Loading...
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