Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Zoeter Field and Seal Beach Spoiled Dog SocietyJoanne Yeo From: June Yotsuya Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:01 PM To: Joanne Yeo Subject: FW: RE: Zoeter Field Issue -Seal Beach Spolied Dog Society -----Original Message ----- From: Ron Stevenson tmailto: Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 To: June Yotsuya Subject: FW: RE: Zoeter Field 4:36 PM Issue -Seal Beach Spolied Dog Society Dear June, It has been 60 days since I sent the attached letter and appeared before the City Council asking for a formal response. I have not received the courtesy of a response so far. Elections have been held and District #1 has Charles Antos appointed. Would you be so kind to pass on to Councilman Antos a copy of this letter advising him of this lack of response by the city. I again request a formal response from the city council along with any report to update the SBSDS regarding a permit for Zoeter Field be it necessary to call for a vote under existing law or permit for an alternate site for such activity for exclusive ball team play. Please extend my congratulations to Councilman Antos on his victory at the polls and beet wishes in his position as councilman for the District 01. May I also congratulate you in what appears to be a new role and added responsibility as head of the Recreation Dept by years end. I hope you'll find a way to be an advocate for the SEEDS request for recreational canine play at Zoeter Field. Regards, Ron on behalf of Seal Beach Spoiled Dog Society Ron Stevenson April 7,2002 Honorable Mayor, City Council members and City Manager, Thank you for allowing me to respond to some of the questions that were raised at the last City Council meeting, concerning SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field under a special permit. With this letter, l would like to respond to the issue of changing the language of various sections of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. At the pre -meeting discussion on Mar. 25, 2002, it was stated that the Recreation and Parks Commission's unanimous recommendation, that SBSD be granted a six month trial use of Zoeter Field, would be taken under consideration. During council's public discussions, there was a clear indication that the SBSDS would receive a 3 to 2 vote in favor of the trial period. In addition to the requirements, included in packet B of the Stats memo, councilman Boyd proposed an alternative maintenance fee and one-time registration fee. Voting on this issue was raised, seconded, abruptly amended and abandoned. The Council's ensuing discussion concerned altering the language of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. SBSDS had no opportunity to comment during this discussion. Following a short and confusing discussion a vote was taken. The vote was 3 to 2 against changing the language of Ordinance 1458 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. SBSDS agreed with that decision. However, the Council did not vote on the trial usage of Zoeter Field. Thus the issue remains alive and active. The City Manager's staff has drafted proposed language changes to the Code. However, the City Attorney has not indicated that language changes are necessary for the trial use of Zoeter Field. Further, assuming trial use of Zoeter Field is successful, the City Attorney has not offered or recommended any permanent changes to the language of the Code. With all due respect to the efforts of the City Manager's staff, any alteration to the legal language of the Code should include a review and recommendation by the City's legal counsel. Code Chanees are unnecessary In informal discussions, the Council has acknowledged that off -leash activity already takes place in Seal Beach. Sanctioned off -leash dog activity is, and has been ongoing at Marina Park. Off - leash dog obedience classes, sponsored by the City Recreation Commission have not resulted in a clamoring for Code changes. ( See: Seal Beach City View and Recreation Guide Spring 2002 at page 11). This activity continues without the limitations suggested for the use of Zoeter Field. If language changes are unnecessary for Marina Park's approved and sanctioned off -leash activity, Code changes are equally unnecessary for SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field. If the Marina Park activity is authorized under some other ordinance or code provision, the same language, under which that permit was granted, should be used for SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field. SBSDS formally requests that it be provided with a copy of the permit, ordinance or code provisions that allows off -leash activity at Marina Park. The same vehicle that allows that activity could and should be used for the SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field. (Marina Park is not listed as an exception under Ordinance 1458) Code Amendment - not change Assuming arguendo. that some type of language change is necessary to implement SBSDS's trial use of Zoeter Field, Section 4-1.46 of the Orange County Code provides an example of the means to do so. That code section provides: .... In the event the Board of Supervisors by resolution authorizes dogs to be upon any public beach the provisions of this section shall not be applicable." (A copy of this Section is attached hereto). A similar amendment, to the Seal Beach Municipal Code, would sufficiently authorize SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field. Sanitary conditions At the Mar.25, 2002 council meeting, the issue of sanitary conditions was raised. Maintenance of sanitary conditions is specified in Section 3-10.26 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. This section provides both the requirements for cleanup and penalties for the breach of these requirements. There is no evidence before the council that a higher standard of care is necessary to insure SBSDS's responsible use of Zoeter Field. For two years this group of residents used Zoeter Field with out incident, complaint, or damage to the field. Issuing a higher standard of sanitary maintenance for SBSDS, than required under the Code, would be based upon speculation, not fact. However, SBSDS has voluntarily suggested that they be subjected to additional sanitary requirements, to assuage the City Council's concerns. SBSDS suggested that inspections be performed both before and after they use the field. They have suggested that the field's sprinkler system be tumed on immediately following the play period to remove any remaining residue. Any additional sanitary requirements would be based upon mere speculation and are not appropriate, until such time as there is evidence to support them. Clearly, irresponsible dog owners do use Zoeter Field as a toilet- often pulling up their cars, releasing their dogs and leaving after the toileting is completed. This irresponsible behavior will continue, regardless of the council's decision. SBSDS uses Zoeter Field for play. The members attempt to have all toileting completed prior to entering the field. These efforts, together with the suggested additional requirements, will meet the city council's health concems of dual usage. During the almost four months the council has been considering SBSDS's use permit, there have been 7 articles published in local papers, one article published in a nationally syndicated paper and a televised report on channel 7. Despite this intense publicity, there has been little if any negative comment by Seal Beach residents. Thus far, no resident has come forward to publicly condemn SBSDS's request to use Zoeter Field. In fact, during the Feb.27 2002 public Recreation and Parks' meeting, supporting comments were made by the members of the general public, who were also softball players. From recent experience, this council knows that the citizens of Seal Beach are extremely vocal on issues that are of concern. Thus, the lack of public comment or controversy is a tactic approval of the trial period. Exclusionary Activity Council members have suggested that SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field will result in an inundation of irresponsible dog owners, demanding their right to uncontrolled use of Zoeter Field. It has been suggested that the council will be forced to grant requests for unbridled use and the problems plaguing Gum Grove will likewise descend on Zoeter Field. It is inferred that dog owners cannot be prohibited from using Zoeter Field, whenever they might desire. Soon, it is claimed, city council will be unable to limit dog use to Zoeter Field and all of the public property will be subjected to off -leash activities, to the consternation of the general public. It is true that during the trial period there will be exclusionary use of Zoeter field by the SBSDS group. However, if that trial period is successful, the council has the power to add any additional necessary constraints on use. Hypothetically, if there is an outpouring of demand from other dog groups, the council could require them to undergo a similar trial period. Similarly, the amount of time each group can use the field may be altered to accommodate more groups. If necessary, a lottery system could be established. Finally, if there is an overwhelming number of groups willing to abide by the established restrictions, pay the approximately $3,000.00 yearly fee and have been deemed to be responsible, maybe the city council should consider a more permanent facility. These usage concerns are speculative at best. Thus far, there are no other canine groups demanding to use Zoeter Field. Without contrary facts, it would be unreasonable and unfair to preemptively prohibit SBSDS's use based upon speculation. The very purpose of a trial period is to factually determine the nature and extent of demand, complaints and problems. Precedent Setdne Off -leash dog activities are already recognized and approved in Seal Beach. In addition to Marina Park, off -leash activity has been ongoing at Arbor Park. There, more than 75 dog owners have formed an informal group for off -leash activity. The legality of this use and its conflict with Seal Beach ordinances was recently tested within the local court system. Seal Beach Animal Control cited a dog owner for violating the leash laws. In court, the owner successfully argued that Seal Beach codes did not apply to Arbor Park. The court ruled that, despite being located within its boundaries, Seal Beach had no legal jurisdiction over off -leash activity at Arbor Park. Currently, this group of owners has received tentative approval of off -leash activity, by the Los Alamitos city council. SBSDS's request for a use permit establishes very strict requirements for use. The members of the SBSDS do not want a dog park and are not interested in using the Arbor Park facility. It is hoped that on April 8, 2002, the City Council will revisit SBSDS's request and will issue a vote in favor of a trial period of use. Respectfully submitted Ron Stevenson on behalf of SBSDS FROM : FAX N0. : May. 17 2001 01:000M P1 FAX 431-4067 City of Seal Beach Attn: Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager April 8, 2002 Dear John, Seal Beach Spoiled Dog Society (SBSDS)has not been contacted regarding any Agenda Item regarding the permit for Zoeter Field beyond last the last City Council meeting. It is the intention of the SBSDS to read the attached memo during Public Comment at the April 8`° meeting. Please read and distribute to the Mayor and City Council for comment prior to the meeting if any. SBSDS will be available outside the meeting place at 6:45 PM prior to the meeting. Respet.11— Ron Stevenson 1 of 5 uaees FPR -08-2002 07:58 99% P.0- PROM : FAX NO. : May. 17 2661 61:61AM 02 Ron Stevenson April 7,2002 Honorable Mayor, City Council members and City Manager, Thank you for allowing me to respond to some of the questions that were raised at the last City Council meeting, concerning SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field under a special permit. With this letter, I would like to respond to the issue of changing the language of various sections of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. At the pre -meeting discussion on Mar. 25, 2002, it was stated that the Recreation and Parks Commission's unanimous recommendation, that SBSD be granted a six month trial use of Zoeter Field, would be taken under consideration. During council's public discussions, there was a clear indication that the SBSDS would receive a 3 to 2 vote in favor of the trial period. In addition to the requirements, included in packet B of the Staff metro, councilman Boyd proposed an alternative maintenance fee and one-time registration fee. Voting on this issue was raised, seconded, abruptly amended and abandoned. The Council's ensuing discussion concerned altering the language of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. SBSDS had no opportunity to comment during this discussion. Following a short and confusing discussion a vote was taken. The vote was 3 to 2 against changing the language of Ordinance 1458 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. SBSDS agreed with that decision However, the Council did not vote on the trial usage of Zoeter Field. Thus the issue remains alive and active. The City Manager's staff has drafted proposed language changes to the Code. However, the City Attorney has not indicated that language changes are necessary for the trial use of Zoeter Field. Further, assuming trial use of Zoeter Field is successful, the City Attorney has not offered or recommended any permanent changes to the language of the Code. With all due respect to the efforts of the City Manager's stAK any alteration to the legal language of the Code should include a review and recommendation by the City's legal counsel. Code Changes are unnecessary In informal discussions, the Council has acknowledged that off -leash activity already takes place in Seal Beach. Sanctioned off -leash dog activity is, and has been ongoing at Marine Park Off - leash dog obedience classes, sponsored by the City Recreation Commission have not resulted in a clamoring for Code changes. ( See: Seal Beach City View and Recreation Guide Spring 2002 at page 11). This activity oontimnes without the limitations suggested for the use of Zoeier Field. If language changes are unnecessary for Marina Park's approved and sanctioned off -leash activity, Code changes we equally uruxcessary for SBSDS's use of Zoetar Field. if the Marina Park activity is authorized under some other ordinance or code provision, the same language, under which that permit was granted, should be used for SBSDS's use of Zoetm Field. SBSDS formally requests that it be provided with a copy of the permit, ordinance or code provisions that allows off -leash activity at Marina Park. The same vehicle that allows that activity could and should be used for the SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field. (Marina Park is not listed as an exception under Ordinance 1458) PPP -68-2662 67:59 99% P.62 FROM : FAX NO. : May. 17 2001 01:01AM P3 Code Amendment - not chanee Assuming grguen& that some type of language change is necessary to implement SBSDS's trial use of Zoeter Field, Section 4-1-46 of the Orange County Code provides an example of the means to do so. That code section provides: .... In the event the Board of Supervisors by resolution authorizes dogs to be upon any public beach the provisions of this section shall rat be applicable." (A copy of this Section is attached hereto). A similar amendment, to the Seal Beach Municipal Code, would sufficiently authorize SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field. Sanitary conditions At the Mar.25, 2002 council meeting, the issue of sanitary conditions was raised. Maintenance of sanitary conditions is specified in Section 3-10-.26 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. This section provides both the requirements for cleanup and penalties for the breach of these requirements. There is no evidence be&tre the council that a higher standard of care is necessary to insure SBSDS's responsible use of Zoder Field. For two years this group of residents used Zoeter Field with out incident, complaint, or damage to the field. Issuing a higher standard of sanitary maintenance for SBSDS, than required under the Code, would be based upon speculation, riot fact. However, SBSDS has voluntarily suggested that they be subjected to additional sanitary requirements, to assuage the City Council's concerns. SBSDS suggested that inspections be performed both before and after they use the field. They have suggested that the field's sprinkler system be turned on immediately following the play period to remove any remaining residue. Any additional sanitary requirements would be based upon mere speculation and are not appropriate, until such time as there is evidence to support them. Clearly, irresponsible dog owners do use Zoeter Field as a toilet- often pulling up their cars, releasing their dogs and leaving after the toileting is completed. This irresponsible behavior will continue, regardless of the council's decision SBSDS intends to use Zoeter Field for play and training. The members attempt to have all toileting completed prior to entering the field. These efforts, together with the suggested additional requirements, will meet the city council's health concerns of dual usage. During the almost four months the council has been considering SBSDS's use permit, there have been 7 articles published in local papers, one article published in a rationally syndicated paper and a televised report on channel 7. Despite this intense publicity, there bas been little if any negative comment by Sul Beach residents. Thus far, no resident has come forward to publicly condemn SBSDS's request to use Zoeter Field. In fact, during the Feb.27 2002 public Recreation and Parks' meeting, supporting comments were made by the members of the general public, who were also softball players. From recent experienec, this council knows that the citizens of Seal Beach are extremely vocal on issues that are of concern. Thus, the lack of public comment or controversy is a tactic approval of the trial period. OpG�O_7PP0 M:PP 9C% P.0] �F3p1 : FAX M0, : May. 17 2001 01:02PM Pd Erclusionary Activity Council members have suggested that SBSDS's use of Zoeter Field will result in an inundation of irresponsible dog owners, demanding their right to uncontrolled use of Zoeter Field. It has been suggested that the council will be forced to gram requests for unbridled use and the problems plaguing Gum Grove will likewise descend on Zoeter Field. It is inferred that dog owners cannot be prohibited from using Zoeter Field wherever they might desire. Soon, it is claimed, city council will be unable to limit dog use to Zoeter Field and all of the public property will be subjected to off -leash activities, to the consternation of the general public. It is true that during the trial period there will be exclusionary use of Zoeter field by the SBSDS group. However, if that trial period is successful, the council has the power to add any additional necessary constraints on use. Hypothetically, if there is an outpouring of demand from other dog groups, the council could require them to undergo a similar trial period. Similarly, the amount of time each group can use the field rosy be altered to accommodate more groups. If necessary, a lottery system could be established. Finally, if there is an overwhelming number of groups willing to abide by the established restrictions, pay the approximately 53,000.00 yearly fee and have been deemed to be responsible, maybe the city council should consider a more permanent facility. These usage concerns are speculative at best. Thus far, there are no other canine groups demanding to use Zoeter Field. Without contrary facts, it would be unreasonable and unfair to preemptively prohibit SBSDS's use based upon speculation. The very purpose of a trial period is to factually determine the nature and extent of demand, complaints and problems. Precedent Settine Off:leash dog activities are already recognized and approved in Seal Beach. In addition to Marina Park, off -leash activity has been ongoing at Arbor Park There, more then 75 dog owners have formed an informal group for off -leash activity. The legality of this use and its conflict with Seal Beach ordinances was recently tested within the local court system Seal Beach Animal Control cited a dog owner for violating the leash laws. In court, the owner successfully argued that Seal Beach codes did not apply to Arbor Park The court ruled that, despite being located within its boundaries, Seal Beach had no legal jurisdiction over off -leash activity at Arbor Park. Currently, this group of owners has received tentative approval of off -leash activity, by the Los Alamitos city council. SBSDS's request for a use permit establishes very strict requirements for use. The nwrobers of the SBSDS do not want a dog park and are not interested in using the Arbor Park facility. It is hoped that on April 8. 2002, the City Council will revisit SBSDS's request and will issue a vote in favor of a trial period of use. Respectfully submitted V Ron Stevenson on behalf of SBSDS P 04 PROM ; FAX NO. : ; 4.1-.ts ORANGE COUNTY CODE ing or other property for the purpose of enforcing this division or any statute relating to animal control. (Ord. No. 3000, § 2, 8-30.77) See. 4.1.36. Complaints. Upon receiving a complaint from any person alleging a violation of this division and upon receiving the name and address of the owner and/or custodian of the animal, if known, an :nveqqjaq2n.to determine whether a violation exists may be made If the investigation discloses a viola tors n s aivision, prosecution may be initiated against the owner and/or custodian. (Ord. No. 3693, § 4, 3-22-88) Sees. 4-1-37-4.1.44. Reserved. ARTICLE 2. KEEPING AND RESTRAINT OF DOGS AND CATS - Sec. 4.1-45. Restraint of dogs. No person owning or having charge, care, cus- tody, or control of any dog shall cause or permit, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, any such dog to be upon any private property unless such dog be restrained thereon by a fence, wall, substantial chain, leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, other appco- priste physical restraint, or is under the charge of a person competent to exercise care, custody, and control over such dog. No person owning or having charge, care, cus. tody, or control of any dog shall cause or permit, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, any such dog to be upon any public property unless such dog be restrained by a substantial chain, or leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, and is under the charge of a person competent to exercise care, custody, and control over such dog, unless the owner or operator of such public property grants written permission for such dog to be on such property without such chain or leash. (Ord. No. 2836, § 3, 6-6-75; Ord. No. 2908, § 1, 5.4-76) -Editar's not"noon 1 of Ord. No. 2836, adopted May 6. 1975, repelled Rotor an. 2, 4; 4.1.11--14.21, 4-147--1- 1.31 and 41-37-44-41. rtlaave to animal licensee. and derived foo, Cod, 1961.6; 41.021-41.0215. Section 3 o0aid nrdmanu ena,tad a naw art- 2. ;j 4-1.41x.1 5a. ua hmin an em Supp N. 61 1178 may. 17 2001 01:03An P5 i 4-1.49 Sec. 4.1.46. Public school property; county pants and public beaches. No person having the charge of any dog, except a blind, deaf or disabled person with his guide dog, signal dog or service dog, shall permit said dog to be under any circumstances within public school property, the County Park known as Upper Newport Bay, or any public beach. This section, however, does not prohibit the use of dogs on school property for teaching or other school uses when approved by the school officials. In the event the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, authorizes dogs w be upon any public beach, the provisions of this section shall not be applicable thereto. The terms "guide dog," "service dog," and "sig- nal dog' in this section shall be given the same meaning as set forth in Penal Code Section 365.5. (Ord. No. 2836, § 3, 5-6.75; Ord. No. 2908, § 1. 5-4-76; Ord. No. 98-15, § 32, 12.&98) Sec. 4.1.47. Female cats and dogs in season to be confined. Every person owning or having charge of any female cat or dog shall strictly confine such ani- mal during its breeding season (i.e.. while it is in heat) in a building or other enclosure adequate to keep such cat or dog confined. (Ord. No. 2836, § 3. 5.6-75) Sec. 4-1-48. Nuisance. No person shall keep, maintain. or permit, either willfully or through failure to exercise proper control, on any lot, parcel of land, or premises under his control any animal which by sound or cry shall disturb the peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood or inter- fere with any person in the reasonable and com- fortable enjoyment of life or property except for noise on property used for agricultural purposes which is normally associated with animals on property used for such purposes. (Ord. No. 2838, ; 3, 5.6-75; Ord. No. 2908, § 1, 5-4.76) Sec. 4-1-49. Private property. No person, owning or having care. custody, or control of any animal, shall permit, either will- fully or through failure to exercise proper control, WP -08-2002 0601 982 P.05