Show All Answers

1. Are cities liable to maintain certain levels of public safety staffing?

Fact: No. Cities are not required to maintain a certain level of public safety staffing. They are required to hire, train, equip and respond to incidents within regulatory and professional standards. Put another way, first responders are not obligated to provide services to an individual citizen (or neighborhood) but are only obligated to provide services to the public at large.

As an example, the Fountain Valley Municipal Code authorizes the police chief to set staffing levels at whatever level the chief feels appropriate. Courts have recognized this discretion rests solely with policy makers such as a police or fire chief or an elected City Council.

Don’t police officers or firefighters have any duty or responsibility? Of course they do; it’s called a “public duty doctrine”. This legal duty does not involve setting staffing at a particular level. A police officer’s duty to act affirmatively to, for example, perform CPR or make an arrest- is only mandated if a “special relationship” exists, which is a high standard to meet.

In summary, cities are not required to set staffing at given levels, even for first responders, and are under no threat of liability in this scenario.

2. The Police Department says electronic billboards are not a driving distraction.

FACTS:
On April 4 the Police Department alerted the public that April was National Distracted Driver Awareness Month. The press release admonished the public to avoid distracted driving by listing the most well-known activities such as texting, eating, or manipulating in-car technology. The press release stated in part, “Distracted driving is any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving. All distractions endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety”. As stated in the release and as common sense would dictate, any activity that diverts a driver’s attention is a potential safety concern. The statement is inclusive, and not meant to exclude any potential distraction.

3. Existing Businesses will be pushed out of the proposed Fountain Valley Crossings Specific Plan area if the new zoning is adopted.

FACTS:
Existing Businesses in the proposed Fountain Valley Crossings Specific Plan area will be allowed to operate in the Specific Plan Area for as long as they, and their landlord, wish.

4. The proposed Fountain Valley Crossings Specific Plan is being pushed on the city by a San Francisco developer and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

FACTS:
The City initiated the proposed Fountain Valley Crossings Specific Plan Project to create a new vision, new standards for development and allowed land uses for the future of the Specific Plan Area. To create the new zoning document, the City issued a request for proposals to 10 professional land use planning consultants. Three planning consultants formed teams with environmental, traffic and economist-specialized consultants and submitted proposals to the city. After a thorough review of the proposals submitted and interviews with the teams, the San Francisco-based firm of Freedman Tung and Sasaki (FTS) was selected to help the City to create the proposed Specific Plan. In order to save the City money toward the cost of creating the proposed Specific Plan the City applied for, and obtained, a $200,000 grant from SCAG. For more information about the Fountain Valley Crossings Specific Plan project, please visit this LINK.