PC 04/19/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Also, he is against having to provide insurance for any accidental occur- rences to anyone outside of his premises. He feels this is not reasonable or fair . Considerable discussion took place. Mr. Lawrence also asked that if at a future time he were able to provide the amount of liability the City wants, what proof of evidence would he need to provide. Also he wanted to advise the Planning Commission that both his use permit and his lease are about to expire. To date, his ex- penses have run $70,000. He is requesting clearance in order to begin con- struction. He introduced an insurance consultant from Southern California, Tony Borgess, President of National Skateboard Leagues. Mr. Borgess described his affili- ation with skateboard parks.. Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Borgess why it is impossible for skateboard parks to be covered with $1,000,000 liability insurance. Mr. Borgess ex- plained that there are only "X" amount of dollars in reserve, which has to cover all the skateboard parks. Consequently, at this time, there is in- sufficient funds in reserve to provide more than $500,000 liability. Next, a Jack Singer indicated that in discussing the track records of skate- board parks, there have never been lawsuits for the $1,000,000 figure. He feels there is a problem if they have to be liable for transportation to and from the park. Commissioner Jamieson asked for some kind of indication as to what limits of liability other cities ask for. City Attorney Levine advised the Commissioners that in changing the condi- tion, the Planning Commission has to consider their required CUP findings. The question before them is, had the Commission known then that the $1,000,000 insurance liability was unobtainable, would they have granted the use permit last year?" Mr. Levine explained that this matter had been discussed in depth with Mr. Ben Fernandes, the City's insurance carrier, who felt that this $1,000,000 figure is minimally adequate. Mr. Levine felt that this change is a very major item and should be done at a public hearing, if done at all. Commissioner Shepherd concluded that review of the liability reduction can be constituted as a major consideration. He could see judgment of over $1,000,000 if some child did suffer permanent injury. Considerable discussion took place regarding interpretation of the "hold harmless" clause. Chairman Doherty concluded that any change in the $1,000,000 liability is major and would require a full public hearing. Mr. Levine stated that at this time he could not provide the Commissioners with an opinion on the breadth of the "hold harmless" clause. He would need to research any question they had on it. -3-