HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/29/2005 B A K E RS FI EL D
Zack Scrivner, Chair
Sue Benham
David Couch
Staff: Alan Christensen
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Monday, August 29, 2005
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. ADOPT JUNE 13, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
.A. Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy -
Christensen/McCarthy
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and Committee recommendation on Restaurant Letter Grading System -
Gennaro/Shaw
B. Review and Committee recommendation on the Fire Works Ordinance -
Ch ristensen/Fraze
C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding setting a Committee meeting
in September
6. COMMI'n'EE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
S:~,C\05 Legislative&Utigation~l105aug29agenda.doc
" -""$ . DRAFT
, ~ ~ Zack Sorivner, Chair
Staff: Alan Christensen Sue Benham
For: Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
Monday, June13, 2005
1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
1. ROLL CALL
Called to Order at 1:05 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Zack Scrivner, Chair,; Sue Benham; David Couch
2. ADOPT MARCH 14, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Report and Committee recommendation regarding Illegal Dumpingm
Forfeiture of Vehicles
City Attorney Ginny Gennaro provided an Overview on the information included in
the Committee packet. The County of Kern recently passed an ordinance that
allows deputy sheriffs to seize vehicles from persons who have used the vehicle
as a platform from which to dump waste matter, such as Used mattresses, etc.
The County's ordinance was modeled after a City of Oakland ordinance allowing
for the forfeiture of vehicles of persons who bought illegal drugs or solicited
prostitutes from their vehicles. The City of Stockton has a'similar ordinance, but
it was recently challenged and found invalid because it denied due process. If
Bakersfield were interested in pursuing such an ordinance, it should provide for
at least two hearings. If a hearing were requested, the hearing should occur very
quickly--within 48 to 72 hours.. It was noted if the City adopts such an ordinance,
it could still be challenged.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, June 13, 2005
Page 2
The Kern County ordinance provides that once the Vehicle is seized by Code
Enforcement or the Kern County Sheriff,. a notice is posted and a notice is given
to all the lien holders of the vehicle. If anyone receiving the notice requests a
hearing, the hearing must be held within two days. The District Attorney'~s Office
also must send out appropriate hearing notices and conduct hearings if
necessary. Once the hearing process is finalized and the vehicle is sold, the
storage costs and cost of selling the vehicle are deducted. A large percentage of
the money from the sale goes to the District Attorney's Office since that office
bears the cost and expenses of actually holding the forfeiture hearings.. The
balance goes to the County.
The City Attorney explained the City could enact such an ordinance, but first staff
should assess the additional staff time for the Police Department and. Code
Enforcement and a risk/benefit analysis should be done. It will also require
cooperation from the District Attorney's Office as they most likely would be
prosecuting the underlying crime.
Staff suggested it would be good to have a meeting with the County to assess
how their ordinance is working, and if they have. been able to recover money
from the vehicles they have seized versus the actual expenses incurred.
The Committee requested staff to meet with the County to research if such an
ordinance would be worthwhile and evaluate the risks versus the benefits. As it
will take a couple of months to evaluate the County's ordinance, the information
will be brought back to the Committee in August.
'The Committee discussed the August 8th date for the Committee meeting and
unanimously voted to approve canceling the August 8th date and setting a special
meeting on August 29th at 1:00 p.m.
City Attorney Gennaro will report back to the Committee at the August '29th
Committee meeting on the County's illegal dumping ordinance.
B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding RV Parking on
City Streets
City Attorney Gennaro explained the City's ordinance was changed about a year
ago to provide if a vehicle were parked on the street for more than 72 hours, a
citation could be issued and the subject vehicle must then move 1/2 mile away or
to private property for 72 hours. The Police Department has the option to issue a
citation rather than tow the vehicle away as a means to educate the public.
When a vehicle is towed away, it is very costly for the owner to get it back.
Assistant Chief Bryan Lynn stated the citations seemed to have brought about
more compliance.
D AFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, June 13, 2005
Page 3
committee Chair Scrivner referred this back to the Committee because of the
difficulty his constituents are having backing out safely when large RV's or
vehicles are parked next to a driveway.
City Attorney Gennaro will provide'the Committee Chair with the information used
by the Committee during the initial review of this issue when the ordinance was ·
amended with the 72 hours proVision, including the survey of ordinances from
other cities. Committee Chair Scrivner, who was not serving as a
Councilmember during the time the ordinance was amended, will review the
information and advise staff if further. Committee review is needed at this time.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation on the 2005 Legislative
Platform
Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen pointed out two paragraphs under
General Government with obsolete language regarding legislation on the 2004
ballot. It was noted if new legislative issues should emerge, the Platform could
be updated to reflect current trends.
Committee Member Couch made a motion to strike the two paragraphs and
forward ~.the 2005 Legislative Platform to the Council for adoption. The
Committee unanimously approved the motion.
B, Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy
City Manager Alan Tandy provided an update. Recently a letter was received
from LAFCO which explained the implementation of new rules. These rules
impact different types of annexations differently. Staff has been working with
LAFCO for clarification. For certain types of annexations the new rules have
extended the processing time to one year and four months to as much as two
years or longer.
Most infill and popular annexations are looking for services. For example,
services such as sewer to replace nonfunctional septic tanks. Two years is a
long time to wait when services are needed.
City Manager Alan Tandy explained the City has no control over the new LAFCO
rules. In an effort to move the process along more quickly, the City Clerk was
requested to go through the City's process and to mark and note where changes
could be made to eliminate duplication and suggest changes to make the City's
process more efficient.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, June 13, 2005
Page 4
City Clerk Pam McCarthy provided an overview of the material provided in the
packet with suggested changes to the pre-application process, hearing process,
and resolution especially for areas where annexation is desired or. the area is
uninhabited. The suggested changes were to take out repetitive action and areas
where the City no longer has the legal authority as the steps are now taken by
LAFCO. For example, with the changes to State Law, LAFCO now conducts the
Protest Hearing and makes the final decision regarding annexation.
The last time the' Committee reviewed this issue, Committee Member Couch
volunteer to be a committee-of-one to work on the issue with staff and bring the
information back to the Committee. He again volunteered to act in this capacity.
The Committee agreed for Committee Member Couch to meet with staff and
work on the details and report back to the Committee at the August meeting.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen;
City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; City Clerk Pam McCarthy; Assistant Chief of Police
Bryan Lynn; and Deputy City Attorney Allen Shaw
Others Present: Reportedcamera from Channel 23
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
S:'~,C\05 LegJslative&Litigation~ll 05jun13summary.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
August 15, 2005
TO: Legislative & Litigation Committee
FROM: Pamela A. McCarthy, City Clerk ~
SUBJECT: Annexation Pre-Application Policy
Staff met with Councilmember David Couch to review the proposed changes to
the aforementioned policy. It was recommended that the following revisions be
presented to the Committee:
1. Exhibit "B", page 1, first bullet. Leave this paragraph in the policy.
2. Exhibit "B", page 1, third bullet. Rather than delete the entire bullet,
revised language was proposed.
3. Exhibit "B", page 3, last bullet. Add language regarding public input.
All other recommended changes to the policy were unchanged. The entire text
of the resolution and documents is attached for the Committee's review.
:pmc
Attachment (1)
S:\HEARINGS~ANN EX~L&Lmemo. DOC
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING AND RE-AFFIRMING
CITY'S ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT AND
ESTABLISHING A PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS FOR
ANNEXATIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield adopted an Annexation Mission
Statement on February 21, 1996 which outlines several reasons why the City pursues
annexations and the manner and outcomes which are expected to result from said annexations;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield adopted Resolution 029-02
regarding the City's Pre-Application Process for Annexations; and
WHEREAS, State law requires the annexation procedure to be under the auspices of
the Local Formation Agency Commission (herein "LAFCO"); and
WHEREAS, annexation remains an identifiable goal of the City Council, a recommended
positive step in the Vision 2020 Plan, and a supported finding from the 1999-2000 Kern County
Grand Jury; and
WHEREAS,, the City Council intends to disseminate annexation information prior to the
involvement of LAFCO and desires to assure citizens that to the extent annexation information
is provided by the City, that it occurs in an honorable, courteous, informative and honest
manner; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to re-affirm the goals and pledge of said Mission Statement
by establishing a Pre-Application Process which will govern how City Council and City staff
handle annexations, prior to the involvement of LAFCO; and
WHEREAS, the Pre-Application Process will include a number of steps, to notify the
property owners/occupants within the proposed'area ""^ cf
wv._._~'~:^'^ '~'~ ........ c,~, .... v .... ~:"'""_._ r,~,,,_.., ,--,_v_..v..;, prior to adoption of the Resolution of Application.
NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the above recitals herein, the City Council for the City
of Bakersfield hereby:
1. Amends and re-affirms the Annexation Mission Statement adopted by the
Bakersfield City Council on February 21, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated by reference herein.
2. Adopts the Annexation Pre-Application Process attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
and incorporated by reference herein.
3. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 029-02.
-oo0oo-
S:\HEAR INGS~NNEXL~nnexReso.wpd
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoin§ Resolution was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meetin9 thereof held on
, by the followin§ vote:,
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERCARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
NOES: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By:
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
:pmc
S:\H EARINGSkANNEXkAnnexReso.wpd
EXHIBIT "A"
ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT
The purpose of the City of Bakersfield's annexation efforts is to provide clear
consolidated boundaries which result in the most effective delivery of urban services
and in the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In fulfilling this mission, we, the city of
Bakersfield elected officials and staff pledge the following:
· To deliver services to citizens within newly annexed county areas more efficiently
and with a greater transfer of benefits as a result of becoming a part of the City;
and
· To provide quality services to citizens in the most efficient, effective and courteous
manner possible; and
· To encourage current and future residents to participate in determining the direction
and spirit of the City and its neighborhoods; and
· To assure our contact with citizens will be in the most honorable, courteous,
informative and honest manner in our efforts to encourage adjacent residents to
unite with the City of Bakersfield; and
· To make continual efforts to improve the quality of life, the delivery of services and
the community spirit within and around Bakersfield; and
· To preserve the integrity of each property owner's vote, by not combining non-
contiguous areas on the Resolution of Application, unless 100% owner approval
is received in writing by the City.
EXHIBIT "B"
AN N EXATIO N
PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS
The following steps are proposed for the City of Bakersfield prior to application for
annexation to LAFCO of territory inhabited by 12 or more resident electors:
· Identify Proposed Annexation Area
Development Services Department - Planning Division will identify
the proposed annexation area, based on request by City or Citizens
to initiate annexation.
· Notify City ICouncii
. - Comment [p:l.]: Often annexation is
in conjunction with development
which requires confidentiality.
Thc ~cvc!cT. mcnt __.cr:!c__.c D!:cctof' City Staff will notify the Revised language will enable staffto
Council, in writing of the annexation proposal. Th!c nct!f!cct!_'cn, 57 maintain the confidentiality yet notify
Council.
- ~-'~ c~t "Frequently Asked ~Quest ons ~ '[ Comment [p2]: The mailing of this
.................................. ~ ~ I' information creates and added
........ ! expense to the City (staff time,
^ '~"~" rc;crd!.-.?, thc ~.rcT. ccc~ c.".~c×ct!c~ w!'.!~ Frequently asked /printing, mailing). The information will
! be made available through the
questions and responses regarding the proposed annexation will be /website and provided to the residents
prepared by the Development Services Department and made / dudng the informational meeting.
available 'on the City's website at vvww. bakersfieldcity, us and
provided at informational meetings.
· Informational Meetings
At least one mandatory noticed informational meeting at a public
facility will be conducted within the proposed annexation area. ~ - ~ -r Comment [p3]: Language not ~
^~ .... :n ~^ ~.,~ ~. .... '~' '~ ~'~': .... ~': .... ;~' ~ ~'~'~ ~^~"~"~' '~ '" ~ I necessary, See Comment#7
............................................ ~ ~. .................. od
City Councilmembers may wish to also schedule additional informal
meetings in the area in order to share information and this should
not be precluded. In all cases, the Councilmember will be invited to
any informational meeting. Efforts will be made to use public
facilities for informational meetings. However, this does not
preclude the use of resident homes.
· It is the intent of this section to assure that
information is readily available and shared with
citizens. With this in mind, staff will attempt to use
'the internet to disseminate annexation information
when financially feasible. It is imperative that staff
be available to respond to questions by citizens
and share information in either a group or individual
setting.
Comment r-,~'~,l,,..j: See Below
. ........................................................... . _ ~ Comment [pS]: Minimalchanges.
However, the mailed notice has been
revised. See Exhibit "1"
~-~" "'" "~':-" ~'-~ ~' ..... ~'~'~'"~" written notice will be mailed
to all property owners/occupants within the proposed area. ~
'"*'" ;~"'"~ '~*^ *; .... '~ '^~*;^- ~ ~'~';"~ .~.ddlt!c~cll:,' There
will be a prepaid post card included !.-. "-- ........... ""*=~ =~"';"-'~ requesting
the owner/occupant c.". c~c.".'.:'.~.!t7 to express their opinion
regarding the annexation, by mail or personal delivery. The notice
will be prepared and mailed by City Clerk Staff no later than 20
days prior to the hear=m~ Resolution 'of Application being placed on
the City Council Agenda. See attached Exhibit "1" and "2" Comment [p6]: This is an additional'
~ expense. All concerned with the
/ annexation will receive a mailed
~ t~ _ _ // notification (Prior step). Additionally,
this is not legally required.
Comment [pTI; With the changes to
/ Stale Law, LAFCO now conducts the
A .~.~--'~."i~ ~'; ..... ;U k .... ~,:~.^,4 ;~ 'r~,^ D~I.~,¢:^~..~ /-'~1;,~:~, ~.~ Protest Hearing and makes the final
"'~ ' ~' "^': ....... ~-"~ -~': ..... :"" .... "':~"~" '~'~' then , decision regarding Annexation.
...... ~ .......... r--~ .................... r' ......... P.S ..... ~
.... · - ~ .................. ~ .............. Instead of conducting a headng,
/ copies of the response cards mailed
~ to the residents would be provided to
I · I / Council at the time the Resolution of
Application is placed on the Agenda.
~- ...... c~ ........................................................... _~ The City Council can, at that time,
direct staff to withdraw or proceed
with the Application.
· Resolution of !Applicatio~ .........................................................
A Resolution of Application for Annexation of a proposed area will
be brought to the Council for consideration. The public can
address the Council at this time. _,., .... ! ct thc
cthcr::ic: b:,'
EXHIBIT "1"
B A K E R S F I E L D
NOTICE OF .U.E.".P-L".'~ ~-EFORc- THE
COU.".'C!L OF THE C~ .'rY. OF ~-.~..~.c-P-?F?-L-r2
PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY'THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN cf c .u.c:;i~, bcfc:c the Bakersfield City Council ~
~ is propos~ing annexation of territory to the City of Bakersfield ~ identified as
City of Bakersfield ANNEXATION NO. 398, GENERALLY KNOWN AS PANAMA #12.
'r'k~ k~;~ ,,,;11 k~ k,-~l,~ k~,C~ ~.k~ /"~H-,, /'~,,~;I ~c ~.k~ f"~;~.s, AS O,-~ls~.l~;~lA ~A ~,,;11 k~;~
f.'OVF..".".~EP. ~", 3-n~! ;~ ,~... ,", ..... .'~ ,"~......,~...... ,'-.',., u~,,, ~ 'r .... ,.,.. ^ .......
The area being considered is generally located north and south of Panama Lane, west
of State Route go (Freeway og). See the attached map (l=xhibit ^) that shows the
affected terdtory.
These proceedings were initiated by the property owner(s) or City (c, ooso one) The
reason the has proposed this annexation is
The City Council is interested in your written comments regarding the proposed
annexation. Comments may be filed by any owner/occupant within the proposed
annexation area, by returning the enclosed, postage paid postcard, or letter with the
City Clerk at any time prior to adoption of the Resolution of Application by the City
Council.
Dated:
Pamela A. McCarthy, CMC
City Clerk and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
NOTE: Notice to be mailed in City of Bakersfield Envelope '";"' "o"k"" Hoer!nC k,~,.- .... !~ c,~.~ ,.,.
B A K E R S F I E L D
City Clerk's Office
1501 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
CITY CLERK
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301
NOTICE OF NE~;~IN~PROPOSED
~ ANNEXATION
A Resolution of APplication is being proposed for the following
territory. The City Council would like to receive your comments, prior
to adopting the Resolution. Please complete this card and return to
the City Clerk.
"';~^' -'"~"' .......... thcrcsffor
Regarding; Annexation No. 398, Genera{{y Known as Panama #12
~ { support the proposed annexation
~ { oppose the proposed annexation
__ I have no preference regarding annexation
For Annexation Information Contact Planning @ 326-3733
MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
August 24, 2005
TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
ZACK SCRIVNER, CHAIR
SUE BENHAM, MEMBER
DAVID COUCH, MEMBER
/ l .fl
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNE~ ~,,~~,_
SUBJECT: LETTER GRADING
Enclosed for the Committee's review is a response to a previous referral by
Councilman Couch on the above subject and a letter dated April 19, 2005 from County
staff to the Board of Supervisors on the same issue.
Steve McCalley has been invited to Leg and Lit in case we have any questions
on how the City can convert the current system.
VG:lsc
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Alan Tandy, City Manager
S:\COUNClL\MEMOS\04-05 Memos\Leg&Lit. LetterGrading.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY A TTORNEY'S OFFICE
May 5, 2005
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: GRADING SYSTEM FOR RESTAURANTS
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 001113 ~'
Councilmember Couch requested staff to investigate the feasibility of implementing a
grading system for restaurants in the City.
City ordinance 8.04 abolished both the City Department of Public Health and
Sanitation and the City office of "Health Officer."
The ordinance transferred all health functions, powers' and duties, including the
health inspections of City restaurants, to the County Health Department and Health
Officer. Currently the County Health Department inspects and enforces State health
regulations in the City. State health regulations do not compel a letter grade for
restaurants but permit local jurisdictions to create such grading systems and compel
displaying those grades. The County recently considered and rejected adopting a
"restaurant grading" ordinance.
At present, state law compels the results of county inspections to be made
available to a customer on demand. Through the Public Records Act, The Bakersfield
Californian periodically publishes the results of county restaurant inspections.
In order for the City to compel a grading system among City restaurants, it must
agree with the County to develop a conversion system of inspection results into letter
grades. The Council may also want to consider adopting an ordinance to provide
authority over City restaurants to ."display" the grade determined by the County Health
Department.
This matter.is being referred to the Legislation & Litigation Committee for further
study.
VG/AMS:Isc
cc: Honorable Mayor and citY Council
S:\COU NClL~:eferrals\04-05 Referrals\Couch~RestaurantGrading.doc
F~pr 25 05 10: 34a Superviso. r Michael Rubio 661 868 364S
p.2
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STEVE Mc~LL~, R.E.H.S., Director ~ DAVID PRICE III, ~,~fA DIRE~OR
-O0 '.M' STREW, SUITE 300 ~ Com,mun;~' and Economic ~s.e~opmcr.;
KERSFIELD, ~ 93301-2370 [ng,n~ring & Su~.e
Voice: (65~ 862-8700 En~iror. men~l Hea]:h Se~.ices
Fix: (661) 862-8701 P:annmg
~' Relay: (800) 735-2929 Roads ~nment
Ap~l 19,.2905 ~[ ~
Board of Supen'isors
County of Kern
1115 Traxtun Avenue
Bakers£ield CA 93301
LETTER "G.'q..-X. DING SYSTEM" FOR FOOD ESTA.BLISI-TM-ENTS
Fiscal Impact: None
This fetter is presented in response to a request from Supervisor Rubio and an interest expressed
by. many in the community that the Environmental Heal*ah Services Department (EHSD)
implement a letter "Grading System" for restaurants. As your Board is aware, the Department
provides a multitude of se~'ices related to Se protection of public health and safety tt'~roughout
Kern Count),. SpeciEcalI),, the Food a~'~d Consumer Protection Program permits and inspects
food facilities that sell or distribute food on the retail level. These facilities are re?.ulated to
ensure the protection of the food supply within Kern County and compliance with the ~a!ifomia
Unifo:Tn Retail Food Facilities Laxv.
To assist in understanding this issue, a bit ofback~ound is'offered 0n our c,arrent practices. To
allow for the most et2-ective allocation of resources, food facilities are assessed individually and
ranked according to risk factors developed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
These risk factors include conditions that are most often implicated in foodborne illness
outbreaks in the United States. Gen. eraily, facilities that handle and prepare food in multi=le
steps and serve large populations have a higher risk rating than facilities that serx'e limited,
prepackaged foods only. Therefore, tlaese high risk facilities are dedicated a disproportionate
amount of our resources and are inspected more often than lower risk faci!iti=s.
Utilizing this risk based approach, in .calendar ).'ear 200-', 3,815 routine inspections
conducted on 2,702 food facilities wi.2'.in Kern County. Ln addition. 689 temoorarv food
facilities were inspected, 597 mobile food facilities were permitted and inspected a'nd 3')1 new
food establislmaen~ were opened. Aid-.ough most eating establishments performed wet! during
each inspection, st~."f documented over S,319 vioiations and responded to t,209 complaints
regarding food safety issues.
Apr 25 05 10: 34a Supervisor Michael Rubio SSi BS8 3S45 p. 3
Board of Supe~.'isors
Page 2
April 19, 2005
During each inspection facilities are assessed and evaluated for compliance with state law to
ensure safe food handling practices. Inspections are unarmounced and occur at various times to
ascertain compliance of the full operation..Areas of concern that are directly iimked to foodborne
illness (critical violations) are addressed at the be~rming of the inspection and are more heavily
weighted than non-critical violations. If.the inspection reveals the presence of critica! violations
that pose an immediate risk to food safety, the facility is immediately closed until the operator is
able to demonstrate compliance.
All coxespondence, inspection reports, and corrective actions are maintained within the
Department and are made available to the public for review. Beginning in 1999, the Bakersfield
Californian also began publishing inspection results on a regular basis. In addition, starting in
2001 state legislation was passed which required all food facilities to retain a copy of their most
recent inspection for public review and post notification of the availability of the report should
customers desire to review.
Restaurant "Grading Systems" 'although somewhat new to California, have 'been used
successfully within Los Angeles Count/or seven years and have yielded some exciting results.
A recently published study conclude~i~Los Angeles CounD, experienced a 13% decrease in
illnesse~sociated with~t~he consumption of con.2rninat.e~ .f~od,,si,,n,c~ implementing the ~ading
prograi{~_~arly data su,.,e, sts the .m'a_di_n~ pm;m'am {np.r. ~s._d £ .... p/Lmnc__.e, improved inspection
scores and influenced consum'e~' restau~raTnt choices. In hct the stud,,' foUnd the percentage of
restaurants that scored below 70% on inspe'ctions has declined from 25% to about 2%.
Collaborative efforts between food facility operators and the food program staff continues to~
ensure the protection of the food supply and the ability to access our inspection reports in a
number of locations and formats helps to educate and ease consumer concerns about food safety.
Ho&'ever, to further assist the public in making infomned decisions and to provide another
mechanism to encourage compliance from restaurant operators we xvould like to seek the
Board's guidance on implementing a let:er "Grading System".
We have reviewed several programs in other areas of California to determine a proven method
for a "Grading System". A suggested program would translate inspection results into numeric
scores and food facilities would be assi~mned an overall performance grade (i.e., A, B or C).
Facilities would also be required to post the let:er gade witt-,/n a public viewable area until the
next inspection was completed. TO require posting of grades within the unincorporated area of
the county, the Ordinance Code wo'uld need to be amended. In addition, each incorporated city,
within Kern County, would need to adopt the county ordinance or similar language to allow
EHSD staff to post grades within their city since our insPection program is performed under the
auspices of state law.
Rpr 25 05 10:34a Supervisor Michael Rubio 661 868 3645
Board of Supm~'isors
Page 3
April 19:2005
To develop an accepted program mhd assure its success, it would be our inte.nt to work closely
with interested groups in the development of this grading system. Lnput from local busir, ess
associations, local Chambers of Commerce and food facility operators would be welcomed and
needed to assist in the development of the progam. New policies, procedures and training
woUld be needed t° address issues such as the weight of each violation, the process and ability of
the operator to correct, and the re-g-rade procedure for poor performing facilities. A dispute
resolution protocol would need to be established as a few violations points may have a di~ct
economic effect.
Although there could be substantial staff time and costs associated with the development mud
implementation of a "Grading System" and outreach will be needed to educate operators and the
public, the cost to maintain the progam is expected to be minimal. It is our intent to utilize
current budget resources and existing staff to develop this program as there will be numerous
startup costs associated with this change. Permit fees will be adjusted in future years to reflect
development and ongoing costs of the program. It should be noted that once the program is '
operational the costs should, be insignificant.
It is important to note, restaurant grading is one additional element to a comprehensive and
successf~al progam that provides additional information and incentives to the protection of the
food supply.
Due to the sensitive nature of this proposal and the change in policy we are seeking the Bond's
guidance to develop a comprehensive proposal ih-'ld ordinance revision.
Therefore, IT IS KECOMaMENDED, that your Board consider the matter of a letter "Grading
System" for food establishments and provide staff with direction.
Sincerely, ~
Steve McCalley, Director
SMc:jg
cc: County Administrative Office'
Resource Management Agency
^UG 2005
BAKERSFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT t.?I~TY IVIANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: Ron Fraze, Fire Chief (/~/~
Date: August 22, 2005
Subject: Review and Recommendations to current Fireworks Ordinance
On April 21, 2004, I brought to your attention the need to change the City Ordinance that
regulates the sale and use of fireworks. The recommendations I brought forward for
consideration were based on the past negative track record we had experienced with the
sale and use of fireworks. Through the hard work of city staff and the Legislative and
Litigation Committee, the following changes that affect the safety aspect of fireworks
were approved by Council on November 17, 2004.
· Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, "Piccolo Pete" type and "Ground
Flower" type fireworks shall not be used, displayed, or sold separately or in
combination with otherwise allowed fireworks.
· Each fireworks stand shall prominently display and provide safety educational
materials that have been approved by the Fire Chief. A copy of the required
materials shall be provided by the Bakersfield Fire Department. Required
materials shall be paid for by the applicant and distr}buted with each fireworks
sale.
· All enforcement of the provisions of this chapter may be through the Uniform
Fire Code.
Along with the Ordinance changes, the Legislative and Litigation Committee also
recommended to the City Council to approve the expenditures to cover the hourly labor
costs for enhanced enforcement between the hours of 7 p.m. to midnight on July 4, 2005.
That enhanced enforcement included four Squads and four unmarked Arson units that
were staffed by both Fire and Police personnel.
During this five hour period, these eight enforcement units ran on 181 calls for service,
wrote 18 citations and confiscated over 100 pounds of illegal fireworks. This extra
enforcement was not near enough to address the overwhelming fireworks problem. A
major roadblock is the fact that the City's Ordinance is for City areas and the County
residents within the metro area do not have to follow the same rules.
County-wide, including the City of Bakersfield, there were a total of 755 calls for service
on July 4, and 51% were fireworks related. In the City alone we had 342 calls for service
with 57% related to fireworks. Included in these "fireworks calls" were numerous
structures fires, many grass and fence fires, and a number of medical aid calls for injuries.
One unconscious resident was rescued inside his burning home (started by fireworks) and
a separate incident involved a citizen throwing a lit firework in a firefighter's face,
singeing his eyelid and burning his gloves.
It has become evident that dealing with the problem of misusing illegal and legal
fireworks will continually grow unless we take more stringent measures to deter this
behavior. The following are recommendations (in no particular order) to help resolve this
escalating problem:
· An outright ban of the sale and use of fireworks in the Metropolitan Planning
Boundary.
· If fireworks are allowed, shorten the number of days fireworks can be sold and
used.
· Increase the dollar amount of the administrative fines.
· In conjunction with fines, use an 'Arrest and Book' procedure for persons caught
selling or using illegal or modified fireworks. This action could be in conjunction
with our City Attorney's Community Prosecutor.
· Limit the number of fireworks stands to the current number and not add to the
number as the population grows.
· Increase the fee schedule to the firework stand operators in order to recover the
cost of enhanced enforcement efforts. Enhanced enforcement efforts would begin
on the first day of sales and end at midnight on July 04.
· Increase Fire and Police enforcement efforts.
· With the cooperation of the County, any changes made would be enforced in the
Metropolitan Planning Boundary.
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
August 15, 2005
TO: Legislative & Litigation Comm~
FROM: Pamela A. McCarthy, City CleK~J~'~---
SUBJECT: Survey of City Clerk's Regarding Fireworks
Through the League of California Cities, I have the ability to send out requests for
information to registered City Clerks throughout the State. I recently requested
feedback regarding the sale of Fireworks within their communities.
The attached spreadsheet provides a synopsis of the information received from
forty-seven (47) City Clerks. Of the forty-seven Cities responding, twenty-six (26)
do not allow fireworks. One City reported that none of the eighteen (18) Cities in
their County allow fireworks. Additionally, 12 Cities provided their Ordinances,
which I can provide upon request.
:pmc
Attachment (1)
S:\Council\MEMOS\FireworkSurvey. DOC
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have How Did You
CITY Allow Sale of How Many Days By Whom ~. Non. Eliminate Sale
Particular Problems w/Illegal Phase or Cold
Fireworks? ' Sold? Profits/For Profit? Dates/Times? Fireworks?
Turkey?
7 Days, 6/28 - 7/4 Specified Non-profits are 6/28 - 7/6, Noon to
Atwater * Yes
: Noon to 12 Midnight given permits Noon
In 2003, we adopted
an ordinance to ban
fireworks (cold
Turkey), but the
fireworks companies
are very organized
and immediately filed
Local non-profits w/50% July 4th from 10 a.m. a referendum. They
!Buena Park Yes 4 Days, 7/1 - 7/4 of groups membership to 10 p.m. Yes financed a large
residing in Buena Park. ~campaign, paid
circulators, massive
advertising and the
referendum prevailed
receiving 60% of the
vote. Consequently,
fireworks are still
allowed.
Burbank No Not allowed for many
years.
Yes. Currently looking
at an Ordinance that
Calimesa No Fontana recently
adopted. Imposes a
$1,000 penalty for
illegal use.
Non-profit groups, four
Cathedral City Yes 7 Days, 6/28 - 7/4, who get funding from
10 a.m. - 10 p.m. City Council and four Yes, significant
chosen by lottery.
1 of 7
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
How Did You
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have
CITY Allow Sale of How Many Days By Whom - Non- Eliminate Sale
Fireworks? Sold? Profits/For Profit? Particular Problems wllllegal ~
Dates/Times? Fireworks? Phase or Cold
... Turkey?
Chino * Yes 7 Days, 6/28 - 7/4,
Noon - Midnight Local non-profits Same as Sales
Clovis * Yes 7 Days, 6/28 - 7/4,
Noon - Noon Local non-profits
Coronado NO!
4 Days, 7/1 & 2,
Downey * Yes Noon - 10 p.m.; 7/3,
10 p.m. - 10 p.m.; Local non-profits 7/4, 3 p.m. - 10 p.m.
7/4, 8 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Duarte Fraternal organizations 7/3, 4 & 5
Fresno Yes, since 2000 5 Days, 6/30 - 7/4 Churches & non-profits July 4th Major problem
Grover Beach Yes 8 Days, 6/28 - 7/5, Local non-profits
12 noon - 12 noon
4 Days, 7/1 - 7/4,
Noon - Midnight. If
Hanford * Yes 7/4 falls on Sunday, Local non-profits Same as Sales
then sold on 5th till
Midnight.
Hawaiian 4 Days, 7/1 - 7/4,
Yes Local non-profits
Gardens * 12 noon - 9:00 p.m.
Still have problems
Hayward No with illegal use and
concern.Safety is a real Eliminated in the 80's
2 of 7
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
How Did You
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have '
'CITY Allow Sale of How Many Days By Whom - Non- · !Eliminate Sale
Particular Problems w/Illegal
Fireworks? Sold? Profits/For Profit? Dates/Times? Fireworks? Phase or Cold
...... Turkey?,
7 Days, 6/28 - 7/3,
6/28 - 7/4, 9 a.m. -
Huron * Yes 9 a.m. - 9 p.m; 7/4 Profit
!11:59 p.m.
9a.m. - 10 p.m.
Imperial Yes Non-profits
Kingsburg *
An occasional idiot
sets off firecrackers.
Laguna Beach No However, most Adopted Calif. Fire
Code on October 20,
everyone understands
1972.
they live in a very
hazardous area
Local non-profits w/50%
LakeWood City* Yes 4 Days, 7/1 - 7/4 of groups membership 7/4, 10 a.m. - 11 p.m. Yes
8 a.m. - 10 p.m. residing in Lakewood
City
7 Days, 6/28 - 7/4, 7/4, Noon to 7/5, 1:00
Lawndale Yes
noon - midnight a.m.
Only 2 cities in the
entire Coachella
Valley still allow the
Year roundproblem sale and they have.
La-Qainta No due to location near had very serious fire
Mexican border, as a result of
fireworks. That city is
' now considering a
ban.
' 30f7
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
How Did You
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have
CITY Allow Sale of How Many Days By Whom - Non- Eliminate Sale
Fireworks? Sold? Profits/For Profit? Particular Problems wllllegal
Dates/Times? Fireworks? Phase or Cold
Turkey?.
Cold Turkey. Took
several years to
Monrovia No Not a lot.
prove that it was
going to be enforced.
Murrieta No A little. Never allowed.
~Norco No Yes
4 Days, 7/1 & 2,
Norwalk * Yes 10 a.m. - 10 p.m.; Local non-profits w/50%
7/3 & 4, 10 a.m. - of groups membership 7/2 - 7/4
Midnight. residing in Norwalk.
Had a Ballot measure
,n 1990 and the
Orange No Yes, some.
Citizens voted not to
allow fireworks.
Contra Costa County
outlawed fireworks
Pittsburg No Yes, this year worst in
many years ago, so
recent memory.
none of the 19 cities
allow them.
This particular year
Pleasanton No had difficulty with
illegals.
Never have, never
Redlands No will!! Do not even
allow the use of
fireworks in our City.
4or
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have How Did You
CITY Allow Sale of How Many Days By Whom - Non- Eliminate Sale
Fireworks? Sold? Profits/For Profit? Particular Problems wllllegal
Dates/Times? Fireworks? Phase or Cold
, , , Turkey?
City is part of Contra
Richmond No Costa County where
fireworks are banned.
Salinas No Not noticeable. Long standing
)rohibition. · ·
San Clemente No Some, but not
significant.
San Dimas No
Long time ago. Helps
San J:uan that surrounding
Capistrano No A little.
communities do not
allow fireworks.
Problems with both
San Leandro No safe & sane and
illegals. Do issue Outright ban.
citations w/$1,000 fine.
San Marino No Occasional problem. Never allowed.
Adopted ordinance
banning the use and
This was the'first year sale. The fireworks
of the ban,' and there industry circulated.a
referendum petition
Santa Rosa No were illegal fireworks
and the referendum
being used, but not
made it to the ballot,
sold in our town.
where the
referendum was
defeated.
South~ Lake No
Tahoe
5 of 7
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have How Did You
CITY iAIIow Sale of How Many Days By Whom - Non- Eliminate Sale
~Fireworks? Sold? Profits/For Profit? Particular Problems wllllegal
Dates/Times? Fireworks? Phase or Cold
Turkey?
Because we are 'the
only place in our
Yes. This year there county & surrounding
counties where
were 2 vehicle arsons
allowed, have a huge
caused by someone
influx of people
Susanville Yes 5 days, 6/30 - 7/4 36 Hour period around tossing firecrackers coming into town to
the 4th of July. into cars. Also, severalset off fireworks in
vegetations fires. It's
getting more difficult to shopping center
control, parking lots.
Discussed ban, but
big source of income
to the non-profits.
No, but always
concerned. This year Done by City
2 minor incidents. Did
Stockton No ' notice an increaSe in Ordinance, so long
usage by the public, ago, can't remember
which is a major impact.
concern.
Taft * Yes 5 days, 7/1 - 7/5, Non-profits Same as sold.
Noon to Noon
Temecula No Yes
The no fireworks
designation is from
State establishment
ITruckee No Not much of high fire danger
area. Nevada County
does not allow
fireworks based on
that.
Union city Yes 7 Days, 6/28 - 7/4 6/28 - 7/3, 8 a.m. to
· 10 p.m.; 7/4, 8 a.m. to
Noon to Midnight 11p.m.
6 of 7
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
CCAC FIREWORKS SURVEY
How Did You
Does Your City Use Limited to Do You Have
*CITY Allow Sale of How Many Days By Whom - NOn- Eliminate Sale
Fireworks? Sold? Profits/For Profit? Particular Problems wllllegal
Dates/Times? Fireworks? Phase or Cold
,, Turkey? ,*
West No Yes Not for 35 years or
Sacramento more.
Winters Yes One week No
* City
Ordinance
Provided
7 of 7
P:\CCAC\Miscellaneous\CCAC Fireworks Survey.xls May 20, 2005
Fireworks Light Up Coffers gt
~me~ St~ ~ater quin~entl~ postwar suburb ~ ~
bo~ tract homes proud of its i :' -~-
A few ~u~s befo~ ~- . tradition of youth s~s and ~.
wor~ went on ~e ~ L~ew~d, block p~ies, people am di~ded
B~ Yoho, 13, ~old~ a d~c- . on the pe~on~ use of firework.
~r some, the days su~und- '::' ~'
~r's ch~ ~d set it up across ~g the holiday ~c marked by ' -~'
~m the P~ ~efl~ ~sn.'s
~th, a pl~ood shack bD~t~ · sl~pless nights and bar~ng
dogs ~ fl~orks go offwell in~
hued ~ red, w~, blue ~d mc- the e~W-mo~ng hours. Others
~g-~ yeHow ~d ~pp~ ~th see fireworks ~s a Fou~h of Ju~
~oflapping~e~c~fla~. staple, an in~dlent of mom-
His enthusl~m. ~ch~ked ~d-apple-pie~e~cana.
by the fact he w~ too yo~g ~ ~at di~de, ~ well as public
set foot ~side, B~ had at- sgety concerns, has prompted
~nded the orientation m~t~gs city officlffis ~ begin ~ngerly
~d w~ pmp~d ~ offer pur- placinglimitson f~wor~sales, n~
ch~ingad~ce from h~ ~mh ~ lnMay, the City Council vot~d A TRADITION OF SERVICE: VolunleerCliffIIeL~swor~.~allhePanAmcricanA.~'.~'n.fircworks
the parking lot of a 7-Eleven on ~ stiffen pen~tles for the illegnl booth tn Lakewood, which annually ralsc.~ SZO00 lo $lO,O00for its community actt
P~mount Boulev~d. use of ~works, imposing fines
~ ~s ~dfather uffiocked of up ~ $1,000 and adding the C~ifomla mstdcts l~ms for
~d ~pped up the pl~ood ~ssib~ity of up ~12 months in sale based on how f~ they shoot s~ady. In 2004, an estimated
bo~s ~ mve~ the ~y of fire- jarl, sparks and b~s ~l rocket-pm- 9,600 people were iajumd in tim-
works ~side--eyeing ~m a ~e plan is ~ eventu~W ~- peUed devices, works-~lated accidents in i~ju-
79-cent popper ~ a ~99 "Big duce the numar of fl~or~ ~es mostly clustered around thc
B~g' box of goodies b~led as ~oths ~ 25 ~ the 9V~-squam- ~ryea~,fimflghtingo~ci~s Fourth of July. Three-quarters
~ffect for ~y block p~y -- mile m~cip~lty. ~maO civic and othe~ have b~n encourag- those hurt were male and about
B~'s eyes b~gh~ned. ~ups sel~g the ~o~ am lng the public ~ go ~ public 40% we~ children, manyburncd
"~ebestp~,'he~dofthe d~ ~.~0 ~m 36 t~..~m shows rather than shoot offtheir by sparklers. According to thc
Fou~h of July holiday, "is I get ~ .'a~. o~ fi~wor~. Cente~ for Disease Control and
.: L~ewood h~ ~so li~d But this ye~, fm~ci~ pmb- Prevention, the highest rate of
set off firework.' 'the sffie of fi~works ~ o~ four le~ have c~cel~ seve~ ma- i~u~ is ~ boys l0 to 14.
But the best p~ for the P~ of the seven d~s the sta~ ~- jor pmfession~ shes round Last year, eight people died of
~e~c~ Assn., a ci~c ~oup - lows. It's leal ~ possess them Southern C~omi~ ~clud~g fireworks-~la~d i~xju~cs
that sponsors m~tic~t~ les- dung the d~s they m on s~e the ~nuffi dlspl~ at the Qu~n nationwide, including a 45-year-
rives ~d other events, is the ~d~setthemoffon~onJuly4 Ma~ in ~ng Beach. ~s h~ old B~ersficld man killed by a
~,000 to $10,000 the ~up takes - betw~n 10 a.m. and 11 p.m. heigh~ned concern about a pos- homemade shrapnel device set
~ each ye~ d~g just 56 houm ' Omups selling fi~orks sible increase ~ ~dl~du~ use. offat a block pa~y.
of operation. ' ' must pm~de the ciW with m- ~e tall brash resulting ~om With fireworks stands across
~at one ~ndr~ser pm~des ~s sho~ng that precis hea~ ~n~r rains ~so h~s In- thc state doing brisk business
the bulk of the annu~ budget, were used ~ benefit the commu- creased the po~ntl~ for serious officios in neighbo~ng cities arc
pa~ng.for conce~s ~ ~e p~k '~ty. fi~s, o~ci~s s~d.
bracing for problems.
~d m~g schol~hips pos- ~e goal, W~die s~s, is ~ A 'hodgepodge of roles and ~s Angeles County Shc~ff
sible for ~gh school ~duates. have the fi~or~ s~es "con- re~lations exists ~thin the s~- ~e Baca, whose department
The bustle at the st~d goes a fom~thv~ueswe~defend." county m~on of mo~ than contracts with Lakcwood. has
long way towaffi e~l~ng why Beh~d the me~ mesh of the 15 m~ion people Ii, rig in mom suggested creating designated
[~wor~ cont~ue ~ ~ sold ~ ' P~ ~eHc~ ~sn. booth, Joe are~ in the region where fi~-
scorns of cities across Southern ' ~mbel, 66, can k~p ~ eye on th~ 160 ~uthem C~fomia cit- works could be set off under
C~omia despite d~des of ' ~s ~dson B~an ~ well ~ les. pension.
{See ~rewor~, Page A17] the ne~st competition -- the The Los Angeles County Fire "That would be a reasonable
, [~rewor~,pomPageA1] L~ewood Chmber of Com- Dep~mentse~es32communi- way ~ let people have their fun
, ~n~ by ~flgh~m ~d fed- meme ~ operating out ora la~er ties that ~low s~e and sane fi~- and k~p it off thc neighborhood
e~ s~eW officios that they . ~oth just do~ the st~t in the works and 26 that do not. In any struts,' Baca said.
~sea~sk~c~d~n~dama- 'p~glotofaW~-Ma~. number of locations, including But at thc Pan American
Jorflmdan~r. "You have a]otofpeoplewho the bounda~ of Lakewood and stand in Lakewood, Arambcl
~,~ ~e pogtics of Fou~h of Ju~ ' c0mplffin about fireworks who ~ng Beach, safe and sane fire- and others doubt tlmt people
~ ~or~ comes do~ ~ one re- works m sold at booths just would be willing to give up the
~W: ~ous~ds of nonprofit s~ we could throw a b~e sale across the street from cities right to set off fi~wm'ks whc~
co~u~ty o~tions count- and r~e the money," ~bel where their use is flle~, they choose. ~r Arambcl. it's a
~g on the s~es o~n tromp s~d~thalaugh. The ~on is so dense that le- tradition that Is handed down
~ve w~gs from loc~ fire- "There's nothing we could do ~ distinctions from city ~ city through ~nerations.
figh~rs, that coffid replace ~wor~ ogen s~m meaningless. "I m~ly like ~ s~ thc kids
In C~ffomia, about 3,500 yen- sffies. The mount of money For exmple, P~adena b~s who come In and their eyes just
dom sell ~wor~ ~ 272 muffici- we'~ able ~ ~se in a f~ days person~ fi~works, but they are gght up,' he ~d. 'I t~ ~ throw
p~ties. Ne~ ~ fireworks ~ ~nds most' of what we do the madUy av~able in nearby ~- ~: a~an l~m ~d ~R them:
the sta~ ~ sold by volun~ mst of the ye~.' . hmbra ~d Monterey Park. '~s l~)ust for you.',
~gmoney for such ~ups ~ Arambel persuaded' the Ma~ cities ~ the South B~ ~so
the Boy Scou~, p~w~e footb~t, ~up to ~t ~ the fireworks have bans, but fireworks ~ for
~gh sch~l boos~rs, chumhes, ~me ~er volun~ng at the s~e a few ~es away in Gaffiena.
the J~c~s, ~waffis ~d chin- Lions Oub booth ~d seeing how In Oran~ County, the v~t ma-
im ofcommeme, much money that o~ization jo~ty of cities ban fireworks, but
~er the decades since Cffii- ~sed. ' they ~ for sale in Costa Mesa,
fomla be~ ~lat~g the sale Since the P~ ~e~c~ Gaffien Grove and Santa Ana.
O~n, cities have moved ~
~d use of fireworks in 1939, sell- ~sn. ~t its booth s~ ye~s a~,
ingthem~r~e moneyhas be- the~uph~b~nable~aw~ crack down only ~r a m~or
come ent~nched In m~ com- 52 schol~ships ~ high sch~l fireworks problem. Anaheim, for
example, banned ~1 fireworks
m~tles, effective~ m~g studentsgolng~collegeorvo~- s~es ~ 1987 ~r a Fou~h of
the~ use common even ~ neigh- tional school.
boHngcitlesthatbanthem. "~em is no way we could Julybottlemcketblastsparkcda
~e result for m~ city lead- ~ve those out ~thout this m~sive bl~c that destroyed 94
em h~ b~n a pecuU~ stmd- booth," he s~d. apa~ments.
· ~g of ~ms~, a weighing of Nonpmfits sell so-c~ed s~e Officials ~id bans -- coupled
s~ety '~d noise concerns - and s~e fimwor~ suppUed by ~th public education -- can
m~e a difference.
a~nst tradition and quick cash. complies.
"~e sffie ~d use of safe ~d Dennis ReveH, a spokesman In ~s ~les, where all
ma~ur fl~or~ ~ Ille~, in-
~e ~orks is pa~ of the fab- for ~ Firework, which sup- J~es ~d pm~y dmage a~
~c of gfe in L~ood ~d h~ plies ~ambel's o~ntzation ~ d~ d~atl~W ~m the
~n s~ce the city Inco~ora~d well ~ about 2,800 others In the e~W 19~s, when effo~ ~ u~
~ 19~,' said D.J. Waldie, an au- sta~, s~d fimwor~ am sold on ' ~ple ~. ~it pmfe~ion~
thor, h~an ~d public infor- consignment, ~th ,the profit sh~s:mther..th~ ~t.off ~e~.~
mation officer in the city of about split evenly betw~n the whole- o~ displ~n. In 1981,
'80,000 just no~h of ~ng Beach. sffier ~d vendor. Revell said the works caused 500 i~quHcs and
profit matin on fi~works ~es $2.1 ~ion ~ damage. L~t year
I"~ese community-b~ed, or- Is a~ut 41%. the city mpo~d 88 fl~works-~-
~lmtions am si~lficant con- Arm~l said his fl~wor~ o5
t~bu~rs ~ the qu~lty of life in la~d i~udes and $36,000 in
L~." fer a ~fe ~vc ~ mom pmpe~y dma~.
~e~ ~lcit ~o~ ~ ~- Nation~ statistics indicate
eluding che~ ~mbs ~d i~u~es rela~d to fireworks -- le-
~ket-pm~ll~ d~ces~ o~n gffi or iUe~ -- have remained
smu~ ~ ~o~ ~m !
N~ada ~d other s~s whe~. -
thc roles a~ mom lenient.
BAKERSFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: Ron Fraze, Fke Chief
Date: October 06, 2004
Subject: Background Information on Fireworks Issues
At the dkection of the Legislative and Litigation Committee we have compiled the
following answers to their questions.
1. A complete official legal description of illegal or dangerous fireworks
See attached Health and Safety code Section 12505.
2. Safe and'Sane fireworks most likely to be altered "Piccolo Petes" are the most
abused legal fireworks. Their contents can be easily emptied into non-approved
containers making an extremely dangerous device. In addition, their high-pitched
sound can frighten animals leading to the large number of runaway dogs after the July
4th holiday. The "ground spinning device" is the second most misused legal firework.
It is suggested to eliminate the sale and use of these two devices.
3. Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) According to the APCD, the air quality in
Bakersfield on July 4, 2004 during the peak times fireworks were expended exceeded
the Federal Health Standard by a factor of 10. Specifically, the one hour average of
684 between 8-9:00 pm was ten times the Federal Health Standard (65 micrograms
per cubic meter). Attached is data from the APCD regarding this issue.
4. Kern County Fire Department's position on the sale and use of fireworks in the
metro area The County would like to see a task force formed with representation
from the City Council, Board of Supervisors, community leaders and others to make a
county-wide recommendation. An attached memo addresses this issue.
5. The cost and action plan for the enforcement of illegal or altered legal fireworks
A comprehensive enforcement program targeting the possession and use of both
illegal and altered legal fireworks is a daunting task. Given the population and
square mileage of our metropolitan area, we recommend 2(I personnel (police and
fire) working on special teams on the 4:" of July. The cost would be $6.1)(}0. An
attachment addresses this issue.
6. Education materials on the safe use of fireworks We recommend that the
operators of fireworks booths be required to: 1.) post in a conspicuous fashion
fireworks safety material; and 2) give the purchasers of fireworks a pamphlet on
fireworks safety. Both items must be approved bv the Bakersfield Fire Dept.
BAKERSFIELD POLICE
MEMORANDUM
October 11,2004
TO: Council Member Sue Benham, Chairperson, Legislation and Litigation
Committee
FROM: D.S. Haskins, Lieutenant, Operation Division
SUBJECT: Police Personnel Costs for Staffing July 4, 2005 Fireworks Enforcement
I have consulted with Deputy Fire Chief Dean Clason and together we 'propose that six
(6) Bakersfield Police Officers be utilized to team up with Bakersfield Fire Department
Arson Investigators for a ten hour shift to address the enforcement of fireworks laws
and ordinances.
In addition, due to last year's fatal fireworks injury, and subsequent need for expertise in
explosives investigations, we recommend placing three (3) officers and one (1)
sergeant from the Police Department's Bomb Disposal Team on duty for three hours.
The total projected cost to the Bakersfield Police Department for the six (6) police
officers, the three (3) Bomb Disposal Team members and one (1) sergeant for the 2005
Fourth of July Holiday is approximately $3,386.00.
OT 10% TOTAL # #
POSITION WAGES POST PER HR OFFICERS HOURS TOTAL
POLICE OFFICER (HOURLY RATE- STEP 5/ $ 40.89 $4.09 $ 44.98 3 10 $1,349.37
SENIOR POLICE OFFICER (HOURLY RATE- STEP 5/ $ 42.96 $4.30 $ 47.26 3 10 $1,417.83 $ 2,767.20
POLICE SERGEANT (HOURLY RATE- STEP 3) $ 49.40 $4.94 $ 54.34 1 3 $ 163.02
DETECTIVE (HOURLY RATE- STEP 5) $ 46.04 $4.60 $50.65 3 3 $ 455.81 $ 618.82
TOTAL $3,386.02 $3,386.02
MEMORANDUM
October 14, 2004
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director/j,/~
Subject: Fireworks
The Legislative and Litigation Committee last met on September 20, 2004 and discussed potential
changes to the City's fireworks ordinance. The committee directed staff to bring back
recommendations and one or two alternatives where applicable. Under the existing ordinance the
City could issue 70 permits based on the standard of 1 per 4,000 population for the 2005
fireworks season. The permits would be distributed to 39 grandfathered permit holders and 31
non-profit organizations through a drawing. The 39 grandfathered permit holders are comprised
of 3 for profit entities and 36 non-profit organizations (30 with 1 permit and 3 with 2 permits).
The possibility of deleting the grandfathering clause and any legal or financial implications has
been raised and will be answered separately by the City Attorney.
One of the major issues has been the proliferation of applications by individual clubs or
subgroups within a "parent" non-profit organization (i.e. grades 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 within a particular
school). This appears to have been done to increase the chance of the organizations success in the
permit drawing. Staff recommends redefining the organizations eligible to apply for fireworks
permits to the "parent" organization and also include non-profit, serving the public, clearly
'affiliated with the City and holds its regularly scheduled meetings within the City. The
application should, among other items, include a description of the service to the public and
numbers of public served.
Other items for consideration are listed below which reflect the current ordinance and some
options.
Grandfathered Permits
Current - 39 (for profit 3; non-profit 36)
Option 1 - Delete commencing 2005
Option 2 - Delete commencing 2007
Number of Permits
Current - Population cap: I per 4,000 (2005 = 70)
Option 1 - Cap at 70 in 2005 and thereafter.
Option 2 - No cap: Grandfather 39 plus I per non-grandfathered organizations
(approximately 42) for a total of 81.
Option 3 - No cap: I per non-profit organization (approximately 75). None
grandfathered.
Option 4 - Reduce 2005 cap of 70 by 5 each year or 10 each two year cycle.
Annexed Entities
Current - Prior year county permitted locations are in addition to population cap.
Option 1 - Delete commencing 2005.
Option 2 - Delete commencing 2007.
1
S:\KimG\Gregory\Memo - ATFireworksl01104.doc
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Subject: Fireworks
Permit Application Cycle
Current - Annually
Option I - Every 2 years.
Option 2 - Every 3 years.
Organization Membership
Current -. Thirty five (35) minimum
Option 1 - Delete minimum
Option 2 - Increase minimum to 50
Fees
Current - Permit fee $101 plus electrical permit $40
Option 1 - Establish fees in accordance with the City's cost recovery system
which should not exceed $350 including the following:
1. Applicatibn Processing - nonrefundable - Estimate $40
2. Planning - Zoning determination - Estimate $20
3. Building - Booth & cleanup inspection - Estimate $60
4. Fire - Booth inspection - Estimate $90
5. Fire & Police - Enforcement - Estimate $100
6. Electrical Permit - Estimate $40
Additionally, the Fire Department has requested the following:
1. Distribution of Fire Safety brochures, authorized by the Fire Department. The cost to
be borne by the permit holder.
2. The penalty provision be expanded to include administrative enforcement (fines) in
addition to possible criminal action.
2
S:\KimG\Gre~orCMemo - ATFireworks I 01104.doc
MEMORANDUM
August .30, 2004
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager /7/] 7
From: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director~J~
/,,
Subject: Fireworks
Councilman Salvaggio referred the item of multiple fireworks permits to the same organization to
the Legislative and Litigation Committee. The committee fom,'arded an ordinance amending
section 8.44.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to the City Council for first reading on March
10, 2004. The CiD' Council delayed a second reading on March 24, 2004 and the item was
referred back to the Legislative and Litigation Committee by Councilwoman Benhamto review
broader issties.
Some areas for discussion include but are not limited to:
A. Permit Application/Issuance (Finance. Planning & Risk Management)
B. inspections (Building & Fire)
C. Enforcement (Fire & Police)
D. Cost Analysis (Finance)
Specific items within the areas mentioned above include: A. Period of fireworks sale
B. Number of permits City. wide
C. Number of permits per organization
D. Grandfathered organizations
E. Non profit and/or profit organizations
F. Education
G. Enforcement
H. City fees.
Currently, Municipal Code chapter 8.44 includes the following provision; the period of sale is
between twelve noon on July [st tO twelve noon on July 5th. The total number of permits is set at
one per 4,000 population or portion thereof plus permits issued by Kern County the previous year
and subsequently annexed to the City. During the 2004 fireworks season there were a maximum
of 67 permits based on a 266,784 population estimate as of January I, 2003 provided by the State
in May 2003 (266,784/4~000 = 67). While 162 applications were received the 67 eligible were
determined via the grandfathering provisions (39) and by drawing (28). Subsequent to the
drawing 64 total permits were issued.
Currently qualifying organizations may apply for and receive more than one permit with certain '/
limitations. An organization may qualify for one or more permits under grandfathering and may
qualif3, under another group within the same primary organization for additional permits. An
organization is usually deemed qualified if it was issued a permit for the 1994 season
l
S:\KimG\Grcgory\Mcmo - ATFircworks.doc
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Subject: Fireworks
I recognize that the issue of fireworks to celebrate the fourth of July is an emotional issue. That
many organizations and subgroups within organizations rely on fireworks proceeds to keep their
organizations viable. However, the cost to administer the fzreworks permitting process has
become not only time consuming but administratively cumbersome. Generally, I am
recommending leveling the playing field, limiting the number of total permits and restricting each
primary non profit organization to one chance in the drawing.
The City Fire Chief advises that over 300 California cities (60% of the state) have taken proper
steps to ban the sale and use of any fireworks within their jurisdiction. It is his recommendation
the City of Bakersfield work with the County of Kern to do the same within the metropolitan
area.
Attachments: 1. Listing of the 2004 Fireworks permit applicants.
2. Memorandum dated March 18, 2004 from the City Treasurer's Office.
3
S:\KimG\Gregory\Memo - ATFireworks.doc