HomeMy WebLinkAboutApprove City Council position on legislation pending before (27) Dept. ID AD-17-018 Page 1 of 2
Meeting Date:6/5/2017
-0
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR, CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/5/2017
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approve City Council position on legislation pending before the State Legislature
as recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee
(IRC) and authorize $5,000 contribution in support of the "Orange County Task
Force on Drowning Prevention"
Statement of Issue:
On May 24, 2017, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee met to discuss Federal and State
legislation. At this meeting, members recommended a "oppose" position on Assembly Bill 1479
(Bonta), and continued discussions about the potential ramifications of SIB 35 (Wiener).
Additionally, the Committee voted to contribute $5,000 to the Orange County Drowning Prevention
Task Force. This action requests City Council authorization for the Mayor to sign a City position
letter on AB 1479 and formally support the Orange County Task Force on Drowning Prevention and
authorize a $5,000 contribution to same.
Financial Impact:
The County of Orange through its Health Care Agency (HCA), is committing up to $150,000 in
matching funds and the Orange County Fire Authority and the City of Irvine have contributed
$25,000 towards the 2017 Campaign. It is recommended that the City support the "Orange County
Task Force on Drowning Prevention" with a $5,000 contribution. Funds are available in the City
Administration Budget (Account No. 10030101).
Recommended Action:
A) Approve a City position of Oppose on Assembly Bill 1479 (Bonta) — Public Records: Custodian
of Records; and,
B) Authorize a $5,000 contribution in support of the "Orange County Task Force on Drowning
Prevention."
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommended actions and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee met to discuss pending
Federal and State legislation. The Committee reviewed the 2017 State Legislative Matrix provided
by the City's State Advocate, Townsend Public Affairs (TPA). The Committee members chose to
take the following position on pending legislation.
Oppose —AB 1479 (Bonta) — Public Records: Custodian of Records
H B -91- Item 10. - 1.
Dept. ID AD-17-018 Page 2 of 2
Meeting Date: 6/5/2017
Under the existing law, the California Public Records Act requires a public agency to make
its public records available for public inspection and to make copies available upon request
and payment of a fee, unless the public records are exempt from disclosure. This bill would
require public agencies to designate a person or office to act as the agency's custodian of
records who is responsible for responding to any request made pursuant to the California
Public Records Act and any inquiry from the public about City records. The City Clerks
Association of California has also taken an oppose position (see attached letter). This
Assembly Bill places a substantial burden on local agencies by adding onerous, costly and
unnecessary requirements in processing California Public Records Act requests. This bill
would mandate that every local agency assign a "Supervisor of Record" to review each
public records act denial prior to the final determination being issued. Additionally, the
measure establishes new and costly punitive damages assessed to agencies above and
beyond plaintiffs' attorney fees established in current law.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee approved an "oppose" position on AB 1479. The
Committee also discussed SIB 35 (Wiener). The City had previously taken an "oppose" position on
this Bill, but requested a detailed update from Townsend Public Affairs on the status of the bill. This
bill has passed and, as of May 30, 2017, had been moved to the Senate floor. In certain cases, SIB
35 would require land use decision making processes be circumvented in order to streamline
affordable housing projects. Making major development decisions without the public's input. This
bill would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multi-family
developments and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that meet inadequate criteria. Townsend Public
Affairs confirmed that this bill does indeed apply to Charter Cities.
In addition to pending legislation, the Committee discussed supporting the "Orange County Task
Force on Drowning Prevention." The Task Force is launching, for the second year, a countywide
media campaign that will focus on awareness building with a primary focus on swimming pool/spa
safety. In 2016, there were more than 100 drowning-related incidents in Orange County and more
than 40 fatalities. The vast majority of drowning victims are children up to four years old and adults
50 years and older. The primary message will focus on not swimming alone, which includes
ensuring proper supervision of young children.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Improve quality of life
Attachment(s):
1. AB 1479 (Bonta) — Public Records: Custodian Records
2. Letter of Opposition from the City Clerks Association of California
3. April 2017 Letter in Opposition to SIB 35
4. Letter from Orange County Task Force on Drowning Prevention
Item 10. - 2 HB -92-
ATTACHMENT # 1 �
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 27, 2017
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 21, 2017
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2017-18 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1479
Introduced by Assembly Member Bonta
(Coauthor.Assembly Member Cristina Garcia)
February 17, 2017
An act to amend Sections 6255 and 6259 of the Government Code,
relating to public records.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1479, as amended, Bonta. Public records: custodian
of records: fines. civil penalties.
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires a public
agency, defined to mean any state or local agency, to make its public
records available for public inspection and to make copies available
upon request and payment of a fee,unless the public records are exempt
from disclosure. Existing law requires an agency to justify withholding
a record from disclosure by demonstrating either that the record in
question is exempt under express provisions of taw or that on the facts
of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the
record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the
record. Existing law requires specified state and local agencies to
establish written guidelines for accessibility of records. Existing law
authorizes a person to institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative
relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce
his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or
class of public records under these provisions.
97
HB -93- Item 10. - 3
AB 1479 —2—
This bill would require public agencies to
designate a person or office to act as the agency's custodian of records
who
is denied. is responsible for responding to any request made pursuant
to the California Public Records Act and any inquiry from the public
about a decision by the agency to deny a request for records. The bill
also would make other conforming changes. Because the bill would
require local agencies to perform additional duties,the bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also authorize a court that finds that an agency or the
custodian improperly withheld pttblie reeo from a member of the
public, public records which
were clearly subject to public disclosure, unreasonably delayed
providing the contents of a record subject to disclosure in whole or in
part, assessed an unreasonable or unauthorized fee upon a requester,
or otherwise did not act in good faith to comply with these provisions,
to assess ptmitive damages a civil penalty against the agency in an
amount not less than $1,000, nor more thank000,that shall be
by bi11. $5,000.
Stattttory provisions establish pfoeedtffes f;Dr ma-king that reititbtffseinent.
This bill would provide that, 4 the Gommission on Stafe Mandates
determines that the bill eontains eosts mandated by the state,
..oted above.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
The California Constitution requires local agencies,for the purpose
Of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the
writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory
enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or
open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment
furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.
97
Item 10. - 4 HB -94-
—3— AB 1479
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION I. Section 6255 of the Government Code is amended
2 to read:
3 6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by
4 demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express
5 provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case
6 the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly
7 outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.
8 (b) A response to a written request for inspection or copies of
9 public records that includes a determination that the request is
10 denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.
11 (c) Each agency shall designate a person
12 or office to act as the agency's custodian of records whom
13 review a a�k�w�.:11 1:..11 is responsible for responding to any request
14 made pursuant to this chapter and any inquiry from the public
15 about a decision by the agency-mat to deny a request for-feeffds
16 is denied. records.
17 SEC. 2. Section 6259 of the Government Code is amended to
18 read:
19 6259. (a) Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition
20 to the superior court of the county where the records or some part
21 thereof are situated that certain public records are being improperly
22 withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the
23 sttpeser custodian of records or person charged with withholding
24 the records to disclose the public record or show cause why he or
25 she should not do so. The court shall decide the case after
26 examining the record in camera, if permitted by subdivision (b)
27 of Section 915 of the Evidence Code, papers filed by the parties
28 and any oral argument and additional evidence as the court may
29 allow.
30 (b) If the court finds that the stiperviso custodian of records'
31 or other public official's decision to refuse disclosure is not
32 justified under Section 6254 or 6255, he or she shall order the
3.) custodian of records or public official to make the record
34 public. If the judge determines that the supervi custodian of
97
HB -95- Item 10. - 5
AB 1479 —4—
1 records or other public official was justified in refusing to make
2 the record public, he or she shall return the item to the st iso
3 custodian of records or other public official without disclosing its
4 content with an order supporting the decision refusing disclosure.
5 (c) In an action filed on or after January 1, 1991, an order of
6 the court, either directing disclosure by a public official or
7 supporting the decision of the supervisor custodian of records or
8 other public official refusing disclosure, is not a final judgment or
9 order within the meaning of Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil
10 Procedure from which an appeal may be taken, but shall be
11 immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate court for the
12 issuance of an extraordinary writ.Upon entry of any order pursuant
13 to this section, a party shall, in order to obtain review of the order,
14 file a petition within 20 days after service upon him or her of a
15 written notice of entry of the order, or within a further time not
16 exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good
17 cause allow. If the notice is served by mail,the period within which
18 to file the petition shall be increased by five days. A stay of an
19 order or judgment shall not be granted unless the petitioning party
20 demonstrates it will otherwise sustain irreparable damage and
21 probable success on the merits. Any person who fails to obey the
22 order of the court shall be cited to show cause why he or she is not
23 in contempt of court.
24 (d) (1) The court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney
25 fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation filed
26 pursuant to this section. The costs and fees shall be paid by the
27 public agency of which theme custodian of records or
28 public official is a member or employee and shall not become a
29 personal liability of the sttpervtser custodian of records or public
30 official.
31 (2) If the court finds that the plaintiff's case is clearly frivolous,
32 it shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the public
33 agency.
34 (3) If a court finds that an agency or thettpervisot! custodian
35 of records or other public official of an agency improperly withheld
36 a public record from a member of the publicwithotttjttstifieafien,
37
38 in a timely tflattnef, that was clearly subject to public disclosure,
39 unreasonably delayed providing the contents of a record subject
40 to disclosure in whole or in part assessed an unreasonable or
97
Item 10. - 6 Ff B -96-
—5— AB 1479
1 unauthorized fee upon a requester, or otherwise did not act in good
2 faith to comply with this chapter, the court may assess FUILIHe
3 damages a civil penalty against the agency in an amount not less
4 than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than five thousand
5 dollars
6 Assistanee Fund,whie.h.is hereby established in the state treasru�.
7 ($5,000).
SEG. if r...v.fflissio State Mandates a. .1
8 �-�,�. -n_m--vrr�t�� etei9imresmzr�
9
10
11 _
12 4 of Title -2 oft e Go_........_..ent God-.--.
13 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
14 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
15 the only costs that inay be incurred by a local agency or school
16 district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that
17 is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section
18 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
19 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 1 and
20 2 of this act, which anaend Sections 6255 and 6259 of the
21 Government Code, respectively, further, within the meaning of
22 paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the
23 California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section
24 as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local
25 public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local
26 agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section
27 3 ofArticle 1 of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes
28 the following findings:
29 By requiring local agencies to designate custodians of records
30 responsible for responding to requests and inquiries under the
31 California Public Records Act this actfurthers the public's access
32 to public records.
O
97
HB _97_ Item 10. - 7
ATTACHMENT #2
� M >
CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
April 28, 2017
Honorable Rob Bonta
California State Assembly
State Capitol Building, Room 2148
Sacramento, California 95814
Via Electronic Mai/
SUBJECT: AB 1479 (Bonta). Public Records: Supervisor of Records: Fines
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As Amended 03121117)
Dear Assembly Member Bonta:
The City Clerks Association of California must respectfully oppose Assembly Bill (AB) 1479
which places substantial burdens on local agencies by adding onerous, costly and unnecessary
requirements in processing California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests. AB 1479 would
mandate that every local agency assign a "Supervisor of Record" to review each public records
act denial prior to the final determination being issued. Additionally, the measure establishes
new and costly punitive damages assessed to agencies above and beyond plaintiffs' attorney
fees established in current law.
Local agencies strive to comply with the strict guidelines inherent with the CPRA; this measure
runs counter to that intent. AB 1479 would cause further delays in processing requests by
creating an additional step in the process whereby every request denial would have to be
reviewed by the Supervisor of Record before a final determination from the agency can be
issued. City Clerks and City Attorneys already work closely together to review records requests
and exemptions and/or denials are carefully scrutinized. It is always our intent to ensure
information remains widely accessible to the public whenever legally possible.
Local agencies have seen a significant spike in CPRA request in recent years. This measure
fails to take into account that many of these requests are often made from requesters and/or
private entities who reside outside of our jurisdictional boundaries. Moreover, these serial filers
make incredibly complex data requests which are then repackaged and sold. Due to the
increased volume of such requests, many agencies large and small have already had to hire
additional staff dedicated solely to review documents in association with CPRA requests.
AB 1479 also creates increased litigation for local agencies under the CPRA. A requester can
file suit on the day after responsive records are due which could be as early as eleven days
after the request if there has been no extension of time. Once a suit is filed, generous attorneys'
fees established in current law may still be awarded under the "catalyst" theory even if the
Item 10. - 8 HB -98-
AB 1479— Notice of Opposition
April 28, 2017
Page 2
agency discloses the requested records after the litigation has commenced. Adding the
additional punitive damages awards as high as $5,000 per violation will lead to a litany of
satellite litigation given the grounds for punitive damages are so vast. Local agencies already
potentially face significant liability exposure each time a request is denied due to the potential
award of attorneys' fees.
For these reasons, the California City Clerk Association respectfully opposes AB 1479.
Sincerely,
Ra �JD, MMC
Legislative Director
C: CCAC Legislative Committee/ Board of Directors
League of California Cities
Alison Merrilees, Chief Counsel, Assembly Judiciary Committee
Paul Dress, Consultant, Republican Caucus
H B -99- Item 10. - 9
ATTACHMENT #3
r City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
Barbara Delgleize
Mayor
April 4, 2017.
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 4066
Sacramento, California 95814
Subject: Oppose SB 35 — Planning and zoning: affordable housing: streamlined
approval process
Dear Senator Wiener:
On behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, I am writing to express our respectful opposition for
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), which would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making
approvals of multifamily developments and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that meet inadequate
criteria,
In certain cases, SB 35 would require land use decision making processes be circumvented in
order to streamline affordable housing projects. Making major development decisions without the
public's input is a poor way to represent our constituents. The City of Huntington Beach prides
itself on local government transparency and opposes any attempt by the State or other entities to
impose unreasonable mandates that prevent us from thoroughly reviewing every development
project in our City.
SB 35 claims it will spur the development of affordable housing projects and make sure that all
communities are equally contributing to regional housing needs. The problem lies with affordable
housing funding, not with a city's want to develop affordable housing. This bill does not provide
cities with a dedicated and sustainable funding source for affordable housing projects and
therefore does not address the problem.
For these reasons, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach voted to oppose SB 35.
Sincerely,
Barbara Delgleize, Mayor
City of Huntington Beach
CC: Assembly Member Matthew Harper
Assembly Member Travis Allen
Senator John Moo rlach
Senator Janet Nguyen
""--' " -stralia TELEPHONE(714) 536-5553 Anjo,Japan
Item 10. - 10 IF HB -100- -5233
ATTACHMENT #4
ORANGE COUNTY TASK FORCE
ON DROWNING PREVENTION
April 14, 2017
The Honorable Barbara Delgieize
CHAIR City of Huntington Beach
Rob Williams
Chief Lifeguard 2000 Main Street
Newport Beach Fire Department Huntington Beach, CA 92648
VICE CHAIR
Julie Lopiccolo Dear Mayor Delgieize:
Jasper Ray Foundation
SEC:REI AIRY On behalf of the Orange County Task Force on Drowning Prevention, we are writing
Alexa Pratt to ask for your support in 2017 with a donation of$5,000. In 2016,we raised$225,000
Fire Community Relations
Education specialist to target, in both English and Spanish, parents and caregivers of young children and
Orange County Fire Authority adults over 50. Last year, the task force funded OCTA bus advertisements, posters,
PAST CHAIR direct mail to public pool operators, digital ads,and radio spots that resulted in over 35
Al Murray million impressions.
Mayor Pro-Tern
City of Tustin
However, last year there were still more than 100 drowning-related incidents in Orange
COIAM11 IE CHAIRS County and more than 40 fatalities.The vast majority of drowning victims are children
DATA Aran STATISTICS up to four years old and adults 50 years and older.
Amy Buch
Division Manager
OC Health Care Agency We believe that these injuries and deaths are preventable. Last years fundraising led
r-iivANCti
to focus groups that facilitated input to assist us in the development of consistent
Jeff Bowman messaging. That messaging was shared across the county with local agencies, swim
Fire Chief schools,health providers, and non-profits that were united in preventing drownings.
Orange County Fire Authority
PUBLIC SA i E.fY c,u T REA,H It is our goal to have every city in Orange County participate with us in this important
Todd Spitzer
Orange County Supervisor effort. Last year, the cities listed on the left all contributed the requested $5,000, with
Third District Irvine and Orange County Fire Authority contributing $25,000.
2016 CONTRIRUTOPS
Buena Park The Health Care Agency has agreed to match contributions up to $150,000. OCFA
Dana Point will contribute $25,000 towards that in 2017. We need your help to secure enough
Huntington Beach
Irvine funding to have a successful drowning prevention campaign for the entire swim season
Laguna Hills of 2017.Please join us and become a partner in reducing drowning incidents by making
Lake Forest a contribution of$5,000 or more if you're able.
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
Orange County Fire Authority Thank you in advance for your generosity and your contribution. We look forward to
Seal Beach
Tustin updating you on our progress. Together,we will make a difference and save lives.
Yorba Linda
Sincerely,
Jeff Bowman Todd Spitzer Al Murray
OCFA Orange County Supervisor City of Tustin
Fire Chief Third District Mayor Pro Tem
HB -101- Item 10. - I