By Keith Bohr
Mayor Pro-Tem, Huntington Beach, California

I have had a few former elected officials over the past few months advise me that one should not meddle when it comes to people’s children or their animals. Definitely information I could have used a year or more ago!

So why did I propose the City of Huntington Beach adopt a “Mandatory Spay Neuter Chip” Ordinance?

A quick look at the numbers:

Six million cats and dogs in the United States are euthanized each year. In California approximately 800,000 dogs and cats end up in taxpayer-funded shelters every year and more than half are euthanized at a cost of more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

Orange County Animal Care Services, contracting with 21 cities, including Huntington Beach, picked up 29,690 stray animals in 2006. Despite commendable efforts by the county to reunite these animals with their owners, or to adopt them out to new owners, the county still had to euthanize more that 12,000 dogs and cats that year. Huntington Beach, which pays the County approximately $400,000 annually for animal control, accounted for more than 1,500 dogs and cats that were picked up, and 40 percent of those were euthanized.

We are killing too many of our pets!

Most of the opponents of “Mandatory Spay and Neuter” (MSN) are from the “breeder” community. They are unrelenting and usually less than honest in their stated rationale against such a proposal. They implore the “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing anything and everything up against the wall, hoping something will stick. The bottom-line is, although most of them agree we do kill too many of our pets, they argue against any form of a MSN ordinance and are content with the status quo.

Their “kitchen sink” approach goes something like this:

• MSN is a bad policy because it is unenforceable and irresponsible owners will continue to be irresponsible (unless you make it illegal to be irresponsible);
• service dogs, police dogs and show dogs will vanish (completely false since they are all legally exempt from MSN);
• the only dogs in shelters are old dogs turned in by their owners and the rest are pit bulls (currently there are 50 dogs at the County’s shelter of which 27 are two years old or younger and only 11 are pit bull or pit bull mix);
• this is just more “nanny government” proposal (we are a community of laws for the better good);
• and “My pet is my property, nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property.” (Hello Mr. Vick?).

Other potential solutions? Huntington Beach and other cities could build their own “no kill” shelters. But analysis indicates that to serve a population of approximately 200,000 people, 3.5 – 4.5 acres of land would be required. Studies state that the net cost to operate such a facility would be in the range of $7.00 per capita or $1.4 million paid by the city’s 200,000 residents.

The study I read did not address the cost of construction of the shelter itself. I estimate that for a 10,000 square foot facility at $200 per square foot it would cost at least $2 million.

In addition to building and operating costs, we need to address the cost of purchaseing the land for a city owned shelter, which at market rate would be in the range of $6-8 million.

All said and done the City of Huntington Beach would need approximately $8-10 million to build a new facility and another $1.4 million annually to operate it. That makes the $400,000 Huntington Beach pays the county each year seem like a bargain in comparison.

One enthusiastic proponent of having Huntington Beach build and operate its own local shelter suggested that we could get the land for free! Huh? Sure, just use some of the land the city owns in Central Park. Say what?!? Did you not see what we all suffered through in order to narrowly get voter approval for building a new senior center in an undeveloped portion of Central Park? No thank you!

As usual with complicated issues there are no easy solutions, only difficult and expensive ones.

In any case, please seriously consider spaying or neutering as well as micro chipping your pets. And if you want to add a pet to your family, please visit one of the many local shelters and/or rescue groups before considering making a purchase from a pet store or breeder. Go to www.ocpetinfo.com for more information.

The Huntington Beach City Council was greeted by dozens of residents at its Feb. 4 meeting, as it considered an appeal of the Planning Commissions previous approval of a $22 million senior center to be built on a 5-acre expanse of Central Park, across from the Huntington Beach Central Library.

Proponents claim that the new facility is needed to replace the aging Rodger’s Senior Center, located at 17th and Orange streets, and to meet the needs of a growing senior population.

Opponents say they support a new senior center, but they are concerned about its location and environmental impact, as well as its “hidden costs” and how to prioritize use of badly needed but limited park funds.

Ultimately, the council voted to move forward with the project in a 5-2 vote. Councilmember Jill Hardy and Mayor Debbie Cook voted no.

Although Huntington Beach voters initially green lighted the project in an “advisory” ballot initiative known as Measure T in Nov. 2006, opponents of the plan argue voters were not aware of the environmental impact or costs of a state-of-the-art facility in Central Park.

City Attorney Jennifer McGrath said that no legal requirement exists to disclose environmental impacts or estimated costs of a project when it appears on the ballot for approval. Indeed, Measure T only stipulated the square footage and maximum acreage of the proposed center. It passed by a narrow margin, 51 percent to 49 percent.

Project planner Jennifer Villasenor said the new facility would operate much like the existing Rodgers Senior Center. Although programming would be geared to the interests of seniors, all city residents would be welcome to use the facility.

Heated Debate

In an e-mail to the Voice, Save Our Parks spokesperson Mindy White said that the city’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) notes that because the project’s impact on park aesthetics and views cannot be mitigated, the city is legally required to write a Statement of Overriding Consideration “indicating that the building of the senior center is worth the loss of the aesthetics of Central Park.”

White notes that the final section of the city’s EIR states that the “environmentally superior alternative” is to halt plans to construct a new senior center in the park.
Speaking at the city council meeting, H.B. resident Kristin Stilton cited the city’s “Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study of 2001” to argue that the project reflected misplaced priorities. According to the study, residents ranked upgrades to the skate park as a higher priority than a new senior center.

Stilton also called Rodgers Senior Center, the current facility, “underutilized or at least not maximally programmed.”

Another city resident offered an alternative to costly new construction: Kettler Elementary School, located near a large contingency of senior citizens living in the city’s southeast section., near Edison Park. “It seems like a good fit,” the speaker said.

About a dozen Golden West College students asked the city council to preserve the park by finding a different site for the project.

But proponents of the senior center in Central Park ultimately prevailed, stating that other locations were unsuitable or unavailable.

Public speaker and former H.B. mayor Norma Gibbs referred to the proposed site as “that eyesore of dirt on Goldenwest” and urged councilmembers to allocate space for the senior center, as past councils had done for horse lovers and Frisbee players when Central Park was first designed and created.

Councilmember Gil Coerper said, “My main thing is, have a great facility for our seniors. I don’t want a mediocre one, I want the best.”

Skirting the issue of location, Councilmember Joe Carchio said, “It makes us look better and more compassionate” to have a new senior center.

In its approval last December, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission voted to require that the new senior center meet at least a lower level of “green” design standards through the Leader in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program (The commission’s decision was appealed on other grounds).

But the city council watered down the commission’s language to “strive” to meet LEED certification, after a long discussion.

Councilmember Keith Bohr proposed the revision, saying, “When I see…the dollar amount of 80-some-thousand dollars for independent certification…. Maybe that’s something we could do ourselves without having LEED certify it.”

Hardy asked, rhetorically, “You’re gonna spend millions of dollars on paving parkland and then nickel and dime on making it somewhat environmentally friendly?”

Mayor Cook suggested further discussion of LEED standards at a later date.

Legal Concerns

Legal questions linger over funding for the facility. Proponents of the senior center expect funding to come from “in-lieu” fees paid by Makar Properties, developer of the Pacific City condominium complex. Under the Quimby Act, developers are required to set aside park land or pay an “in-lieu” fee earmarked either for park land or recreational facilities that bear a “reasonable relationship” to residents’ general benefit.

Makar hopes to pay for that fee under the Mello Roos Act by imposing a special tax on the future residents of Pacific City. But Mello Roos prevents cities from using taxes to finance pre-existing needs or facilities that do not reasonably benefit the residents of the taxed subdivision.

Opponents say that amounts to a government handout to Makar and forces a small group of homeowners to pay for a facility that under the law will not reasonably relate to their housing tract.

In any case, the senior center is an already identified need that may not qualify for Quimby or Mello Roos funds, argued a Parks Legal Defense lawyer during the public hearing.

But the city attorney has approved the funding scheme and project proponents say that as Pacific City’s residents grow older they will have a need for a new state of the art facility 2 miles to the north.