RV parking issue spills over to L.B.

RV parking issue spills over to L.B.
Lakewood measure could force oversized vehicles to neighboring districts.
By Karen Robes, Staff writer

Article Launched:10/06/2006 11:03:54 PM PDT Long Beach Press Telegram

LONG BEACH - The recreational vehicle and trailer parking issue in Lakewood has spilled over to neighboring Long Beach.

City Councilwomen Gerrie Schipske and Rae Gabelich will ask City Attorney Bob Shannon Tuesday to draft an ordinance that would address problems that could arise if Lakewood voters ban rigs and motorhomes from city streets.

In August, the Lakewood City Council agreed to place on the Nov. 7 ballot two measures that would limit Lakewood residents from parking their RVs and trailers on city streets without a permit.

Lakewood also approved a series of parking enforcement measures, including a law banning RVs and trailers belonging to out-of-towners unless they have a special temporary permit. That law went into effect in late September.

"The 5th Council District is immediately adjacent to Lakewood, and if in fact those residents do approve removing RV and oversized vehicles, we know people are going to come across Del Amo (Boulevard)... and they can park their vehicles because we have a very loose ordinance regarding oversized vehicles," Schipske said. "I think we need to be proactive and figure out if this is the best thing for our residential areas and see if we can get ahead of the curb instead of react to it."

Currently, Long Beach has a series of ordinances to deal with parking concerns, said City Traffic Engineer Dave Roseman.

The city can restrict vehicles over 6 feet high from parking within 100 feet of an intersection if the restriction is posted. The city can also restrict commercial and non-commercial oversized vehicles on thoroughfares and in residential communities.

There is a petition process that allows neighborhoods to post signs restricting any oversized vehicle exceeding 85 inches high, 80 inches wide or 20 inches long, Roseman said.

If posted, residents have to obtain a permit from the Fire Department for loading and unloading their belongings.

The proposed ordinance could include banning non- Long Beach residents from parking non-motorized or oversized vehicles without a permit and outlawing street parking of limousines in residential areas.

The ordinance would address the parking of vehicles advertised for sale. The proposal also calls for banning the parking of "For Sale" vehicles within 100 feet of any street right-of-way unless a business is selling the vehicles and conforms with the city's zoning requirements and development standards.

Both councilwomen said the parking issue in Lakewood was not the primary reason for the request, but one more to consider amid other ongoing parking concerns in their districts.

Gabelich said there have been problems with cars parked with "For Sale" signs north of Del Amo Boulevard near 55th Street and issues with non-motorized trailers and boats.

"There are motorhomes that park in front of people's homes, hook up with electricity and use it as an extra bedroom," she said.

"I think that, ultimately, if we don't take a look at it, do I think that it could filter over to our neighborhoods? Yes, I do," Gabelich said. "The timing is perfect."

Karen Robes can be reached at karen.robes@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1303.

LAAG on CNN Headline News Local Edition

A LAAG spokesperson was invited to answer questions of Ron Roberson on CNN Headline News Local Edition about "Measure D", the ordinance that Lakewood voters will vote on in November that seeks to ban the use of all fireworks in Lakewood. The opposing side was also present as were Lakewood residents discussing the parking Measures on the November ballot. The program should air by October 16, 2006 and will likely be repeated more than once.

Stay tuned for more details as we may stream the video on this site.

CNN Local Edition is a 5-minute, studio-based informational program, airing at 24- and 54-minutes after the hour, every hour on CNN Headline News in Local communities. The primary mission of Local Edition is to provide elected officials, community, non-profit and educational leaders the opportunity to communicate to their key constituents.

pertinent sections of the CA Elections Code governing recalls:

11000. This division governs the recall of elective officers of the
State of California and of all counties, cities, school districts,
county boards of education, community college districts, special
districts, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts. It does
not supersede the provisions of a city charter or county charter, or
of ordinances adopted pursuant to a city charter or county charter,
relating to recall.


11001. For the purposes of this division, judges of courts of
appeal shall be considered state officers, and judges of trial courts
shall be considered county officers.


11002. For the purposes of this division, "elections official"
means one of the following:
(a) A county elections official, including, but not necessarily
limited to, a county clerk, in the case of the recall of elective
officers of a county, school district, county board of education,
community college district, or resident voting district, and of
judges of trial courts.
(b) A city elections official, including, but not necessarily
limited to, a city clerk, in the case of the recall of elective
officers of a city.
(c) The secretary of the governing board in the case of the recall
of elective officers of a landowner voting district or any district
in which, at a regular election, candidate's nomination papers are
filed with the secretary of the governing board.


11003. For the purposes of this division, "governing board" means a
city council, the board of supervisors of a county, the board of
trustees of a school district or community college district, or the
legislative body of a special district, as the context requires. In
the case of the recall of a trial court judge, "governing board"
means the board of supervisors.


11004. For the purposes of this division, a "local officer" is an
elective officer of a city, county, school district, community
college district, or special district, or a judge of a trial court.


11005. The proponents of a recall must be registered voters of the
electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall.


11006. Proceedings may be commenced for the recall of any elective
officer, including any officer appointed in lieu of election or to
fill a vacancy, by the service, filing and publication or posting of
a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition pursuant to this
chapter.


11007. Except when a person has been appointed to office pursuant
to Section 10229 because no person had been nominated to office,
proceedings may not be commenced against an officer of a city,
county, special district, school district, community college
district, or county board of education in the event of one or more of
any of the following:
(a) He or she has not held office during his current term for more
than 90 days.
(b) A recall election has been determined in his or her favor
within the last six months.
(c) His or her term of office ends within six months or less.


11020. The notice of intention shall contain all of the following:

(a) The name and title of the officer sought to be recalled.
(b) A statement, not exceeding 200 words in length, of the reasons
for the proposed recall.
(c) The printed name, signature, and business or residence address
of each of the proponents of the recall. The minimum number of
signatures shall be ten, or equal to the number of signatures
required to have been filed on the nomination paper of the officer
sought to be recalled, whichever is higher.
(d) The provisions of Section 11023.


11021. A copy of the notice of intention shall be served by
personal delivery, or by certified mail, on the officer sought to be
recalled. Within seven days of serving the notice of intention, the
original thereof shall be filed, along with an affidavit of the time
and manner of service, with the elections official or, in the case of
the recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State. A separate
notice of intention shall be filed for each officer sought to be
recalled.


11022. A copy of the notice, except the provisions required by
subdivision (d) of Section 11020, shall be published at the
proponents' expense pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code.
Publication shall be required unless there is no newspaper of
general circulation able to provide timely publication in the
jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled. If this
publication is not possible, the notice, except the provisions
required by subdivision (d) of Section 11020, shall be posted in at
least three public places within the jurisdiction of the officer to
be recalled.


11023. (a) Within seven days after the filing of the notice of
intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the
elections official, or in the case of a state officer, the Secretary
of State, an answer, in not more than 200 words, to the statement of
the proponents.
(b) If an answer is filed, the officer shall, within seven days
after the filing of the notice of intention, also serve a copy of it,
by personal delivery or by certified mail, on one of the proponents
named in the notice of intention.
(c) The answer shall be signed and shall be accompanied by the
printed name and business or residence address of the officer sought
to be recalled.


11024. The statement and answer are intended solely for the
information of the voters. No insufficiency in form or substance
thereof shall affect the validity of the election proceedings.
11040. (a) The petition may consist of any number of separate
sections, which shall be duplicates except as to signatures and
matters required to be affixed by signers and circulators. The
number of signatures attached to each section shall be at the
pleasure of the person soliciting the signatures.
(b) Each section of the petition may consist of any number of
separate pages. A page shall consist of each side of a sheet of
paper on which any signatures appear.


11041. (a) The proponents shall use the recall petition format
provided by the Secretary of State and available from the county
elections official or the Secretary of State. Before any signature
may be affixed to a recall petition, each page of each section must
bear all of the following in no less than 8-point type:
(1) A request that an election be called to elect a successor to
the officer. However, if the officer is a justice of the Supreme
Court or of a court of appeal, as specified in subdivision (a) of
Section 16 of Article VI of the California Constitution, the request
shall be that the Governor appoint a successor to the officer.
(2) A copy of the notice of intention, including the statement of
grounds for recall. For purposes of this paragraph, the copy of the
notice of intention shall contain the names of at least 10 recall
proponents that appear on the notice of intention and that are
selected by the proponents. The elections official shall not require
the names of more than 10 proponents to be included as part of the
language of the notice of intention. The provisions of Section 11023
do not need to be included as part of the language of the notice of
intention.
(3) The answer of the officer sought to be recalled, if any. If
the officer sought to be recalled has not answered, the petition
shall so state.
(b) All petition sections shall be printed in uniform size and
darkness with uniform spacing.


11042. (a) Within 10 days after filing of the answer to the notice
of intention, or, if no answer is filed, within 10 days after the
expiration of the seven-day period specified in Section 11023, the
proponents shall file two blank copies of the petition with the
elections official in his or her office during normal office hours as
posted or, in the case of a recall of a state officer, with the
Secretary of State, in his or her office during normal office hours
as posted, who shall ascertain if the proposed form and wording of
the petition meets the requirements of this chapter.
(b) At the time of the filing of the two blank copies of the
petition, the proponents shall also file proof of publication of the
notice of intention, if the notice of intention was published, or an
affidavit of posting of the notice of intention, if the notice of
intention was posted. The elections official or, in the case of a
recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State, shall, within 10
days of receiving the blank copies of the petition, notify the
proponents in writing of his or her finding.
(c) If the elections official finds that the requirements of this
chapter are not met, the elections official shall include in his or
her findings a statement as to what alterations in the petition are
necessary. The proponents shall, within 10 days after receiving the
notification, file two blank copies of the corrected petition with
the elections official in his or her office during normal office
hours as posted. The 10-day correction notification period and the
10-day filing period for corrected petitions shall be repeated until
the elections official or the Secretary of State finds no alterations
are required.
(d) No signature may be affixed to a recall petition until the
elections official or, in the case of the recall of a state officer,
the Secretary of State, has notified the proponents that the form and
wording of the proposed petition meet the requirements of this
chapter.


11043. (a) The petition sections shall be designed so that each
signer shall personally affix all of the following:
(1) His or her signature.
(2) His or her printed name.
(3) His or her residence address, giving street and number, or if
no street or number exists, adequate designation of residence so that
the location may be readily ascertained.
(4) The name of the incorporated city or unincorporated community
in which he or she resides.
(b) A margin, at least one inch wide, shall be left blank across
the top of each page of the petition. A margin, at least one-half
inch wide, shall be left blank along the bottom of each page of the
petition.
(c) A space, at least one inch wide, shall be left blank after
each name for the use of the elections official in verifying the
petition.



11043.5. (a) The Secretary of State shall provide to county
elections officials a recall petition format for distribution to
proponents of a recall. The recall petition format shall be made
available upon request by the county elections official and by the
Secretary of State.
(b) The recall petition format made available pursuant to this
section shall be utilized by proponents of a recall election.


11044. Separate petitions are necessary to propose the recall of
each officer.


11045. Only registered voters of the electoral jurisdiction of the
officer sought to be recalled are qualified to circulate or sign a
recall petition for that officer.


11046. To each section of a petition shall be attached a
declaration, signed by the circulator thereof, that complies with
Section 104. The declaration shall include a statement that the
circulator is a registered voter in the jurisdiction of the officer
sought to be recalled.


11047. When a petition is circulated in more than one county for
the recall of an officer, each section of the petition shall bear the
name of the county in which it is circulated, and only registered
voters of that county may sign that section.
11200. This chapter shall apply to the recall of local officers.


11201. When the city or county elections official is the officer
sought to be recalled, the duties imposed upon him or her shall be
performed by some other person designated by the governing board.

11220. (a) A recall petition shall be submitted to the elections
official for filing in his or her office during normal office hours
as posted within the following number of days after the clerk or, in
the case of a recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State,
notifies the proponents that the form and wording of the petition
meets the requirements of Article 3 (commencing with Section 11040)
of Chapter 1:
(1) Forty days if the electoral jurisdiction has less than 1,000
registered voters.
(2) Sixty days if the electoral jurisdiction has less than 5,000
registered voters but at least 1,000.
(3) Ninety days if the electoral jurisdiction has less than 10,000
registered voters but at least 5,000.
(4) One hundred twenty days if the electoral jurisdiction has less
than 50,000 registered voters but at least 10,000.
(5) One hundred sixty days if the electoral jurisdiction has
50,000 registered voters or more.
(b) For purposes of this section, the number of registered voters
shall be that which was reported at the last report of registration
by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant
to Section 2187 and prior to a finding of the elections official or
Secretary of State that no alterations are required in the form of
the recall petition pursuant to Section 11042.


11221. The number of qualified signatures required in order to
qualify a recall for the ballot shall be as follows:
(a) In the case of an officer of a city, county, school district,
community college district, county board of education, or resident
voting district, the number of signatures shall be equal in number to
not less than the following percent of the registered voters in the
electoral jurisdiction:
(1) Thirty percent if the registration is less than 1,000.
(2) Twenty-five percent if the registration is less than 10,000
but at least 1,000.
(3) Twenty percent if the registration is less than 50,000 but at
least 10,000.
(4) Fifteen percent if the registration is less than 100,000 but
at least 50,000.
(5) Ten percent if the registration is 100,000 or above.
(b) For purposes of this section, the number of registered voters
shall be calculated as of the time of the last report of registration
by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant
to Section 2187, and prior to the finding by the elections official
or Secretary of State that no alterations are required in the form of
the recall petition pursuant to Section 11042.
(c) (1) In the case of a state officer, including judges of courts
of appeal and trial courts, the number of signatures shall be as
provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 14 of Article II of the
California Constitution. In the case of a judge of a superior or
municipal court, which office has never appeared on the ballot since
its creation, or did not appear on the ballot at its last election
pursuant to Section 8203, the number of signatures shall be as
provided in subdivision (b) of Section 14 of Article II of the
California Constitution, except that the percentage shall be based on
the number of votes cast within the judicial jurisdiction for the
countywide office which had the least number of votes in the most
recent general election in the county in which the judge holds his or
her office.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "countywide office" means an
elective office wholly within the county which is voted on
throughout the county.
(d) In the case of a landowner voting district, signatures of
voters owning at least 10 percent of the assessed value of land
within the electoral jurisdiction of the officer sought to be
recalled.


11222. (a) The petition shall be filed by the proponents, or by any
person or persons authorized, in writing, by a proponent. All
sections of the petition shall be filed at the same time.
(b) When the petition is presented for filing, the elections
official shall determine the total number of signatures affixed to
the petition. If, from this examination, the elections official
determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, equals or is
in excess of the minimum number of signatures required, the elections
official shall accept the petition for filing. The petition shall
be deemed as filed on that date. Any sections of the petition not so
filed shall be void for all purposes. If, from the elections
official's examination, the elections official determines that the
number of signatures, prima facie, does not equal or exceed the
minimum number of signatures required, the petition shall not be
filed. Any petition not accepted for filing shall be returned to the
proponents.



11223. If the petition was circulated in more than one county, the
elections official of each county shall affix, with the certificate
showing the results of his or her examination, the number of
registered voters of the county residing within the electoral
jurisdiction of the officer sought to be recalled.



11224. (a) Except as provided in Section 11225, within 30 days from
the date of filing of the petition, the elections official shall
examine the petition, and from the records of registration, ascertain
whether or not the petition is signed by the requisite number of
voters. If the elections official's examination shows that the
number of valid signatures is greater than the required number, the
elections official shall certify the petition to be sufficient. If
the number of valid signatures is less than the required number, the
elections official shall certify the petition to be insufficient.
(b) In determining the number of valid signatures, the elections
official may use the duplicate file of affidavits maintained, or may
check the signatures against facsimiles of voters' signatures,
provided that the method of preparing and displaying the facsimiles
complies with law.
(c) The elections official shall attach to the petition a
certificate showing the result of this examination, and shall notify
the proponents of either the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
petition.
(d) If the petition is found sufficient, the elections official
shall certify the results of the examination to the governing board
at its next regular meeting.


11225. (a) Within 30 days from the date of filing of the petition,
if, from the examination of petitions pursuant to Section 11222, more
than 500 signatures have been signed on the petition, the elections
official may use a random sampling technique for verification of
signatures. The random sample of signatures to be verified shall be
drawn in a manner so that every signature filed with the elections
official shall have an equal opportunity to be included in the
sample. The random sampling shall include an examination of at least
500 or 5 percent of the signatures, whichever is greater.
(b) If the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid
signatures is greater than 110 percent of the required number, the
elections official shall certify the petition to be sufficient.
(c) If the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid
signatures is within 90 to 110 percent of the number of signatures of
qualified voters needed to declare the petition sufficient, the
elections official shall examine and verify each signature filed. If
the elections official's examination of each signature shows that
the number of valid signatures is greater than the required number,
the elections official shall certify the petition to be sufficient.
If the number of valid signatures is less than the required number,
the elections official shall certify the petition to be insufficient.
(d) If the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid
signatures is less than 90 percent of the required number, the
elections official shall certify the petition to be insufficient.
(e) In determining from the records of registration the number of
valid signatures signed on the petition, the elections official may
use the duplicate file of affidavits maintained, or may check the
signatures against facsimiles of voters' signatures, provided that
the method of preparing and displaying the facsimiles complies with
law.
(f) The elections official shall attach to the petition, a
certificate showing the result of this examination, and shall notify
the proponents of either the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
petition.
(g) If the petition is found insufficient, no action shall be
taken on the petition. However, the failure to secure sufficient
signatures shall not preclude the filing later of an entirely new
petition to the same effect.
(h) If the petition is found to be sufficient, the elections
official shall certify the results of the examination to the
governing body at its next regular meeting.


11226. If the certificate shows that the petition is insufficient,
no action shall be taken on it, but the petition shall remain on
file.


11227. If the elections official finds the signatures on the
petition to be sufficient, he or she shall submit his or her
certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition to the governing
body at its next regular meeting. The certificate shall contain:
(a) The name of the officer whose recall is sought.
(b) The title of his or her office.
(c) The number of signatures required by law.
(d) The total number of signatures on the petition.
(e) The number of valid signatures on the petition.
(f) The number of signatures which were disqualified.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Pollution Concerns May Lower the Boom on Offshore Fireworks

SeaWorld San Diego has suspended its shows and plans to seek a discharge permit. Beach cities fear additional costs of more regulations.
By Seema Mehta and Jennifer Delson
LA Times Staff Writers

September 9, 2006

Fears that major fireworks shows may be polluting the Pacific Ocean could dampen pyrotechnics displays along the California coast.

A threatened lawsuit by an environmental group prompted SeaWorld San Diego to scrap its fireworks shows for the rest of the year, and beach cities are wondering if heightened scrutiny by state regulators will make fireworks for the Fourth of July and other traditional celebrations too expensive to support.

Environmentalists "are pushing the envelope and, yes, it will be troublesome for any agency firing over water," said Dusty Crane, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, which shoots fireworks off Marina del Rey for Independence Day, the annual Christmas boat parade and New Year's Eve.

Any new fireworks regulations are "definitely going to make it more difficult, and it's going to be more costly, and it could end them," Crane said.

Federal and state environmental regulators said they know of no previous regulatory efforts regarding fireworks and water pollution, aside from a 2003 study of Lake Tahoe that resulted in no action.

"It's an unusual circumstance," said Nancy Woo, associate director of the water division for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regional office. "On first blush, I was, like, 'Whoa, that's a good question.' "

SeaWorld amusement park has more than 120 fireworks displays annually, shot off a barge in Mission Bay.

San Diego Coastkeeper has grown increasingly concerned about the displays' cumulative effect on the water and the sediment in the bay, said Marco Gonzalez, attorney for the environmental organization.

On June 26, Coastkeeper notified SeaWorld that it intended to sue the park for violating the federal Clean Water Act, alleging that its fireworks displays shower harmful heavy metals and chemicals into the bay, and that it never applied for a state permit to discharge such pollutants into the water.

"The incremental impacts from long-term fireworks displays are something we know nothing about," Gonzalez said.

SeaWorld decided Aug. 20 to suspend its fireworks and plans to apply for a discharge permit from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board by month's end, said SeaWorld spokesman Dave Koontz. He said the park does not agree with the allegations or the contention that a permit is required under the Clean Water Act.

"But in light of the fact they intended to file a lawsuit against us, we decided the most appropriate course of action was to suspend the fireworks," he said.

Koontz said the park takes steps to deal with pollution, sending out a crew in a boat after each display to pick up paper debris. The next morning, workers scour the beaches off SeaWorld and Fiesta Island for debris that may have washed ashore.

Additionally, he said, the California Coastal Commission has required the park to monitor the waters of Mission Bay for the past five years, and the data show that the fireworks have not had an impact. "We feel we're extremely responsible in how we conduct our fireworks operation," he said.

Fireworks also release metals such as copper ­ which creates the color green ­ and chemicals such as perchlorate, which is used in detonation.

John Robertus, executive officer of the regional water board, said a review of SeaWorld's permit application would take six months to a year. As part of that review, the agency will investigate the bay's water and sediments to ensure that pollutants from the fireworks are not affecting the ecosystem and will look at the effects of the sound on birds that nest in Mission Bay, a stopover on the Pacific Flyway.

If the agency determines that fireworks over the ocean should be regulated, Robertus envisions a multitiered approach. Cities and organizations that shoot off fireworks once or twice a year might receive a waiver; a general state permit might be issued to those who sponsor several shows a year; and entities that hold them frequently, such as SeaWorld, might be required to apply for a permit that includes extensive environmental monitoring.

"The SeaWorld problem is perhaps a little more unique than other fireworks displays because it occurs 120 times on an annual basis," Robertus said, "and it takes place over the water in Mission Bay, and Mission Bay does not have good circulation and it's quite shallow."

Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, said his agency also could require those who put on fireworks displays to obtain a coastal development permit.

Though regulatory agencies had not considered fireworks in the past, he said, they ought to, given the increased knowledge about the cumulative impact of pollutants. "We have to elevate our level of concern," he said.

Coastkeeper hopes the action brings increased scrutiny to all fireworks celebrations in the state.

"The Clean Water Act is very clear: Any discharge of pollutants … into waters of the United States requires a permit, and the mere fact that fireworks are tied to our patriotic Fourth of July celebrations is not an exemption under the Clean Water Act," he said.

Julie L. Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Assn. in Bethesda, Md., called the possible regulatory action "absurd," and said fireworks pose little environmental risk.

"Fireworks are designed to burst and be consumed in the sky. They burn by combustion. We are not directly discharging or emitting chemicals into the water stream," Heckman said. "This is another attempt of the environmentalists' extreme let's-just-ban-everything. This industry has been under such regulatory scrutiny since 9/11. At some point, it has just got to stop or Americans are not going to see fireworks ever again."

Cities that play host to fireworks displays also are concerned that more bureaucracy means more costs.

Renee Dunn, spokeswoman for the Port of San Francisco, which hosts a handful of fireworks annually in the bay, said permits "would be a huge problem for us. It would create quite a glitch for festivities in San Francisco."

Laurie Payne, community information officer for Huntington Beach, said that volunteers were already stretched thin, raising $50,000 annually for the Fourth of July display off the pier. "It sounds like an additional expense. Any added expense would be difficult because … it would be more of a burden on the volunteer group," she said.

In San Diego, Alex Raugust said he learned that SeaWorld's fireworks were halted as he was waiting for the show in his Point Loma backyard with his young cousins.

"I thought, 'What a nice treat for these young kids.' Instead, what they learned about was our litigious society. I was kind of disgusted," he said. "The SeaWorld fireworks are like a summer tradition in San Diego, and it's kind of a perk of living in this area. It's like a nightcap at the end of the evening."

seema.mehta@latimes.com
jennifer.delson@latimes.com

LAAG Mission Statement and Editorial Policy

Also note our separate Privacy Policy

Although mission statements have become a farce over the years we believe that all non profit taxpayer oriented organizations need a clear and concise mission statement so that members and potential members know what the organization supports (and by implication what it is not taking any position on). LAAG membership is not restricted only to Long Beach residents. Although LAAG is primarily concerned with local Long Beach issues, its interests reach beyond the borders of Lakewood as Lakewood residents are affected by issues beyond Long Beach's borders.

Given that preface here is LAAG's mission statement. We tried to make it simple and to the point. These tenets are not ranked in any particular order:

Holding elected officials accountable for their action or inaction and that they hold non elected, non dischargeable governmental employees and their unions accountable, as voters cannot.

Fighting for everyone’s right to peace and quiet and to enjoy their property; this includes preventing unnecessary and excessive noise from all sources, not just fireworks, loud vehicle exhausts and stereos.

Fighting to maintain high property values for homeowners; this includes supporting ordinances encourage aesthetics and fight blight, vagrants, pollution, over crowding, parking problems, noise and non residential uses of residential property.

Fighting government waste and inefficiency and making sure that government spending really benefits taxpayers and not just government employees looking for perks.

Promoting reasonable and timely spending on core infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, trees, sewers and lighting. Not all at once but over time to ensure infrastructure does become overly costly to repair. This is the primary role of small cities. Discouraging spending on social programs where private non-profits can do just as good and money for such programs could be better spent on core infrastructure.

We also support infrastructure that is not car based but "all user" based..meaning it supports bicyclists, pedestrians, the handicapped etc. The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (actual law here) is a good example of the national movement.

Fighting blight due to foreclosures on residential and commercial real estate, graffiti, vacancies in commercial real estate due to poor redevelopment actions by the city, and insuring reasonable infrastructure spending during times of economic downturn.

Promoting rational parking restrictions that make it safe for all including those walking, the handicapped and those on bicycles.

Promoting recycling, reusing and reducing.

Promoting transparency in local government and all efforts to make all public city documents and services readily available on the internet at no charge and in a timely fashion (the so called eGovernment initiative ) as well as encouraging and fighting for an open public forum, meaning keeping meetings open and making public records, ordinances and other information about civic issues freely available. ( see Cal-Aware site )

If you want to read cheerleader "feel good" "puff pieces" about the City, the City Council and government employees in general then read the city's website or those from the Chamber of Commerce "throw away" "news"paper that comes out once a month. There are plenty of places to find that kind of news. Not here. We don't report on standard TV news fodder, like car accidents and lost puppies.

We don't think Long Beach is a bad city nor the city council the worst. There are much worse. But there are much better too. We need to strive for improvement. We do NOT accept the status quo but we also don't believe in change just for change sake. We believe in thinking "outside the box" and looking at problems in a new way with new approaches if the old ones don't work or are too costly. We believe it is taxpayers right to question all actions and motives of government employees and entities, especially when the government's action is at the expense of taxpayers. We think this site is one way of encouraging change by trying to make the city more "transparent" or calling foul when everyone else is too afraid to or have given up on dealing with city hall as it is. And who could blame them.

We are a non partisan group. typically at the city and county level political parties have very little or no role. We want to keep it that way. We want to discuss issues, not parties or ideologies.

Last but not least this is NOT a religious or "Christian accountability group". Unfortunately we think a number of visitors find our site looking for that. Sorry. This is simply a group seeking action and to hold local elected officials (and those they appoint or oversee) accountable to the voters and taxpayers. We respect and support the First Amendment to the US Constitution which strives to keep both speech free and keep religion out of politics.

We get gripes by certain users that they don't like a certain story or don't agree with it. That's fine this is America. Our suggestion is if you don't like our stories STOP visiting our site. we also suggest that since most of you have so many opinions and think its so easy to run a blog we suggest you go start your own. Then you will see its not easy to do this and hold down a full time real job.

Our real pet peeve is people that leave comments (in the "post a comment" section at the bottom of each story we post) with no way for us to reach them (via phone or email) as they are made anonymously (and we have the comment section unlocked so that anyone can send in comments) We have asked you "Anonymous" posters at least answer a few basic questions (which come up in the "comment window"). Nothing more than what we disclose to you the reader. That's fair. If you don't agree then you don't get posted. Its that simple.

We reserve the right to amend this mission statement from time to time as we grow and our Mission expands or contracts.


Long Beach Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Long Beach, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

LAAG Newsletter Subscription Form

As of January 1, 2008 LAAG has ceased using emailed newsletters (due to spam issues and the work involved in managing a subscription list) and have chosen www.feedburner.com to send all our postings directly to your email inbox the same day they are posted. Feedburner along with you control the subscription and delivery process. Each email you receive via Feedburner will have a "cancel" link in it so that you can cancel emails immediately or change your email address. If you would like to subscribe to all our posts so that they are delivered to you via email (that way you don't have to keep checking our page for updates) then click here

Also note our Privacy Policy


Thank you,
LAAG Editor


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Statement in favor of prohibiting the parking of trailers and RV's on streets

This is the argument that will appear in the County Ballot for the Nov 7, 2006 Special Election. There was no argument filed in opposition to either the RV or Trailer Measure. This was filed with the city on Aug 17, 2006:

The proposed trailer parking measure on the ballot reads: “Shall Ordinance No. 2006-5, which would prohibit the parking of trailers and semi-trailers on streets in the City, except while in the process of being loaded or unloaded or by City permit, be approved?”

The proposed RV parking measure on the ballot reads: “Shall Ordinance No. 2006-6, which would prohibit the parking of motorized recreational vehicles on streets in the City, except while in the process of being loaded or unloaded or by City permit, be approved?”

As Lakewood Homeowners and RV owners, we understand that it’s time to end LONG TERM storage of boats & trailers on our neighborhood STREETS. We believe that boats & trailers should be legally parked on our properties or in storage. This street parking issue has long pitted neighbor against neighbor reducing the neighborhood quality of life and creating many problems including:

A) FINANCIAL BURDEN to the City of Lakewood with hundreds of complaints each year

B) SAFETY RISKS to our CHILDREN due to poor visibility near driveways and intersections

C) TRAFFIC HAZARDS caused by choking already narrow streets

D) UNCLEAN STREETS due to the inability of street-sweepers to clean under parked boats & trailers

E) DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES when prospective buyers are scared off by large rigs stored nearby that are often poorly maintained with tattered covers and/or on blocks.

The Good Sam Club, one of the largest RV clubs, expressly discourages the long term parking of boats & trailers on neighborhood streets stating it will cause community resentment of RV’s and result in severe parking restrictions. We agree. The City of Lakewood has developed a system (similar to many surrounding cities) by which boat & trailer owners will be able to park on city streets with up to 16 three-day parking permits each year. Longer permits will be available for special needs. These permits can be obtained over the phone or Internet for FREE. Also, no permits will be required for rigs that are in the process of being loaded or unloaded. These provisions are more than fair. In the interest of preserving our rights to enjoy our boats & trailers, while addressing community concerns about the small percentage of discourteous RV owners, we encourage you to vote YES on Measures C and F.

Brandon Yung

Lakewood Homeowner

Lakewood RV owner

Lakewood Business owner

Fireworks offender Miller sentenced

Dear LAAG:

As you recall, Brian Miller took the unusual step of pleading no contest to the charges thinking that the judge's sentence would be a better deal than what the DA was offering. Apparently Millers attorney thought so too. Well they were both very wrong.

Thanks to all of you who showed up today to testify at the hearing against Miller. No one spoke on his behalf, but there were some letters written on his behalf, two from "neighbors" that apparently never lived near the rest of us, as they claimed they never saw Miller shoot off any fireworks!

Miller briefly apologized. His attorney made the comment that Miller did not intended to hurt anyone or cause this explosion. The judge agreed but did not feel that was the real issue. His attorney also argued that Lakewood was a city that allowed fireworks and so this sort of behavior (illegal fireworks use) was somehow expected or condoned. That was an interesting point and want all the "pro" fireworks people to think real hard about that at the election on Nov 7. I firmly believe that fireworks, legal or not, create an atmosphere where people are trying to outdo their neighbors’ displays. Miller trumped everyone.

I made the point that just as drug dealers are sentenced more severely than drug users, Miller should be treated accordingly as his business was selling illegal fireworks that he manufactured. I also said that Miller was a scofflaw and had had 4 years to clean up his act but didn’t even after dozens of law enforcement "visits". How can a person like that ever reform? Finally, I said that because of Miller and others like him taxpayers had to shell out $100,000 for extra law enforcement last July, and an example needed to be made of Miller for all the future [hopeful] Lakewood prosecutions of illegal fireworks users/sellers from July 2006.

The Judge was very sympathetic toward the victims who suffered property damage, and some who had pets die or get injured in the explosion. She said that Miller threatened an entire neighborhood, not just his wife and children. She was glad to see he had been taking parenting classes.

Judge Cynthia Rayvis sentenced Miller to a total of 12 years in state prison for all counts in the complaint. Most of that runs concurrent meaning that the sentence is really 5 years. He has spent 178 days in custody but given credit for 266 days (I suspect for good behavior). He will only serve 50% of that sentence (unless he misbehaves in prison). So that means he will likely be out in 2 years. The DA was suspecting he would get 4 years and Miller was hoping for 2 but he got 5. So clearly his ploy did not work. I think he would have been better off with the DA's offer which he refused.

The Judge also ruled that Miller could not ever return to the area one mile around the blast site for any reason. He must also make full restitution to all victims with monetary damage.

There will be a restitution hearing [for those that suffered damage] on 10/30/06 at 8:30 a.m. in Norwalk Superior Court, Dept. T before Judge Cynthia Rayvis. The address is 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650. Department T phone number is (562) 807-7248. Victims should contact the assigned DA Shelly Dominguez, her direct dial number is 562-807-7210.

LAAG wants to thank those who stuck with this and made an effort to follow this through to the end. From those in law enforcement that I have talked to it made a huge difference in the end result. I also want to thank the Press Telegram, LongBeachreport.com and all the local TV stations that made and effort to keep this case in the spotlight. It helps.

But this saga is not over. We still have the November election regarding fireworks. Also. we still have next July 4th. We need to focus on "cost effective" enforcement for all future July 4ths. March 5th was in many ways a "9/11" for Lakewood. It was a wake up call and a clear signal that lawlessness and lax enforcement could not continue any longer. And like 9/11 the further we get from the March 5 explosion the more people will forget. LAAG will not forget. And we will not let the City Council (current or future) or the Sheriff's department forget either. Our new website www.LAAG.us will keep these and other issues in the forefront.

Prohibiting the on-street parking of non-Lakewood-registered trailers and RVs.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Council Recap: Restrictions on non-Lakewood RVs and trailers adopted; enforcement begins September 21

At its Tuesday evening meeting, the Lakewood City Council took the final steps to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the on-street parking of non-Lakewood-registered trailers and RVs. The new parking ordinance will go into effect on September 21.

The parking limitation on non-Lakewood RV and trailers is part of the framework for regulating on-street parking adopted by the city council at its August 8 meeting. The city council also placed on the November 7 special election ballot two additional measures that would limit the parking of Lakewood-registered RVs and trailers.

The RV and trailer parking ordinance adopted on Tuesday does not require further voter approval, however.

Under the new ordinance, RVs and trailers (attached and detached) not registered to a Lakewood address can be cited if parked on a Lakewood street. To accommodate "short-term needs" while out-of-town family or friends visit, Lakewood residents will be able to request a free, city-issued permit for their guests.

Non-Lakewood vehicle owners cited under the new ordinance face a $40 fine for each day of on-street parking (plus additional costs assessed by the courts).

Statement in favor of prohibiting the parking of trailers and semi-trailers on streets

This statement was filed by LAAG on Aug 17, 2006 for the Nov 7, 2006 ballot but Mr. Yung's statement was chosen.

The parking situation is out of control in Lakewood. Part of the problem is that most people no longer park in their garages. Also, the number of cars per house has increased as well as the size of their vehicles. Cars and small trucks are competing for street parking with RVs and trailers which take up to two or three times the parking space as a car (in length and width). They are rarely moved, turning streets into campgrounds.

Lakewood must deal with the parking problem now or parking regulations will be thrust upon us by State and County agencies that govern the water runoff issues into the San Gabriel and LA Rivers. Gutter runoff pollutants increase without proper weekly sweeping and debris removal which in turn pollutes our beaches and surrounding rivers. If Lakewood does not remedy this, our property taxes will increase dramatically to pay for outside remediation efforts. Regulating long term RV and trailer parking on public streets Lakewood will ease implementation of citywide mandatory no parking on street sweeping days. Having to shuffle RVs and trailers around every week will be difficult. Voting YES on Measure __ will remedy this.

Most residential streets are 25 feet wide. RVs and trailers can restrict the passage area to less than 9 feet. This impedes the flow of traffic and even with ONE vehicle traveling down the street, impairs safety. Large RVs and trailers create blind spots (a hazard for pets and children who play near them) and make it difficult for residents to enter and exit driveways safely. They also make trash collection more difficult and time consuming as even more thru traffic blockage occurs with trash trucks present.

Vote YES on Measures C and F.

See additional arguments in statement supporting the RV parking measure

Lakewood Accountability Action Group | www.LAAG.us