TemeculaTim
Member
- Feb 2, 2005
- 145
- 0
The OHV war is still on in Riverside County.
From todays paper
Board skeptical of off-road law
RIVERSIDE ---- Calling two proposals to regulate dirt bikes and other noisy activities "too complicated" to be considered together and potentially difficult to enforce, Riverside County supervisors delayed action Tuesday and asked that sheriff's deputies and representatives of the district attorney give input on the proposed ordinances.
The board will revisit a proposed noise ordinance Feb. 28. It plans on March 28 to consider a proposal regulating off-road vehicles specifically.
The supervisors' directions came after 16 months of study by county planning staff, public hearings before the county's Planning Commission and four hours of public comment Tuesday afternoon. Some three dozen speakers, variously, called the proposals too broad, too narrow, too weak and too difficult to enforce.
A clear majority of the speakers favored stricter regulations on the noise coming from off-road vehicles. Several protested that the proposal to regulate the vehicles would actually legalize noisy bikes in areas where they aren't currently allowed.
Several off-road enthusiasts and three representatives of off-road advocacy groups complained they were being unfairly targeted by that proposal. The county should focus on noise and illegal riding, such as trespassing, they said.
While taking issue with several aspects of the proposals, three of the five supervisors hinted that the days of off-roading on private property could be coming to an end in Riverside County.
"Right now we have an activity that's inherently inconsiderate of other people," said Supervisor Bob Buster, whose 1st District includes Wildomar. "I'm still waiting for somebody to convince me that we can have all of this informal use, even on large acreages. It's not a necessity. It's not a necessity. We don't need all this noise from a purely optional activity."
Buster called for an outright ban on the use of off-road vehicles across the county except for at sites that are zoned for commercial use. Such sites should have to apply for permits that could be renewed or revoked, Buster said.
Third District Supervisor Jeff Stone, who represents Wine Country, French Valley, Aguanga and Menifee, said large commercial tracts would be better suited to accommodate the most riders while disturbing fewer people in their homes.
He stopped short of calling for an outright ban, but said his visits to off-road sites in rural Aguanga had affirmed his belief in an ordinance that could be used to shut down nuisance riders.
"What we saw was a blatant, flagrant disregard for some of the ordinances," Stone said.
Second District Supervisor John Tavaglione appeared to favor a requirement that landowners receive conditional-use permit before allowing dirt bikes and other recreational vehicles on their property.
"Why do we have a (permit) for a fast-food restaurant?" he asked. "We have it because of traffic and noise. This is no different."
Tavaglione also expressed skepticism that the current proposal would allow the use of off-road vehicles on lots as small as two acres.
In that, he echoed several residents of Aguanga and other rural areas, who protested that the current off-road proposal, amendments to the county's general plan and to an off-road vehicle ordinance, would actually allow noisy bikes in residential areas where they're now off limits.
The amendments would allow use of off-road vehicles in "rural residential" and several other rural zoning designations, while imposing:
n A limit of six riders at any given time.
n Bans on riding before 8 a.m. and after 7 p.m.
n A requirement that riders stay 50 feet away from the property line.
n A limit on the amount of dirt ---- 50 cubic yards ---- that could be moved to create jumps and other features.
The ordinance would also prohibit riding on lots smaller than 2 acres, a size that the Planning Commission whittled from 5 acres since it first took up the issue in October 2004.
Selina Steele said her home, in a "rural agricultural" zone of Wine Country that would remain off limits to off-roaders, stands next to seven lots that could be opened to off-road activity.
She puts up with occasional noise from off-roading on properties where it isn't explicitly allowed, she said. But the new ordinance would allow as many as 42 bikes for 11 hours a day, seven days a week, she said. For that reason, she opposed it.
Yet Steele and many of the off-road riders who spoke said they could support a proposed ordinance to limit noise from dirt bikes and a range of other sources, including parties and car stereos. That ordinance would limit noise at the property line to 65 decibels, somewhere between the noise level of a normal conversation and that of a crowded restaurant.
Lot sizes could also be difficult to gauge for sheriff's deputies responding to noise complaints, supervisors said. And complaints that come in after the county's handful of code-enforcement officials clock out at 5 p.m. would also be a problem, they said.
Using the noise ordinance alone, the county could address the issue more fairly, said John DiCiaula.
"I'm going to feel bad if I have to tell my son he can't ride his mini-bike anymore because we don't own enough property," DiCiaula said.
Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2615, or cbagley@californian.com. To comment on this article, go to www.californian.com.
.
From todays paper
Board skeptical of off-road law
RIVERSIDE ---- Calling two proposals to regulate dirt bikes and other noisy activities "too complicated" to be considered together and potentially difficult to enforce, Riverside County supervisors delayed action Tuesday and asked that sheriff's deputies and representatives of the district attorney give input on the proposed ordinances.
The board will revisit a proposed noise ordinance Feb. 28. It plans on March 28 to consider a proposal regulating off-road vehicles specifically.
The supervisors' directions came after 16 months of study by county planning staff, public hearings before the county's Planning Commission and four hours of public comment Tuesday afternoon. Some three dozen speakers, variously, called the proposals too broad, too narrow, too weak and too difficult to enforce.
A clear majority of the speakers favored stricter regulations on the noise coming from off-road vehicles. Several protested that the proposal to regulate the vehicles would actually legalize noisy bikes in areas where they aren't currently allowed.
Several off-road enthusiasts and three representatives of off-road advocacy groups complained they were being unfairly targeted by that proposal. The county should focus on noise and illegal riding, such as trespassing, they said.
While taking issue with several aspects of the proposals, three of the five supervisors hinted that the days of off-roading on private property could be coming to an end in Riverside County.
"Right now we have an activity that's inherently inconsiderate of other people," said Supervisor Bob Buster, whose 1st District includes Wildomar. "I'm still waiting for somebody to convince me that we can have all of this informal use, even on large acreages. It's not a necessity. It's not a necessity. We don't need all this noise from a purely optional activity."
Buster called for an outright ban on the use of off-road vehicles across the county except for at sites that are zoned for commercial use. Such sites should have to apply for permits that could be renewed or revoked, Buster said.
Third District Supervisor Jeff Stone, who represents Wine Country, French Valley, Aguanga and Menifee, said large commercial tracts would be better suited to accommodate the most riders while disturbing fewer people in their homes.
He stopped short of calling for an outright ban, but said his visits to off-road sites in rural Aguanga had affirmed his belief in an ordinance that could be used to shut down nuisance riders.
"What we saw was a blatant, flagrant disregard for some of the ordinances," Stone said.
Second District Supervisor John Tavaglione appeared to favor a requirement that landowners receive conditional-use permit before allowing dirt bikes and other recreational vehicles on their property.
"Why do we have a (permit) for a fast-food restaurant?" he asked. "We have it because of traffic and noise. This is no different."
Tavaglione also expressed skepticism that the current proposal would allow the use of off-road vehicles on lots as small as two acres.
In that, he echoed several residents of Aguanga and other rural areas, who protested that the current off-road proposal, amendments to the county's general plan and to an off-road vehicle ordinance, would actually allow noisy bikes in residential areas where they're now off limits.
The amendments would allow use of off-road vehicles in "rural residential" and several other rural zoning designations, while imposing:
n A limit of six riders at any given time.
n Bans on riding before 8 a.m. and after 7 p.m.
n A requirement that riders stay 50 feet away from the property line.
n A limit on the amount of dirt ---- 50 cubic yards ---- that could be moved to create jumps and other features.
The ordinance would also prohibit riding on lots smaller than 2 acres, a size that the Planning Commission whittled from 5 acres since it first took up the issue in October 2004.
Selina Steele said her home, in a "rural agricultural" zone of Wine Country that would remain off limits to off-roaders, stands next to seven lots that could be opened to off-road activity.
She puts up with occasional noise from off-roading on properties where it isn't explicitly allowed, she said. But the new ordinance would allow as many as 42 bikes for 11 hours a day, seven days a week, she said. For that reason, she opposed it.
Yet Steele and many of the off-road riders who spoke said they could support a proposed ordinance to limit noise from dirt bikes and a range of other sources, including parties and car stereos. That ordinance would limit noise at the property line to 65 decibels, somewhere between the noise level of a normal conversation and that of a crowded restaurant.
Lot sizes could also be difficult to gauge for sheriff's deputies responding to noise complaints, supervisors said. And complaints that come in after the county's handful of code-enforcement officials clock out at 5 p.m. would also be a problem, they said.
Using the noise ordinance alone, the county could address the issue more fairly, said John DiCiaula.
"I'm going to feel bad if I have to tell my son he can't ride his mini-bike anymore because we don't own enough property," DiCiaula said.
Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2615, or cbagley@californian.com. To comment on this article, go to www.californian.com.
.
Last edited:
