Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2001 BAKERSFIELD Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, November 19, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's .Conference Room Second Floor - City.Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2; CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Closed Session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 People v. Clovis Clinton; Kern County Superior Court Case .No. BM607521A 3. ADOPT OCTOBER 22, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review, discussion, and recommendations relating to proposed fireworks ordinance changes B. Review, discussion, and recommendations relating to subcommittee's review of annexation procedures 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Discuss and set meeting schedule - January 2002 through November 2002 7. COMMITrEE-COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT S:\TTS~.O01LegUtCommittee~AGN011119.wpd OADMI!NISTRATIVE REPORT IMEETING DATE: November 19, 2001 I AGENDA SECTION: Closed Session Legislative & Litigation Committee TO: Legislative & Litigation Committee APPROVED Sue Benham- Chair David Couch DEPARTMENT HEAD Jacquie Sullivan '~, ,, "' CITY A'I-FORNEY FROM: Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney CITY MANAGER DATE: November 15, 2001 SUBJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation Closed session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9. People v. Clovis Clinton; Kern County Superior Court Case No. BM607521A RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: November 15, 2001, 11:24am DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy, City~lanager Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, October 22, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:06 .p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch, arriving 1:14 p.m. Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DIscUssION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SUBCOMMrI'rEE'S REVIEW OF ANNEXATION PROCEDURES Committee Member David Couch indicated the Subcommittee's "pre-application" packet/report was a good first draft and felt that unless those interested in this item had other issues with it, he didn't believe there were many things which would make it a whole lot better or different. In response to questions, it was clarified that the process called for one hearing, with scheduling first in the City Clerk's Office, then notification and publication, and then the hearing. Committee Member Couch pointed out both the hearing and the Resolution of Application would be before the City Council. Committee Member Couch mentioned the reason they used "no later than" in the notification' is that if the City Clerk's Office can get them out earlier, it allows them that .flexibility. The Resolution of Application is an issue separate from the "pre-application" process. DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 2 Committee Chair Benham recommend two changes: under"notification," open with "Once the hearing has been scheduled, written notice will be mailed," etc.; and under the hearing, rather than "a" noticed hearing, indicate "the" noticed hearing. Barbara ~Fowler was concerned the different hearings, including LAFCO's, would be confusing to the public. She also felt the 15 minutes per side would be inadequate to get the flavor of how people in the neighborhood really felt. She indicated she liked the idea of a card asking if residents are for, against, or have no opinion but was concerned how and for what the cards would be used. She suggested a line indicating the time by which the cards should be returned and wording to the effect that if you don't have a spoken response the City generally assumes the non-respondent would be in favor of annexation. Committee .Member Couch indicated the intent of the card was to communicate with the City Council and felt the card was a non-biased way of doing that. Council would receive the basic information which it would interpret. There is not a deadline on the cards. Those received before the hearing would be given to Council as well as those received after the hearing. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen confirmed Council Member Couch's statement that the LAFCO hearing would be at least 60 to 90 days after the City's process. Becky Kaiser and Barbara Fields presented two pages of written questions and comments to the Committee. In response to a statement, City Clerk Pam McCarthy clarified the ad (Exhibit C) would indicate it was for annexation (as in Exhibit A). Committee Chair Benham requested the Subcommittee meet again to try to clarify and satisfy the points brought out. She asked that one person from those interested in annexation be included at the meeting. Committee Member Couch indicated his willingness to meet again although time constraints might prevent it from occurring before the next Legislative and Litigation Committee, although every attempt would be made. Committee Member Couch indicated his hope, since the Legislative and Litigation Committee had been reviewing this item since January 1999, that when the Subcommittee made its report that the annexation group would accept their responses and another list of questions and comments would not be forthcoming because at some point a conclusion must be reached. Becky Kaiser will be the individual who .will represent the annexation group at the Subcommittee meeting. B. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS Committee Chair Benham indicated that further review was needed of this topic although the Committee had unanimously recommended to Council the proposed changes. Committee Member Jacquie Sullivan agreed. City Attorney Thiltgen distributed the City Manager's memo of September 18 which was reviewed at the last meeting. Committee Members discussed each item in detai! with the exception of items 1, 3 and 6 which were non-controversial and were already being implemented. Item 9 was eliminated at the previous meeting. Staff was asked to identify issues included in the discussion periods as well as actions taken. Agenda Summary Report DRAFT Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 3 Item 2. Move non-agenda related public statements to the end of the business agenda. Committee decision: Strike completely; no change recommended. Discussion: Committee Members generally disliked having to make people wait until the end of the meeting to speak, especially when they had been encouraged to come and speak on issues of importance to them. Discussion included Mayor Hall's concerns on this topic. City Attorney Thiltgen confirmed that, in relation to the question of delaying public statements after a defined time (such as 45 minutes) that the Brown Act states the public has a right to comment on an agenda item either before or during the Council agenda item is heard and to delay a portion of the public statements until after that means that -this opportunity is not afforded them. It was generally agreed that the public statements were not the reason the Council meetings had been running so late. Item 4. Hold recesses to five minutes; resume the meeting promptly at that time. Committee ,decision: To delete from proposed Council policy; leave to the Mayor's discretion. Discussion: Emphasize that the Committee supports the idea of a five-minute recess but wanted to allow the Mayor flexibility to respond to situations which occur. Advise Mayor and Council by memo that the Committee approves the five-minute recess and that everybody is on notice that when the Mayor is ready to reconvene he will not wait for people to resume their seats. Item 5. Make certain appeals, such as abatement of 'nuisances, assessment appeals, etc., as administrative appeals to the City Manager, rather than to the Council by ordinance change. Committee decision: General consensus is it is worth a try. Discussion: In response to Committee Chair Benham's question on whether this would reduce Council meeting time or whether it might be considered another step in the bureaucracy, City Manager Alan Tandy responded that he felt probably half of the appeals would go away with additional understanding of why the City follows the process they do. It would also allow more time for Council to focus on the multi-million dollar items on the agenda. In response to a question from Committee Member Couch, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty responded that additional costs would not be incurred. Committee Member Sullivan emphasized she felt that with everyone, including staff, focusing on shortening the Council meetings it would happen. General consensus was it was worth a try. City Attorney Thiltgen explained this would take some time to implement as numerous provisions within the Municipal Code would ~need to be modified to allow for this interim appeals process. He clarified that .by adopting this policy, it would allow him to move forward on making the revisions. Committee Chair Benham indicated a desire for staff to keep track of which appeals do end once they have gone through the City Manager. Item 7. Move certain kinds of workshops - perhaps such as wet waste and recycling, updates from the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and issues of that level to the Committee level, with the information being shared through the minutes with the full Council, rather than the full Council level. Committee decision: Allow Council Members, when making referrals, the opportunity to indicate whether they would like workshops at the Committee level or Council workshop level; Council to affirm-Council member choice. Discussion: Committee Chair Benham expressed concerns about how these decisions would be made. Committee Member Couch felt decisions by the City Manager to move a Council-member-request'ed Agenda Summary Report D AFT Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 4 ' workshop to Committee level might not be well received by the proposing Council member nor the committee members to which it is sent. A conscious effort should be made by the Council member making a request for a workshop to consider whether other Council members need to have the information presented to them in Council meetings or in committee. City Manager Tandy indicated that occasionally new Council members needed to view things already seen by other Council members and consideration should be given in this type of information. Committee Member Sullivan felt the Council workshops also provided a valuable tool for informing the public as well as the Council, indicating she felt for the most part Council meetings are good the way they are. She felt, with the renewed interest, Council members and staff would be responsible and brief. Committee Member Couch indicated he liked the informal give and take settings of workshops which prompted new questions. Item 8. Move non-controversial CoUncil Committee reports to the Consent calendar. Committee decision: Leave as is. Discussion: Committee Chair Benham felt what might be considered non-controversial to the Council might be a concern to members of the public and, if an item is truly non-controversial, it does not take up a lot of time. She agreed with Committee Member Sullivan that everyone needed to focuS on being brief. Committee Member Couch indicated that at times Council is accused of "hiding the ball" tactics and felt that others would comment that this was such a tactic. Committee Member Sullivan felt it would put staff in a bad position as they are often the ones who receive the criticism. Item 10. Have the parliamentarian (City Attorney) more actively involve himself in the meeting to call attention to violations of Robert's or Council rules. Committee decision: No change is recommended; leave as is. Discussion: Committee Chair Benham felt having a workshop on Robert's Rules is a good idea. She used, as example, having an immediate complimentary response by a Council member to a presentation or public statement when it technically should be held until Council statements. The proper response at that time the presentation is concluded could be a referral. In the example used, it would be appropriate for a staff reminder, but the potential exists for Council .to feel that this process might allow staff to intrude into directing or cutting off debate or forcing the direction of an issue. Committee Member Sullivan indicated she had discussed this issue with the Mayor who felt this was not a good idea. She, too, felt a workshop on rules was a good idea. She also appreciates the more relaxed attitude within the Council meetings and encouraged the responsible and respectful give and take of discussion. She did not believe Council needed a policy on this. Item 11. Videotape certain workshops separate from the meeting, so City Council can individually watch them at their leisure. Committee decision: Support; staff to notify when new videos are made available. Discussion: City Manager Tandy explained this type of video workshop would be the type that staff puts on as public information/public relations material. These could also~ be broadcast on the government channel. Committee Chair Benham indicated that Council should be informed when such a new video was available. She did not want to be in the situation where one of her constituents saw such a video when she had not had the opportunity to see it, too. Committee Member Couch asked whether the videos could be placed on the City's website. Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen indicated this could occur and they could also be broadcast on cable when time and space was available. Committee Member Couch indicated his desire to make the policy one which would include that if the video included information Council needed prior to a vote, a workshop would be AFT Agenda Summary Report ~?~' ~ ~ Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 5 held. Assistant City Manager Christensen explained that information of that type would not be videotaped. Committee Chair Benham indicated staff should include in the agenda summary report that the Committee was encouraging Council members to try and make sure that what they were saying really needed to be said at the time it is said and to try not to repeat what another has already said. She does not believe there needs to be a Council policy on this as Council as elected officials must maintain a balance between explaining what they are doing and staying aware of time concerns. She felt a great deal can be accomplished by Council making this a conscientious effort. Committee Member Sullivan indicated the continued need for flexibility while being mindful and respectful of others. Committee Chair Benham commented that since she has been on the Council there has been a tendency for Council members to state how and why they are going to vote on an issue prior to that vote being taken and was wondering if this wasn't an area where Council could shorten its meetings. This was being recommended not as a policy change but as information for consideration. committee Member Sullivan commented that it is up to each Council member to focus on being brief, while at the same time being able to say what he/she needed or wanted to, in order to keep meetings at an appropriate length. Committee Chair Benham asked City Attorney Thiltgen about discussions on controversial topics, and he explained that under Robert's Rules each Council member is allowed to speak twice to the motion. Technically, they are not supposed to speak until the motion is made. Technically, they are only allowed to speak twice, but once they have spoken they cannot speak again until the other Council members have had an opportunity to speak. In response to her question regarding whether this could be used as an effective tool to minimize meeting length, he indicated that the Council operates less formally than that and that relaxed communications generally assisted in getting the job done. He indicated that Robert's Rules is aimed at a large audience of 100-150 rather than a Council of seven people. However, from a streamlining standpoint, if Council wanted to enforce the Robert's Rules, Council members would need to focus on what they were going to say ahead of time as times to speak would be more limited. Writing things down before speaking is recommended in Robert's Rules. One of the reasons the agenda packet is sent out ahead of time is so that Council members can be prepared going into the meetings. Item 12. New; added: Highlight the procedure for "calling for the question" within the policy. Committee decision: Add although it is already in Robert's Rules. Discussion: Committee Member Couch asked for an explanation of the procedure for "calling for the question." City Attorney Thiltgen indicated that technically "calling the question" ends debate and an immediate vote is taken. Council has the authority to continue debate if it so states. Any Council member can call the question. In Robert's Rules, you can end up voting numerous times, including voting on the question, the motion, the most recent amendment, the next amendment and then the main motion. You allow flexibility when you have a substitute Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 6 motion rather than amendments to motions, etc. Committee member Couch indicated he felt something like this should be added to the policy. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated this was.already in Robert's Rules which is in the ordinance already. Committee Chair Benham suggested this be highlighted in the policy as Item 12 Committee Chair Benham suggested that red carpet presentations might be held at 5:15 p.m. rather than at the 7:00 p.m. Council meetings in order to shorten Council meetings. Committee Member Sullivan indicated that public recognitions were very important and having the presentations during the regular Council meetings was especially important to those honored, their family, and friends. The Mayor liked having them during the meeting, also. She was sure he would focus on making them brief and spacing them out. She is strongly in favor of keeping it just the way it is. Committee Member Sullivan suggested consideration cOuld be given to limiting the number of presentations per meeting, and Committee Member Couch suggestedholding the amount of time for each presentation to a certain limit, indicating he felt the,Mayor would make efforts to keep presentations brief. Committee Chair Benham suggested not having presentations at meetings having General Plan Amendments on the agenda. City Clerk McCarthy indicated she had talked with the Mayor who was going to try to limit presentations to no more than two per meeting unless it was time sensitive. The Committee reviewed the Mayor's recommendations contained within his October 17, 2001 memo to the Committee. Committee members generally felt that limiting adjournment to 1 t :00-11:30 p.m. could impact those individuals who had been waiting to speak on an issue, thereby causing them to need to return for another meeting if their issue was not discussed before the allowed time. It could also cause future agendas to be backlogged by the issues held over. On the issue of limiting Council discussion to no longer than 60 minutes per item, City Attorney Thiltgen explained that under Robert's Rules the Council technically has 70 minutes (10 minutes per Council member). He clarified that on speaking to the motion twice, a Council member had 10 minutes each of the two times. Responses to questions asked were also included in the 10-minute time frame. Technically, the Council member is asking the question through the Chair and the Chair has control of the meeting rather than the Council member. In responding to Committee Chair Benham's question, City Attorney Thiltgen suggested that, since the Mayor's memo was directed .to the Committee, she might consider responding directly to the Council rather than going directly to the Mayor, with which she concurred. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSED FIREWORKS ORDINANCE CHANGES Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen explained the need for the proposed changes, indicating issues had arisen relating to distance requirements, the definition of a non-profit, instances of more than one permit per non-profit, filing of unauthorized permit applications, Agenda Summary Report DRAFT Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 7 and others. He mentioned staff met with fireworks vendors and felt they were in general agreement with what is proposed. City Treasurer Bill Descary explained the changes in more detail. The City had 50.perpetual fireworks permits (prior to basing the number of fireworks stands on population at the rate of 1 per 4,000). The new ones are 'raffled" (drawn) by lot. County Fireworks stands which come in through-annexation are granted a perpetual permit. The proposed change in the application filing time to March I through March 31 allows more time for successful drawing applicants to obtain a good location (suggested by a vendor). Another change requires plot .plans to be approved by the Fire Department and the traffic authority. Distances between stands Js changed from 600 to 400 feet. If .two applicants applY for the same location, a simple drawing is held to establish priority. The issue of canopies (freestanding and connected) was discussed at length. Director of Environmental Services Ralph Huey indicated a number of inspections were completed on each fireworks stand for conformance with regulations. Discussion was generated from fireworks permit holders relating to the need for canopies to shelter staff and customers from the Bakersfield heat. It was indicated that costs for inspecting Such canopies was not a major concern. Staff was concerned regarding safety aspects including site line visibility, flame retardant properties, and the loss of canopy flame retardant properties over time. Other staff issues included canopies with signs and the taking up of parking spaces. Committee Chair Benham asked if the canopies could be included in the site plan and certification process. Staff was directed to try to accommodate concerns expressed by the audience and report back at the next Committee meeting. She indicated a desire for a closed Committee session on a lawsuit relating to unauthorized permit applications. 6. COMMrFrEE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Staff Attendees: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Assistant to the City.Manager DarnelI.Haynes, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; City Treasurer Bill Descary; Director of Environmental Services Ralph Huey Other Attendees: Cheryl Nelson, Ray Allen, Stuart Baugher, Bill Brimmer, Louis IJnney, Bill Baumgarner, Joe Elkins, Barbara Fields, Becky Kaiser, Barbara Fowler (L011022.MIN) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING CHAPTER 8.44 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FIREWORKS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 8.44 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 8.44 FIREWORKS Sections: 8.44.010 Definitions. 8.44.020 Permit required. 8.44.030 Application - Issuance - Fee. 8.44.040 Regulations. 8.44.050 Revocation. 8.44.060 Appeal. 8.~..010 Definitions. Whenever used in this chapter, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings: A. ~A~'lsli~ht"i:m'ba~ith0se'pe~On~defined'.insectiOn 8~44~030(A) (1) through (4)~ 'B~ "Person" means any individual, partnership, ~'oU'~corporation or association of any nature whatsoever. 8.44.020 Permit required. It is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale or expose for sale within the city any fireworks in violation of this chapter or without having a valid permit therefor in accordance with the-provisions of this chapter. -- Page 1 of 8 Pages -- 8.44.030 Application - Issuance - Fee. A. A permit for the sale of safe and sane fireworks may not be issued except to the following applicants: 1. A nonprofit organization or corporation organized and existing primarily fOr veteran, patriotic, religious, welfare, charitable or civic-betterment purposes, organized and established in the city at least one year prior to the filing of application for permit under this chapter and having a bona fide membership of at least thirty-five members. 2. Retail (for profit) business establishments which have, for a period of at least one year prior to the filing of an application for permit under this chapter, held a valid business tax certificate issued by the city under Chapter 5.02 of this code; provided, no such permit shall be issued to any such retail business establishment unless such establishment was issued a permit the previous year. 3. Any entity which held a permit issued by Kern County for a particular location the previous year, which location was subsequently annexed to the city within the past year. Permits issued to such annexed entities shall be in addition to those issued on the basis of population, without the necessity of being selected by drawing. 4. Those applicants having first obtained a permit or license from the State Fire Marshall under Part 2, Division 11 of the Health and Safety Code of this state. B. All recipients of fireworks permits except those specifically exempted in subsections A.3 and C. herein, shall be selected by a drawin.q (by.lot)conducted by the city manager or his/her designee n°tlatet'than APri! !0· 0leach year. C. The total number of fireworks permits to be issued shall not exceed one permit per four thousand population, or portion thereof, in the city of Bakersfield, as set forth in the ~)~i~ ~i~i~:~.~ annual report of the State Department of Finance, but not less than fifty; provided, however, any person applying for a fireworks permit who had such permit in 1994 and also in each subsequent year shall be issued a permit if otherwise qualified without being included in the drawing, notwithstanding the fact that such issuance may increase the number of permits to more than that allowed herein. "appliCant" D. Apphcabons for fireworks permits shall be submitted by:ithe::~'~;:: th st th st ............. ~ ............... ~ ........ commencing Marc i' throu ~ ....... ~" of each year. No applications shall.be-accepted ¢~-¢roce~'ed by the city after May--15t~ uarcl~:3i'~%f each year. A~i'ic~i6ns:::for:th~:dra~in-q r~f~i~:~ed 'in:: (B):'~nd (C)· ~eed:."~.ilb~:iih~i-~a,e ~ithe:..state sales :Talin:umber.::'~or! ~ill i, bquire, items 3 throogh:.8 apPiJcati°~i f6'~::i:::Th'b~e 'apPiic~antslsu~essful'in thed rawing:'§haii .ha~/eantii May. cornpietel th~i:~ a PP:!i~fions': and:, sUbrn'it:the! r6~i'r, ed; fe~(s): E. E~Pt'!~S.i~odified:§~ pa~agraph'(O)ab:~'V~:, ~applications for fireworks permits shall be made on forms to be furnished by the city manager or his designee, shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the applicant and shall require the following information and documents: -- Page 2 of 8 Pages -- 1. The name, address and telephone number of the nonprofit organization or retail business establishment for which application is made; 2. The applicant's business tax certificate number if it is a retail business establishment, and the name and address of all owners of such business; 3. The location of-the proposed fireworks sales; 4. The'purpose of the nonprofit organization or corporation, its principal and permanent meeting place; the approximate date of its establishment in the city; the total number of its local membership; the names and addresses of its officers; 5. A plot plan, showing the location of the temporary fireworks stand, utilities, location of permanent and temporary structures, curb cuts and~or drivgways and. ider~t!~ing !he nearest available sanitary facilities, and fire hydrants,!::FOr th:~)se::ia~plicarits ~b :were i~'~d~i;i~o~; ~i{: fo~:{l~'i~:~:isr~aing y~:.:i~.:~lOt p~:a'n mus[:~e:~bmiff~d With: abPli~tibh b~:~~Fo~:.~.thos~:app~i.~ants succe~sfui in t~e dra~ng/Plot P~a~s'~st~;be su6'~i~a:b~,~:M~:~5~; bf. ~ach year2~ plot pla~;W~l' be aPprOVed :0r:::~bibCted:.by.{h~"Fim Db~nt by'~June ~5~? A~endm~'nt Wil!,.no{;~ be Pe~iffed t0 .~'an~':.;'Pl°t'Plan ::~ejed~ SabS~a~.nt ;tb..:~t~6~ M~ch;~;31 ~:. :appl:ib~tib'n":d~adii'~:~?fo~ ~en~wal. P~'~:i{~ ~b'r~..:~h~''M~.~..~ 5~ 6. A written authorization from the owner, of the location or person in lawful possession thereof, if other than the applicant, for the locating of the business upon his or her property; 7. Evidence, satisfactory to the city manager or his designee, of (1) general liability insurance providing coverage on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death of one or more persons, property damage and personal injury, with limits as required by the city; and (2) workers' compensation, with statutory limits and employers liability insurance with limits as required by the city. All policies required of the applicant hereunder shall be primary insurance as to the city, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the city, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers shall be considered excess insurance over and above the applicant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. The applicants shall save, hold harmless and indemnify the city, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from all claims, demands, damages, judgments, costs or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise from or is any way related to any work performed by applicant, his agents or employees under the terms of any permit issued under this chapter; 8. Cash bond in the sum of one hundred dollars, to be forfeited to the city in the event the permittee fails to remove said stand, equipment and rubbish from the premises upon which the stand is located before twelve noon on July 15u' of the year for which said permit is granted. The cash bond shall be returned to the applicant upon full performance of the requirements of this chapter; -- Page 3 of 8 Pages -- 9. Approval from the public works department of the city that operation of the fireworks stand at the proposed location will not present any substantial hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. F. Location of temporary stands may not be changed after an application is filed except as required by the city, or where there is evidence of change in property ownership or management and prior approval or consent has been revoked by the new owners or managers. G. NO one organizationl, or business, group°r Pbi~son may receive more than one permit for fireworks sales during any one calendar year. H. All permits issued under this chapter shall remain in effect from noon on July 1st to noon on July 5th unless earlier suspended or revoked. I. The applicant shall pay a fee not to exceed the cost of processing any such application and inspecting such business as set forth in Section 3.70.040. J. Permits may be issued with conditions -to ensure that the business will be operated in a safe and legal manner, will not disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and will not constitute an undue burden on city resources. 8.44.040 Regulations. A. Those fireworks which are classified as "dangerous" fireworks under Section 12505 of the California :Health and Safety Code are prohibited, except that such fireworks as are defined and classified as "safe and sane fireworks" in Section 12529 of the California Health and Safety Code may be displayed, sold and used pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise. B. No permit holder shall shout, .make any outcry, .blow a horn, ring a bell or use any other sound device including any loudspeaker, radio or amplifying system where sound of sufficient volume is emitted or produced therefrom capable of being plainly heard upon the streets, alleys, parks or other public places. C. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be nontransferable, and shall be valid only as to the applicant and location provided on the application for such permit, or as set forth in Section 8.44.030F. ~o'~:se~'~i!i'~i~fii~'~i~jl~:r il~i~'~:'~b¥.:t'h~"a'~'~ii~ ~:.'~est~bl'iShed:~ i~; the'p~evio~§ [f::,~6~::~6~:~'~:~.~]'i~fi6:~?~:~'~:~tand: :l~t~' ~:~e::~ih: ~th~ ~inimum ~400..'fo6[ D. Except as expressly permiEed by and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12.44 of this code, the sale, offer to sell, adve~ising or display of merchandise on any street or sidewalk in the city or'roof of the fireW°~SStand is prohibited. -- Page 4 of 8 Pages E. All retail sales of safe and sane fireworks shall be permitted only from a temporary fireworks stand and the sale from any other building or structure is prohibited. The sale. of anyi:othe~ items .or c°mmoditie~ (e,~l:~,.cbVnsurnables)in conjUncti°n with the sale.of S~fe :and..Sane fireworks is~tri~tlY'pmhibited." ' ' F. No fireworks stand shall be located within one hundred feet of any gasoline storage or gasoline pump or any garage or within thirty feet of any other .building, or within s~x foUr hundred feet of any other fireworks stand,' when measured ClOsest point to closest point. G. Fireworks stands need not.comply with the provisions of the building code of the city except that the building official shall have authQdty to require that stands be constructed in a manner which will reasonably insure ensure the safety of attendants and patrons~..Fi~9'.~s!'i~t~n-d~':i~ay u~[!i~e-Shadin-q':d~iceS st~Chas canOPies or.aWningslf0r the '~n~/~:~i~:.:i~f ~at~fi:~ SUb!e~t:::tOlfhe foilo~n'.qi~.iimitati0'ns:~:':~ ..... "¥i~:: ??~:~i{i):~??i;~.;~io~tio:n'~i~d.d~m~:n~ions must'be~'~0wr~on the,aPProVed 'plOt Plani. ' (iii:. ':~ ~'h=~'(ii~/~i;':~(Jr':-imP6de;anYpubiiCdghts;°f'WaY; ~'~..' (iii) must be freeistanding;'(not anchored ortied to any public property such as __ _:~ . _ ad(~i~ted ;h~n'ging ff0~ the a~ing~°~;:~bDY.a~e ~0hibite'd;. :'.:..'.~?.?.::?..;~,.~(~ij)~.;'?~a~':~bt red~:'the~":h~ber'of'Pa~in~.~pa~es .reqbir~d'by the tramc ~ :'~;.::;?;:~'; ~ :~.~.::~(~iii)~.:::~d~i~i~'Y:.dtsale: ~of fi[e~brks ~m ~theawning Or canOpy area iS'Prohibited;· H. Fireworks stands shall be located only in a C-1 zoning district or a zoning district less restrictive than C-1, unless located upon prope~ owned and occupied-by a church and/or school, which church or school is either a legal or legal nonconforming use of such prope~y. I. All tempora~ stands for the display and sale of fireworks shall obtain an electrical permit from the ci~ building depaKment, if electrical current is utilized or necessa~. J. If a toilet is not immediately available during all open or sale hours of the fireworks stand, then an approved'~emical one must be provided. K. Each stand in excess of ~en~-four feet in length must have at least ~o exits. Each stand in excess of fo~y feet in length must have at least three exits. L. Each stand shall be provided with not less than ~o 2A 10 BC-type fire e~inguishers, unde~riter approved, in good working order and easily accessible for use in case of fire. -- Page 5 of 8 Pages -- M. No person shall light, or cause or permit to be lighted, any fireworks or any other article or material within any such stand, or within fifty feet thereof. N. No smoking shall be allowed in any Stand, nor within fifty feet thereof. "No smoking" signs shall be prominently displayed. O. All weeds and combustible material shall be cleared from the location of the stand, including a distance of at least twenty feet surroUnding the stand, P. There shall be at least one adult in attendance during the open or sale hours of the fireworks stand. No minor under the age of eighteen shall be permitted in a stand. Q. All permits must be posted in a conspicuous place. R. Fireworks shall be sold only between the-hours of twelve noon, July 1st, to twelve noon on July 5% S. Permittee shall strictly comply with all provisions of the State Fireworks Law (Sections 12500 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code). T. The fireworks stand shall be removed from the temporary location by twelve noon on July 15th, and all accompanying litter shall be cleared from said location on or before said time. U. Night watchman accommodatiOns shall not be closer than twenty-five feet from the fireworks stand. V. No fireworks shall be placed in any fireworks stand until a permit for such stand has been issued by the city. W. Any person who receives a notice to correct any violation of these regulations or any other condition of the permit, and who fails to correct such violation within the time prescribed in the notice,, may be assessed a fee' not exceeding the city's cost of reinspection in accordance with Section 3.70.040 of this code. 8.44.050 Revocation. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be immediately revoked .by the city manager or his designee whenever,he.finds: A. That misrepresentations were made on the application; or B. That any of the terms or conditions of said permit have been violated, or that the business has been operated in violation of local, state or federal law. -- Page 6 of 8 Pages 8.44.060 Appeal. A. Should any applicant be dissatisfied with the decision of the city manager or his designee not to grant a permit or to revoke a permit, then said applicant may, no later than ten days after notice of such decision is deposited in the United States mail, addressed to the applicant or permittee at the address provided on the application, make written objection to the city council setting forth the grounds for dissatisfaction, whereupon the council shall hear said objections at a regular meeting no later than three weeks [911owing the filing of the objection with the city clerk. The applicant shall be given written notice no less than three days prior to said hearing. The council may, upon said hearing, sustain, suspend or overrule the decision of the city manager or his designee, which decision shall be final and conclusive. B. Pending the hearing before the council, the decision of the city manager or his designee shall remain in full force and effect and any reversal thereof by the City council shall not be retroactive but shall take effect as of the date of the council's .decisions. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... oo000oo .......... --Page 7 of 8 Pages-- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: HARVEY L. HALL, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN CITY ATTORNEY By: -MICHAEL G. ALLFORD Deputy City Attorney MGA:Isc S:\COUNCIL\Ords\FireworksCh8.44.wpd October 26, 2001 -- Page 8 of 8 "'-rages -- November 1,2001 TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANNEXATION pRE. APPLICATION PROCESS David Couch, Council Member, Ward 4 Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Para McCarthy, City Clerk Ginny Gennaro, Deputy City Attorney FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: DRAFT ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY BECKY KAISER The following provides a draft of answers to the questions posed by Becky Kaiser at the Legislative & Litigation Committee meeting of October 22, 2001, concerning the Annexation Pre-Application Process as proposed and recommended by the subcommittee. These answers have been compiled to address specific questions posed, but do not include responses to statements or opinions included in the original list of "questions" (e.g., "too vague," ''too many unknowns," etc.). The answers are listed after repeating the question posed (with the "point" being the "bullet-point" listed in the subcommittee's proposal). The Committee directed the subcommittee to-meet again, this time with Becky Kaiser, to address these questions. The subcommittee meeting with Ms. Kaiser is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday November 7, 2001, at 3:00 in the City Attorney's Conference Room. If any members of the subcommittee have a problem With this scheduling, please let me know so we can reschedule. Point 3 Who puts this together? City staffwould compile both the letter and brochure. Who insures (sic) that everyone gets a mailing? The information would be mailed to all addresses within the area being considered for annexation and to all owners of property in the area as they are identified on the assessor's roll. If the owner and occupant are ~e S&me, that person would then be sent two mailings. From a practical standpoint, noone can ensure the Postal Service will deliver every piece of mail, without exception, but it will be presumed that all mail will be delivered. "Letter" and "Brochures" - Where is example? Content? Format? Same for everyone, every annexation? Neither the letter nor brochure has been prepared at this time, and will be prepared upon Legislative & Litigation Subcommittee November 1,2001 Page 2 Council adoption of a policy related to the annexation pre-application process. The content will be based upon a compilation of questions frequently asked in prior pre-annexation meetings, and the format will be developed to provide ease of review and reading by the citizens. It is anticipated that some of the information will be area specific (e.g., taxes, assessments, etc), so the format and content of each pre-annexation brochure may vary depending upon how much area-specific information is needed to be conveyed. How do people get the letter and brochures? Same answer as 2nd question, above. Still using a communications consulting firm? Use of such a consulting fn'rn will be determined on a case-by case basis, depending upon the size of the area proposed to be annexed, the number of inhabitants, etc. Will renters receive too (property address and owner if different)? Yes. Where get addresses from? GIS directory and the County of Kern most recent Assessor's Roll. Point 4 Why will meetings be optional? -It will depend upon the size of the area, number of inhabitants, requests by inhabitants or council member, etc. Why can't everyone affected have an opportunity to attend a public meeting? Why the secrecy*. Nowhere in the process does it state or imply that anyone affected would not be provided the opportunity to attend a meeting, if one is held. Nowhere in the process does it state or imply secrecy, or that information, if requested, would not be .provided. The process does not prohibit, but allows, the ability to use resident homes as a site for a neighborhood meeting, if desired by the residents in that neighborhood. It should be noted that everyone of the affected owners/occupants will have an opportunity to present their views to the City Council at the noticed Hearing. Any meetings held prior to this Hearing will be informational meetings where staff and the Council member, if such Council member attends, will be present to present information hnd answer any questions which may arise. The two meetings are for different purposes and should be viewed as such. Who invited? "" Who would be invited would depend upon the size of the area, number of inhabitants, who requested the meeting, whether it is a general public informational meeting (i.e., held at a school, etc.) or a small local meeting (i.e., held at a residence). The process is designed to provide flexibility in holding the different types of meetings, depending upon affected citizen's and Council member's desires. Establishing a fmu set of requirements to apply to all situations (requests for information from a small group versus a general meeting held to inform a large number of inhabitants) would preclude what is viewed as necessary flexibility. Legislative & Litigation Subcommittee November 1, 2001 Page 3 Point 6 Where will you get mailing addresses and other info for the "owner/occupants" of an area.? Same answer as the 2nd and last Question in Point 3, above. Who insures (sic) that everyone who must be notified is notified? Same answer as the 2nd Question in Point 3, above. Will people's opinions actually "count?" All opinions .received from the owners/occupants will be provided to the Council for its consideration. The City Clerk will provide to the Council a tally of the post card responses, along with any other owner/occupant written communication received. Will cards be anonymous or coded? As can be seen from the exhibit card, there is no identification of who sent the card to .the City Clerk, and unless or until the exhibit is changed by action of the Council, staffwould be required to use this exhibit and not code or in anyway modify the card to eliminate anonymity. How will cards be counted? By whom? The City Clerk would receive, hand count and provide Council with a tally of the response cards. The cards would be maintained by the City Clerk, in the same manner with the same legally required fiduciary control as any officially received public record document. What would keep the City from tossing in some of their own pro-annex cards? It is presumed that all parties involved (City elected officials and staff, pro-annexation citizens, con-annexation citizens)would conduct themselves in an ethical law-abiding manner. Elected officials and staff would be subject to legal or administrative ramifications were they to violate the policy. There is no guarantee or remedy to prevent citizens (either pro or con) from conducting themselves in the manner asserted in the question. Since there .are no signatures, numbering or other identification on the cards, there is no method to protect against some dishonorable individual from manipulating the process. If there are any suggestions to alleviate this potential manipulation, please feel free to suggest them. Cards must be saved as public record for public review? Except for certain exemptions, which do not apply here, any document received and maintained by the City is a public record subject to public review. Will there be a percentage cutoff of pro-annex or opponents of annex for which you will announce at the heating? There is no provision in the pr'o~ess' for such a percentage cutoff. It is at the discretion of the City Council whether to proceed with the applieation for annexation. However, it is presumed that the City Council will consider overwhelming support or opposition in making its determination. Point 7 Comment about size of type and content of legal notice. As was explained at the Committee meeting, the content of the legal notice will duplicate the Legislative & Litigation Subcommittee November 1, 2001 Page 4 exhibit letter notice. The type size is determined by The Bakersfield Californian. Point 8 How about written docs from those who did not have time to speak or could not attend - Accepted? Considered? Except for the response post cards, for which a tally will be provided, all written communications received prior to the Council's consideration of the Application for Annexation will be available to the Council for review and consideration. What will determine that the resolution of Application does not happen? How many "no" votes will be required? Percentage? Will stopping this require a motion by a Council Member with a majority vote? For action to be taken by the City Council to adopt the resolution, a motion would be required to be approved by a majority of the members present. If a majority of the members present do not approve the motion, the resolution is not adopted. If a tie vote occurs, the motion fails. A motion is not required to stop the resolution, simply no adoption ceases the process. Exhibit A "Attached Map" - Will there actually be a map mailed to residents? Printed in the paper? Yes, there will be a map attached to the notice of Hearing mailed to the owners/occupants of the properties in the proposed area. No, there will not be a map printed in the newspaper. "Any time prior" - Does this mean any time between the receipt of this notice'and conclusion of the hearing? YeS. However, inasmuch as the resolution is to be considered for adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council, any written comments received prior to that subsequent meeting will be provided to the Council. Should add to this notice a line at bottom such as: "A postage-paid postcard is provided for you to return as we value your opinion on the annexation of your home?" Language similar to that proposed could be included in the notice. Such language could be "A postage-paid postcard is provided for you to respond to the City with your opinion concerning the proposed annexation." It is believed this language presents a more impartial solicitation of responses than that proposed in the "question." The written comment section on this form must not be used for propaganda (AKA City Cheerleading)? This portion of the~notice is use~ tO' advise the recipients of the reason for initiating the annexation process (e.g., sewer service availability, city-services provision, eliminating an unincorporated "island," etc.). A statement of reason should not be construed as "Cheerteading," especially if the reason is to provide additional benefits for the area residents. Exhibit B Must.add a line that states - "Please mail before to be sure it gets to City on time." While verbiage could be included, it is believed to be self-evident as both the notice and Legislative & Litigation Subcommittee November 1, 2001 'Page 5 postcard specifically state the date of the hearing.' Also, the less verbiage included on the response postcard, the lesser potential for confusion or criticism. Must add a line stating that the recipient's opinion will help direct the City Council to terminate or continue this annexation? Inclusion of such a statement will only add verbiage to the reSponse postcard, which can lead to confusion or criticism. The response postcard is to be enclosed with the notice, and the notice can, as indicated above in the answer to 3rd question of Exhibit A, provide-the more appropriate location and language for the explanation of the use of the postcard. S:XBJT~L&L subcomm answ~s to Kaiseffs questio~s, wpd LEGiSLATiVE AND LITIIGAT~ON CO~I~ITTEE CALENDAR 2002 PROPOSED L&L Committee Mtg. Council Meetings , City Holiday 1:00 (,___.¢) Bdgt Mtgs & Pres. (M CC noon, W CC 5:15 p.m.) Hearing on 6-12; Adoption 6~26) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S ~ 1~ 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 6 7""'"8'~ 10"~ 11 12 3 4 5~ 7~ 8 9 3 4 5~ 7~ 8 9 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 t3 14 15 18 20i2~i 22 24 25 28 t71 18~ 19 21 22 23 19 21 22 23 27~ 29 30 31 24~ 28 27 28 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 5 8 1 2 3 4 1 14 18 17 18 19 20 12~14 15t8 17 18 9 10 11~13 14 15 2t 22 23~25 28 27 19 21 23 24 25 18 t8 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 26 [i:~i28 29 30 31 23 24 25~27 28 29 3O JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 ~ '~:L~::i 5 6 1 2 3 1 i 2 i 3 5 8 7 7 8 9 11 12 13 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 t5 18 t7 15 18 17~19 20 21 21 23~24 25 28 27 18~20~22~~ 23 24 22~24 25 28 27 28 28 29 30~ 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1~ 3 4 5 12 1234587 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5~ 7 8 9 8 9 10~12 13 14 13 t4 15 17 18 19 10i 1~i 12 13 14 15 t8 15 16,...~,7..,,.1.~,,,19 20 21 ,24,25i26 27 28 20 22 23 24 25 28 17 t9 ~;~] ~8 23 22 23 ' ~ 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 28... ........ 30 29 30121;i,...:._., (p:\L&L\L&LCAL02,qpw) (Proposed at t1-19~01 meeting) Proposed meeting dates: Jan. 28, Feb. 25, Mar. 18, Apr. 15, May 13, June 17, Jul. 22, Aug. 19, Sep. 23, Oct~ 21, Nov. 18. AI~EXATION PREAPPLICATION PROCESS I)RAFT FROM SI~COM~IITTEE OCT. 22, 2001 POINT 3: TOO VAGUE WHO PUTS THIS TOGETHER? WHO INSURES THAT EVERYONE GETS A MAILING? "LETIER" AND "BROCHURE(S)?WHERE IS EXAMPLE? CONTENT? FORMAT? SAME FOR EVERYONE, EVERY ANNEXATION? HOW DO PEOPLE GET ~ LETrER AND BROCHURE(S)? STILL USING A COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING FIRM? WILL REN'I~RS RECEIVE TOO (PROPERTY ADDRESS AND OWNER IFDIFFERENT?.) WHERE GET ADDRESSES FROM? REMEMBER ALL THE "FORGOTTEN" crrIZENS IN PALM/OLIVE AND EXCUSES GIVEN FOR THEM NOT RECEIVING THE MAIL? POINT 4: WHY WILL MEErINGS BE "OPTIONAL?" WHY CANT EVERYONE AFFECTED HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATrEND A PUBLIC MEETING? WHY THE SECRECY? PUBLIC MEETING PLACES ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE IN SOME FORM TOO VAGUE, TOO MANY UNKNOWNS WHO INVITED? COUNTY KEPS MUST BE INVITED TIMELY AND INCLUDED IN AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC FORUM IN EACH AREA -PROVIDES BALANCE, NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS PUBLIC FORUMS INSURE THOSE IN ATTENDANCE HEAR THE SAME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WHICH PROTECTS THE CITIT~.NS AND THE CITY PUBLIC FORUMS MUST BE MANDATORY FOR EACH INHABITED ANNEXATION OR YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME WITH NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AS YOU HAD WITH PALM/OLIVE, WHE%VHER OR NOT A "VOTE" IS TAKEN AND/OR COUNTED POINT 6: WHERE WILL YOU GET MAILING ADDRESSES AND OTHER INFO FOR THE "OWNER/OCCUPANTS" OF AN AREA? WHO INSURES THAT EVERYONE WHO MUST BE NOTIFIED IS NOTWIED? WILL PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ACTUALLY "COUNT?" WILL CARDS BE ANONYMOUS OR CODED? HOW WILL CARDS BE COUNTED? BY WHOM? WHAT WOULD KEEP CITY FROM TOSSING IN SOME OF THEIR OWN PRO-ANNEX CARDS? CARDS MUST BE SAVED AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR PUBLIC REVIEW WILL THERE BE A PERCENTAGE CUTOFF OF PRO-ANNEX OR OPPONENTS OF ANNEX FOR WHICH YOU WIL'L ANNOUNCE AT THE HEARING? POINT ?: AD IS TOO SMALL-NEEDS BIGGER TYPE ALSO-NOTE HOW AD TYPE IS SMALLER THAN PAM MCCARTHY'S TrrLE-WHICH INFO IS MORE IMPORTANT? AD MUST HAVE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED ANNEXATION WITH NAME AND NUMBER POINT 8: HOW ABOUT WRITTEN DOCS FROM THOSE WHO DID NOT HAVE TIME TO SPEAK OR COULD NOT ATI'END--ACCEPTED? CONSIDERED? WHAT WILL DETERMINE THAT THE RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION DOES NOT HAPPEN? HOW MANY ~NO" VOTES WILL BE REQUIRED? PERCENTAGE? WILL STOPPING THIS REQUIRE A MOTION BY A COUNCIL MEMBER WITH A MAJORITY VOTE? EXIBIT A: "ATTACHED MAP"-WILL THERE ACTUALLY BE A MAP MArl,mD TO RESIDENTS? PRINTED IN THE PAPER? "ANY TIME PRIOR"-DOES THIS MEAN ANY TIME BEIS~EN RECEIPT OF TH/S NOTICE AND CONCLUSION OF HEARING? SHOULD ADD TO TI{IS NOTICE A LINE AT BOq'rOM SUCH AS: A POSTAGE-PAID POSTCARD IS ~PROVIDED FOR YOU TO RETURN AS WE VALUE YOUR OPINION ON THE ANNEXATION OF YOUR HOME. THE INCLUSION OF TIME FRAMES HERE IS vrrAL THE WRrFTEN COMMENT SECTION ON THIS FORM MUST NOT BE USED FOR PROPAGANDA (AKA CITY CHEERLEADhNG) EXIBrr B: MUST ADD A LINE THAT STATES-PLEASE MAIL BEFORE TO BE SURE 1T GETS TO CITY ON TIME MUST ADD A LINE STATING THAT THE RECIPIENTS OPINION WILL HELP DIRECT THE CITY COUNCIL TO TERMINATE OR CONTIINUE TI-IlS ANNEXATION I~XIBIT C: SEE ABOVE SECTION POINT 7 BAKERSFIELD D AFT Alan~Manage~ Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, November 19, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, arriving 1:12 p.m. 2. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (A) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 PEOPLE v. CLOVIS CLINTON;, KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. BM607521A Committee Ch~air Sue Benham indicated there was no reportable action from the closed session. 3. ADOPT OCTOBER 22, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. D AFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee November 19, 2001 Page 2 3. DEFERRED .BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSED FIREWORKS ORDINANCE CHANGES Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford and City Treasurer Bill Descary explained the changes which were being proposed, including the elimination of the clause on flame retardant canopies as well as ffree standing" canopy issues. City Treasurer Descary handed out a list of 2001 Fireworks Stand Drawing Applicants, listed by organization. A lengthy discussion ensued on the allowance of more than one subunit, meeting the City's .criteria, under one tax identification number, making application for the limited number of available fireworks stand .permits. ' The Committee agreed that subunits under one tax identification number could apply but after a subunit using that tax identification number was picked; the others under that same tax identification number would be ineligible in that drawing. If at'the end of the drawing, fireworks stand permits remain available to be drawn, a second drawing would be conducted wherein those subunits would be placed once again in,the drawing until the tax identification number was once again drawn. This process of separate drawings would continue until all fireworks stand permits are drawn or until the number of applicants is exhausted. Chairperson Benham and Committee Members Couch and Sullivan were unanimously in favor of the proposed changes. Staff will include the appropriate language within the proposed ordinance for forwarding to Council for approval. Staff will report back to Committee after the application period on issues arising from the new application process and also after July 4 regarding issues with distance requirements. Staff will further explore issues raised regarding City liability and manufacturers of fireworks. B. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND'RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SUBCOMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF ANNEXATION PROCEDURES City Attorney Bart Thiltgen referred to his memo of November 1, 2001 relating to draft answers to questions posed by Becky Kaiser. He indicated he was in receipt of additional questions/comments relating to his response. Committee Member Couch indicated issues relating to "informational" meetings and notification remained, whether the meetings were mandatory, and the timing of the meetings. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated flexibility is an issue relative to specific needs within an annexation area, i.e., large vs. small, requests of inhabitants, etc. The "bundling" of annexation areas non-contiguous to each other was also discussed. Response cards would be tallied by staff for Council review, interpretation, and action. Agenda Summary Report AFT Legislative and Litigation Oommittee November 1 g, 2001 Page 3 Committee Chairperson Benham indicated she would like to address Palm-Olive residents concerns without the City and LAFCo duplicating processes, that there was only so much the City can do to engage public participation, and that it was important to be specific when adopting standards. Committee Member Couch indicated he felt that not ever-being able to bundle annexation efforts was'inefficient but that this issue could be addressed at a later time. Committee Member Sullivan indicated the informational meetings should focus on the benefits of belonging to the City. Committee Member Couch indicated the affected County Supervisor.and County staff should be invited to the informational meetings. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated, in response to Committee Member Couch's question, that most of the items would be in the Council policy resolution. The process for the informational meetings would .not be in the resolution. The resolution can be set up so that it takes-effect at a time specific in 2-002. City Attorney Thiltgen will draft the resolution. The subcommittee will meet .again. Committee Chairperson Benham indicated she felt a mission statement would be very appropriate. 6, NEW BUSINESS A, DISCUSS AND SET MEETING SCHEDUEE- JANUARY 2002 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2002 The Committee reviewed'the proposed schedule prepared by Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater. The proposed meeting dateof April 15 was changed to April 22, 2002 to accommodate Council Member schedules. A motion was made, seconded and passed to set the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting schedule for 2002 on Mondays at 1:00 p.m. on the following dates: January 28; February 25; March 18; April 22; May 13; June 17; July 22; August 19; September 23; October 21; and November 18. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Finance Director Greg Klimko, City Treasurer Bill Descary; Director of Environmental Services .Ralph Huey Other Attendees: Ray Allen, Barbara Fields, Barbara Fowler, Cheryl Nelson, Bill Brimmer, James Burger, Mark Dickerson · (L011119.MIN) 2001 FIREWORKS STAND DRAWING APPLICATIONS · NBR ORGANIZATION D-1 KERN COUNTY 4-H COUNCIL D-2 CHARLES "CHOPS' LAWRENCE LOt)GE NO 325 INT'L D-5 LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL P.A.T.S. D-6 PRAISE TABERNACLE cHURcH D-8 PRAISE TABERNACLE MEN'S MINISTRIES DEPARTMENT D-9 VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH D-13 VICTORY OUTREACH CHURCH-SOUTH BAKERSFIELD D-14 VICTORY OUTREACH MEN'S HOME-SOUTH BAKERSFIELD D-15 VICTORY OUTREACH YOUTH-SOUTH BAKERSFIELD D-17 NIT. VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH D-18 SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN & ADULTS D-19 VESSELS OF HONOR YOUNG ADULT MINISTRIES D-20 CAEVARY BIBLE CHURCH D-23 NEW LIFE APOSTOLIC D-24 HIGHER GROUND CHURCH D-25 DIVINE VISION MINISTRIES L ..... D-26 KING'S WAY CHURCH I)-28 OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP CHURCH D-29 VESSELS OF HONOR MINISTRIES D-30 B.P.O.E. -BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELK 1)-31 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY SERVICES 1)-32 DISQUALIFIED APPLICATION 1)-33 TEEN CHALLENGE CHRISTIAN LIFE D-34 BELIEVERS IN JESUS-YOUTH D-35 NEW LIFE RECOVERY CENTER D-37 DISQUALIFIED APPLICATION D-39 OUR LADY GUADALUPE-WOMEN'S CLUB D-40 OASIS CHRISTIAN CENTER-YOUTH BAKERSFIELD Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMrl-rEE of :the-City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, November 19, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGEN'DA 1. ROLL CALL 2. CLOSED 'SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation Closed Session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 People v. Clovis Clinton; Kern County Superior Court Case No. BM607521A 3. ADOPT OCTOBER 22, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 4. PUBUC STATEMENTS 5, DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review, discussion, and recommendations relating to proposed fireworks ordinance changes B. Review, discussion, and recommendations relating to subcommittee's review of annexation procedures 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Discuss and set meeting schedule - January 2002 through November 2002 7. COMMrl'FEE COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT S:\TTS~001LegUtCommittee~AGN011119.wl:x:l Meeting Agenda Veterans Memorial Park Committee November 19, 2001 1. Call to order. 2. Salute the Flag 3. Invocation _ 4. Sign attendance shee~being passed around. 5. Reading and approval of minutes. 6. Treasurers Report. 7. Introduction and comments ~om dignitaries. 8. Review of fundraiser, Coconut Joes Beach Club. 9. Introduction and comments by Dan Ordiz and Bill Melby of Ordiz/Melby Architects, Inc. - - display and explanation of schematic drawings of proposed memorial park. 10. Review and status report by Dale Wilson, Chairman. - - Site selection to be accomplished by the committee during the January or February committee meeting. 11. Any other business. 12. Next park committee meeting will be held Monday, January 14, 2002 at 6:30 pm. American Legion Post 26, 2020 H Street downtown Bakersfield. REMEMBER: December is darlc 13. Adjourn meeting. November 14, 2110 Re: Veterans Memorial Park Committee meeting To: All Post Commanders/Presidents Committee Members and Alternates Visiting dignitaries We have had our first fundraiser at Coconut Joes Beach Club here in Bakersfield and we feel it was a "rousing success". We could have had more attendance, but for the first fundraiser, we consider it a really worthwhile endeavor. We will give you the particulars ..... concerning the financial results at our November 19th m~_eeting. We, Also, have the preliminary schematic drawings of the park, prepared by Ordiz/Melby Architects, Inc. Dan Ordiz or Bill Melby will be at our November meeting to discuss these preliminary drawing and to get your feedback and opinions. Site selection is progressing. We will have proposals for various potential sites submitted to the committee for review and discussion at the January meeting. We will discuss the pro's and con's of those sites submitted and then vote on one we wish to proceed with. Your participation is critical, so plan to attend. We are still trying to get more veteran organizations to become part of the Memorial Park Committee. We met with Ridgcrest VFW and American Legion and it appears that they will join us. Also, we located the VFW at Mojave and they are very interested in joining with us. This should come pretty close to giving us a 100% of all veteran's organizations in Kern County. If anyone knows of any other veteran organization in Kern County that we have not identified so far, please tell us at the November meeting. We will not have a meeting in December. Please note this in your calendar - -and remember DECEMBER IS DARK. I. Please arrange your affairs and attend these important meetings. Dale Wilson Chairman, Kern Memorial Park Committee Dale R. Wilson, Chairman 832-8532 Michael A. Sabol, Vice Chairman 831-6458 P. O. Box41564 Bakersfield, CA 93304  PRSRT-STD U.S. Postage Veterans Memorial Park Committee PAID Lest We Forget Bakersfield, CA KWVA, Veterans Memorial Park Permit #592 P.O. Box 41564 Bakersfield, CA 93304 City Manager Allan Tandy 1501TruxtunAve. NOV 16 2001 Bakersfield, CA 93301 From: Jean Parks To: John Stinson Date: 9/25/01 10:05AM Subject: Attendees for Com Ser Kern County Veterans Memorial Committee Chairman: Dale Wilson possible others: Vice-Chair: Michael Sabol Secretary: Donna Lorenz Advisor Dr: Charles Carlson - retired Dean of Instruction Architect: Bill Molbey BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM TO BID DOCUMENTS Addendum No. _1 Page I of 2 Project: Entry Monument Sign Improvement Project Bid Opening Date: March 12, 2001 Bid Opening Time: 11:00 a.m. Today's Date: March 2, 2001 NOTICE TO ALL CONTRACTORS BIDDING THIS WORK You are hereby notified of the following changes and/or additions to the Plans and Specifications for the above referenced project. Such changes and/or additions are hereby made a part of the Plans and Specifications and shall take precedence over anything to the contrary therein. SPECIFICATIONS: 1. ADD new page C-5 after existing page C-4 1) Entry Sign Monument Letters, Logo, and Lights Detail NOTE: All contractors bidding this work shall denote in their proposal that they have received ADDENDUM NO. 1. Addendum approved by: Theodore D. Wright Darlene Wisham Civil Engineer IV Purchasing Officer S: P~OJECTS Jcu 2001-~.002*Sign Monumema Addendum I.wpd Print 0~te: Match 2, 2001 Print Time: I0:;JAM / 30'-0"  NEON TRIH LIGHT -'~ (PTM PMS#5~O REFLEX BLUE LETTERS) · , WELCOME TO /' ~ ~ ~~ - , , ~,~. ~. , ' ~ ~ N ~ ~ --- ~h" DIA. HOLE IN PANNEL A/[EF / ,/i,_6~ i,.6~ ' finish grade