to either drive automobiles or use pedal-only bicycles; F. These devices will be treated as bicycles and are subject to the same rules and provisions governing bicycles within the City; G, The City Council believes that some citizens may have some concerns regarding these new technologies and therefore wishes to approve use of these devices in City bike lanes on a trial basis; and H. The City Council finds that adoption of an ordinance permitting use of electrical bicycles on bicycles lanes for one year is in the public interest. _S_ECTION 2: Section 16.340,010 of the San Buenaventura Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: "16.340.010. Definitions-for purposes of this article. A. Bicycle lane means a lane within the roadway designated by signs and/or markings for the operation of bicycles. Page 1 of 3 Sen~ By: VENTURA CITY CLERKS OFFICEj 6411046j Jan-25-O0 9:34AM; Page 3/5 ,a,,B. "Electrically powered bicycle" means a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that meets ail of the following requirements: 1. Has a power output of not more than I000 watts: 2. Is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty (20) miles per hour on ground level; and 3. ls incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than twenty (20) miles: per hour. [Se_~e California Vehicle Code 3~ 406(b).J Class I bike lane means a sepaiate right-of-way designated for exclusive use of bicycles, and pedestrians with cross flows by motorists minimized. C-.,D. Class II bike lane means a restricted right-of-way designated for exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through traffic by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited. Vehicle parking and cross flow is permitted. I;I,E. Class III bike lane means a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Bicyclist means a person riding a bicycle as defined by Section ~a~gO,2$1 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. SECTION 3: Section ] 6.340.035 is added to the San Buenaventura Municipal Code to read a,~ follows: "16.340.055. Electrically powered bicycles permt'tted; sunset provision, A. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code ~ 21207.5, or any successor statute or regulation, and despite any other provision in this municipal code to the contrary, electrically powered bicycles may be operated on Class I bicycle lanes. B. This section is repealed as of October 31, 2000, unless a later adopted ordinance, which is codified before this date, deletes or extends the date." SECTION 4: The City Council intands to examine the impac~ that electric bicycles have On the health and safely of the community. The city manager is therefore directed to implement a program to track the number of incidents in which a motorized bicycle, as defined by this ordinance, is the cause of personal injuries and/or property damage. Data from the program will be reviewed by the City Council when determining whether to extend the operative date of Section 16.340.035. Page 2 of 3 Sen~ By: VENTURA CITY CLERKS OFF[CE; 6411046; Jan-25-O0 9:35AM; Page 4/5 SECTION 5: The City Council determines that this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA") and CEQA regulations (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq.) because thc only potential physicaI effect on the environment that could foreseeably result from its implementation is a relatively insignificant expansion of the use of the City's bikeways. Such a limited expansion of the use or' operation of an existing City facility is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under Cal. Code Regs. tit 14, § 15301. This Ordinance, therefore, is an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. SECTION 6: If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction: the city council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. SECTION 7: This Ordinance will take effect on the 31st day following its final passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ?Tth day of September ,1999. A'I'TEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM G. ROBER - B~J~4X4~ATTORNE y . Karl H. Berger Deputy City Page 3 of 3 Sen~ By: VENTURA CITY CLERKS OFF[CE; 6411046; Jan-25-00 9:35AM; Page 5/5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA ) I, BARBARA J. KAM, City Cleft< of the City of San Buenaventura, California, do hereby certify-that the foregoing O~dinance was passed anti adopted by the Council of the City of San Buenaventura, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 27th day of, September 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Brennan, -ringstmm, De Paola, Monahan, Di Guilio, and Friedman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand affixed the official seal of the City of San Buenaventura this 28th day of September, 1999. DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: January 27, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks SUBJECT: E-bike Use in Public Parks I was asked to comment on a potential change in the city code that would permit the use of an "e-bike" in public parks and on the Kern River trail system. Although I do not have personal experience with the e-bike, I have spoken with Sharla McDuffie of Jim Burke Ford and I plan to ride an e-bike next week. In the literature provided by Jim Burke Ford, Lee lacocca is quoted as saying "We weren't trying to improve the bicycle. We set out to revolutionize an industry. Traffic, smog, and the costs of operating automobiles told us that we could greatly expand the bicycle's potential by applying this rapidly- maturing technology." His reference to "traffic, smog, and the cost of operating automobiles" leads me to believe that the e-bike was intended as an alternative to driving an automobile. Obviously, there is a major difference between and automobile and a bicycle, which is recreational in nature. The brochure also references "car-like features" and that all of them meet or exceed industry or D.O.T. standards. Again, this reference appears to indicate that the e-bike is intended to be more of a commuter vehicle than for the recreational use of a typical bicycle. In my discussion with Ms. McDuffie, she mentioned that the lights and cruise control were similar to those found on a passenger car (note: the e-bike also has a horn that is designed for on-road use). I am very concerned about allowing the use of an e-bike on a trail or public park when it is equipped with a cruise control. The manufacturer reports a top speed of 15 miles per hour (mph). Although an accomplished rider can pedal a bicycle faster than 15 mph, few could sustain that speed as long as an e-bike is capable. I am also concerned that with the cruise control engaged, it would not be uncommon for riders to not pay full attention to their riding when traveling at 15mph. This situation would be similar to someone operating an automobile with the cruise control on and "drifting" out of a lane or onto the shoulder of the road. Additionally, I am told that an e-bike weighs approximately 65 pounds. This is two to three times the weight of a bicycle. That weight, combined with the potential speed, may be sufficient to cause some damage in the parks (e.g. sprinkler heads). I will need to confirm this before stating this as the case. Our citizen survey indicated that in addition to several public parks having "benchmark" use, several activities are favored by over 80% of the residents. These include picnics and concerts. With the intense use of the parks and the passive nature of the activities, I would strongly recommend against allowing the use of any motorized vehicle in the parks, especially one with top speed of 15 mph and a feature like a cruise control. Similar to this, is the situation on the Kern River trail system. The trail is extremely popular and on most days you can see joggers, in-line skaters, people walking, riding bicycles, some pushing baby strollers, and some walking their dog(s) all using the trail simultaneously and from both directions. At times, there is some "congestion" from these sometimes incompatible uses. However, seldom is there difficulty for individuals to continue on their way and I have not heard of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of this varied use. To add a powered vehicle, and one that has the capability of being self-propelled, I believe is incompatible with the passive use of the trail. This incompatible use is similar to the complaints of people walking on sidewalks or through parking lots and complaining about having to avoid skateboarders. Based on what I know at this time, I would recommend against changing any city code to allow the use of an e-bike, or any powered vehicle, in a public recreation facility. They should be operated on the streets or off-road which appears to be there intended use. If I have additional information after riding the e-bike, I will forward it you. MEMORANDUM January 12, 2000 TO: BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney FROM: ROBERT M. SHERFY, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: PLACING ITEMS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Question Who is responsible for preparation of the City Council Agenda, including the placement of items on the agenda? Answer The City Manager, pursuant to direction of the City Council, is responsible for the preparation of the agenda. Analysis Section 35 of the Bakersfield City Charter provides as follows: "The City Manager shall have general supervision and direction of the administrative operation of the city government." The duties of the City Manager are set forth in Section 36 of the Charter and include: "... To recommend for adoption to the Council such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient; .... " Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 2.04.040 B provides that: "The preparation of the agenda and its distribution shall be as directed by the council." Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney January 12, 2000 Page 2 Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 2.04.070 provides the order of business, beginning with the invocation and ending with adjournment. Changes in the order of business at a noticed meeting can be accomplished only by 5 affirmative votes of the City Council (BMC § 2.04.070B). The Council Orientation Handbook, provided to all City Councilmembers, provides on page 5 as follows: "The council agenda is the official order of business at council meetings. Items for the agenda are prepared and submitted to the city manager by the department heads who investigate and approve each item. Copies of the agenda are available from the city clerk and at the entrance to the council chamber at each meeting." Based on a review of the above sections, it would appear that the day-to-day administrative operation of the city is the responsibility of the City Manager. The City Council has reserved to itself the right to provide direction to the City Manager with regard to the. preparation of the agenda and its distribution, consistent with BMC § 2.04.070. However, the City Manager, under the provisions of the Charter, has ultimate responsibility for the day-to-day operations of City government which would include the preparation and distribution of the agenda. RMS:dlr S:\RMS~,fisc Office\CouncilAgendaMmo.wpd Suggested deletions indicated by strikeouts; additions indicated by italicized bold text. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ~J-999 2000 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROVIDES GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE. THEREFORE, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE CITY'S BORDERS AS WELL AS WHEN DEALING WITH OTHER LEGISLATIVE ENTITIES. THE FOLLOWING POLICY STATEMENTS REFLECT THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FOR ~, ,~,;,,;,nnn 2000. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'S FISCAL AUTONOMY AND CHARTER CITY STATUS TO ALLOW DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OVER LOCAL, STATE AND/OR FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE WHENEVER IT IS MOST LIKELY TO PRODUCE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT RESULT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH MAINTAINS AND/OR ENHANCES THE CITY'S LAND USE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH FOSTERS MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH ALLOWS STATE OR FEDERAL CONTROL OVER AND USE OF TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCES. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH DETRIMENTALLY IMPACTS THE LOCAL ECONOMY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT PLACES GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN COMPETITION FOR LIMITED FISCAL RESOURCES OR ENCOURAGES SHIFTING OF SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING. Page 1 of 3 QUALITY OF LIFE SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES SAFE, EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE, AND RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF ISSUES SUCH AS AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, TRANSPORTATION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES CITY PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES OF REGIONAL CONCERN. SUPPORt LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES CO;;TI;,'U,~D INCREASED FUNDING Of CULTURAL, RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION ON POLICY-MAKING BODIES WITH INTERJURISDICTIONAL POWERS (I.E., THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Cf-A). SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPROPRIATE FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR THE PROVISION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES THE COST OF OR ENDANGERS THE CLEAN, RELIABLE SOURCE OF WATER AVAILABLE TO THE CITY FROM THE KERN RIVER. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH EXPANDS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DEAL ON A STATE LEVEL WITH STATE-MANDATED ISSUES AFFECTING THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES MUNICIPAL CONTROL OVER PROGRAM SCOPE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND FUNDING. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE FUNDS FOR CITY PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION OR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDES PERMANENT FISCAL RELIEF FOR CITIES IN LIGHT OF THE STATE BUDGET SURPLUS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH CONSOLIDATES SPECIAL DISTRICTS WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS AND/OR RESPONSIBILITIES WHERE SUCH CONSOLIDATION IS CLEARLY OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH FACILITATES AND EXPEDITES MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION EFFORTS. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INTRUDES INTO THE CITY'S COLLECTIVE BARGAiNiNG PROCESS AND RIGHTS. Page 2 of 3 FINANCES SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ADVOCATES RESPONSIBLE AND REASONABLE STATE- MANDATED PROGRAMS IF REVENUES ARE PROVIDED AND SUCH LEGISLATION IS OF CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE CITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES CONTINUED DIVERSIFICATION OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH REDUCES THE NEGATIVE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ON AFFECTED AGENCIES. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH IMPROVES CITY GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO FINANCE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'S ABILITY TO FUND ITS CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES THE USE OF LOCAL BANKS WHERE POSSIBLE AND LOCAL BRANCHES OF NATIONAL BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CITY INVESTMENT. OPPOSE THE IMPOSITION OF FEES AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL TO FUND STATE PROGRAMS NOT RELATED TO MUNICIPAL MA'FI'ERS. P:\L&LPlatform00\LEGPLAT-00-Recommendations) Page 3 of 3