Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous "H" Items Regarding Policies and Procedures 19 i " 7 Index 120.10 1995: City Council-Policy&Procedures Data Entry 12-31-96 10 5827 Pending Category Alpha Numeric 120.10. , From Ralph Bauer to Council members dtd 5-6-02 "H"item for May 6, 2002 City Council meeting resignation as Mayor Pro tem(H-la) From Dave Garofalo to Council members 6-18-01 "H" item for City Council meeting on June 18, 2001 Council absence Policy. From Gail Hutton to Council members dtd 6-14-01 re: PLS 2001-441 Councilmember David Garofalo, Failure to attend regular meetings, Possible vacation of public office (H- 3 a) See information re absences Dave Garofalo Council Meeting Gail Hutton 5-14-99. Public Comments at Council Meetings. Transcripts Public Comments John Briscoe Council Meeting 3-15-99. Re: Shari Freidenrich, Ralph Bauer 5-12-99 "H"item for 5-17-99 Council Meeting- Speaker during public comments approved as amended 3-1-03 Ralph Bauer 5-12-99 re: "H" item 5-17-99 City Council Meeting: Environmental Symposium 6-7-99 Motion failed- deferred to 6-7- 99 meeting(H-4) Dave Sullivan dtd 4-12-99 "H"item for 4-19-99 Procedure- appt. of Council Meeting Procedure-appt. of Council Liaisons to City Boards and Commissions. Motion to amend 4-3. (h-1) Peter Green dtd 12-17-98-Disclosure from City Council Sessions. 12-21-98 cc meeting motion failed(H-4) Pam Julian 10-7-98 "H" item 10-19-98 to allow massage establishments/Day Spas in commercially zoned districts. Approved as amended 6-1 [H-1(b)] Dave Garofalo 12-5-97 "H"item re: Council Meeting outside City Hall. 12-15-97 recommended action. See attached action agenda pg. #17 Dave Garofalo 7-22-96 re: Labor negotiation/POA not discussed 8-5-96 Council meeting 1-16-96 Request for Council/Redevelopment Agency Action, Approved 1-16-96 Victor Leipziq 10-9-95 Council Badge 10-16-95 motion that it not be policy(H-4) EXHIBIT #2 o�-a4-01 CNU1, RG '�N Wwfip TO • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ U 1;� HUNTINGTONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO L� S f V C= o = C_ Z C-) Z C:)-{-<C- Z-�nr' To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members .O D-nmc From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member _ ;X Date: June 1, 2001 D Subject: `°H"ITEM FOR JUNE 4, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING— SWIMMING POOL SAFETY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: We lost another child to drowning, the second in the year 2001! 1 have had the opportunity to meet with staff members, professional water sport educators, and members of the water recreation industry. There is a myriad of devices, costing as low as $100.00, that could help save a child's life. The solution was brought forward by both public and private sector participants that very inexpensive motion detectors would help avoid this tragedy in the future. There is no absolute preventive method or policy; however, the following recommendation is a step in the right direction. I am not asking for emergency level efforts in an otherwise already burdened staff. Some research from other communities is available and I would hope we could see a draft before year-end. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to submit a draft ordinance that would require upon the close of escrow the installation of a motion detector in properties that have pools. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Ron Hagan EXHIBIT #3 �J� �►t4 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTING TON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member Date: June 4, 2001 Subject: JUNE 4, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING/SANDY LAIRD Sandy Laird was hospitalized several days ago. The liver cancer has become very acute. She took a serious turn for the worse today, Monday. Pending her condition, I may be either late or absent from the City Council Meeting. Should conditions worsen, I will let you know. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway N C 0 2 o � C_ Z C) r- <C- Co D D�� o = 7 � =D EXHIBIT #4 (22) June 4, 2001 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 22 the City has levied an additional tax to pay for a portion of the City's retirement costs. At present, the City's retirement costs consist of contracts with the California Public Retirement System (CALPERS) and a supplemental retirement plan administered by the City. The estimated retirement costs for fiscal year 2001/2002 are $8,300.00 For several years, the City of Huntington Beach has levied a tax rate of$.04930 per$100 of assessed valuation to partially offset retirement costs. However, the recent Superior Court decision in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vs. the City of Huntington Beach, suggests that the City reevaluate its method of funding these ongoing annual expenditures. The City Council has authorized appeal of the Superior Court's decision in the Jarvis lawsuit. Until this appeal is resolved, it is prudent to set the tax rate for fiscal year 2001/2002 at 0.0%. Councilmember Bauer read from the City Charter the rationale for property tax collection. He informed Council that he will not be able to support the item, stating his belief that the city is paying employees a fair retirement benefit in comparison with other cities. Councilmember Dettloff concurred with Councilmember Bauer, stating that the 5% shortfall in the General Fund resulting in the reduction of city services is going to make a difference in providing service to the community. A motion was made by Cook, second Boardman to adopt Resolution No. 2001-33— "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Suspending for Fiscal Year 200112002 the Property Tax Override to Pay for Employee Retirement Benefits." The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen NOES: Green, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: Garofalo (City Council) Status of Councilmember Boardman's Request for a Staff Report on Ocean View School Site Gymnasium Proposal ( . ) Mayor Pro Tern Cook requested an update on the above-captioned issue. City Attorney Hutton reported that Assistant City Attorney Paul D'Alessandro is preparing a legal opinion. (City Council) Continued to June 18, 2001 Re: Swimming Pool Safety - Direct Preparation of a Draft Ordinance to Require Upon Close of Escrow, the Installation of Motion Detectors in Properties with Pools ( . ) The City Council considered a communication received from Councilmember Dave Garofalo transmitting the following Statement of Issue: We lost another child to drowning, the second in the year 2001! 1 have had the opportunity to meet with staff members, professional water sport educators, and members of the water recreation industry. There is a myriad of devices, costing as low as $100.00, that could help save a child's life. The solution was brought forward by both public and private sector participants that very inexpensive motion detectors would help avoid this tragedy in the future. There is no absolute preventive method or policy; however, the following recommendation is a step in the right direction. I am not asking for emergency level efforts in an otherwise already burdened staff. Some research from other communities is available and I would hope we could see a draft before year-end. Appeal Survey Page Two SURVEY NOTES: Long Beach: The appeal of a Planning Commission action to the City Council may occur only if the following occurs: If a project has either been approved or denied at the Planning Commission level, an appeal maybe made only by an aggrieved person who has "standing". The city of Long Beach defines a person who has standing as one who either has spoken for or against a project at the public hearing or a person who has submitted a written comment for the record. The appeal fee for an aggrieved person who has standing is $1,050.00. A City Council member may appeal a decision only if he/she is aggrieved, has standing, and accompanied with a $1,050.00 fee. POWERS AND The Public Records Act. This law provides that all public records are available to any interested LIMITATIONS citizen and may be inspected at any reasonable -NItime at the city clerk's office.Reasonable rules de- signed to protect the records or expedite work In 1879,the California Constitution was amended ® may be permitted. to grant local jurisdictions the five basic grants of 2. Limitations Upon Official Action home rule. And when that term "home rule" is Public Purpose. All public funds must be ex- used we refer to the "structure" made up of those ended for public or municipal purpose and five cornerstones: P p p p p 1. Cities may enact any local "regulation" there may not be a "gift" of public funds for a which is not in conflict with state law; private purpose. The taxpayers' monies cannot 2. The state may not enact special laws which be diverted into projects other than those which affect specific cities; serve a public or municipal purpose.An improper 3. The state shall not impose local taxes, but expenditure(not authorized by law) may result in instead keep its taxing authority restricted to personal liability. state purposes on an across-the-board Expenditure Limitations. The Legislature, or basis; the electorate through Constitutional initiatves, 4. Cities may provide and have plenary juris- may impose spending limitations. At present, diction with respect to municipal utilities; there is a limitation in effect which restricts the S. Chartered cities may exercise exclusive expenditure of most revenues to the 1978-79 jurisdiction over "municipal affairs." fiscal year level plus or minus cost of living and Over the years, limitations have been imposed by population changes. statute and case law upon these home rule pow- The limitation now in effect may be relaxed by vote ers. Some of the more important restrictions are: of the electorate or through the use of funds not 1 . Limitations on Secrecy subject to the limitation. The Brown Act. The Ralph M. Brown Act is a Debt. A city may not contract to expend in any law which provides that no city board—whether fiscal year in excess of current revenues plus re- serves. A city has no power to incur a present the city council, the library board, the park and debt in excess of its present ability to pay, and recreation commission or any other commission or official committee thereof—shall hold any thus cannot purchase property on the installment meeting other than a duly called and regularly plan or on a conditional sales contract. Financing held public meeting, notice of which is provided must be accomplished through bonding,assess- ment districts, non-profit corporations, joint either by ordinance or resolution, or special call, authority, lease-options, lease-leaseback, or by adjournment of a prior meeting. A "meet- redevelopment agency bonds or short-term ing" takes place whenever a quorum is present borrowing. and official business is conducted; closed meet- ings may beheld only in limited situations such Eminent Domain.The power of eminent domain as labor, personnel and litigation sessions. The or condemnation is the right to take property for Brown Act also provides that action may only be 3 public purposes, for example, to build a city hall taken on items on the agenda posted for a or acquire a park. Property, however, may not be prescribed period prior to the meeting. taken unless the owner is paid the fair market value for the property in cash, plus relocation ex- penses. Conversely, whenever the city inten- 16 17 tionally or inadvertently takes or damages private The state also collects all gasoline taxes. Once property, or exacts it as a condition to a permit collected, this money is then distributed to coun- (unless justified under the police power) it must ties and cities, based upon their populations.The pay fair value. local jurisdictions are then required to spend this Discrimination. A city may not enforce its rules, money for street construction and maintenance. regulations, or ordinances on a discriminatory A portion of the gas tax funds received by coun- basis in favor of any individual person, race, or ties from the state is remitted to the cities in the segment of its population. All facilities, rules, reg- I county for designated street projects. ulations and ordinances must be applicable on In addition, other taxes such as cigarette taxes an equal basis. are collected by the state and returned to the Equal Protection. All laws and ordinances must cities. be so written as to apply with equal protection to It is important to remember that these subven- all facets of the population; it is improper to adopt tions are controlled by agencies other than your a regulation which applies only to certain individ- city. uals or classes, unless the classification is ger- mane to the purpose of the regulation. Service Charges Pre-emption.A city is but a creature of the state Another source of revenue for cities is the service and subservient thereto and therefore cannot charge. Actually, these charges are levied for a make any rule or regulation which conflicts with number of activities of diverse nature ranging the implicit policies or regulations of the state. from trash collection to recreation classes. However, charter cities have the exclusive authority to regulate "municipal affairs." Other Taxes Due Process. In all procedural functions of local Special purpose taxes may be levied by cities government whether legislative, administrative or only after a 2/3rds vote by the electorate. General quasi-judicial, the council must accord proce- purpose taxes(except ad valorem)may be levied dural due process. This term is somewhat amor- in General Law cities only if first approved by a phous but in general means conforming to majority of the voters. It is not certain whether this fundamental principles of justice and constitu- vote requirement applies to charter cities.Special tional guarantees. Unfair determinations, such as taxes are taxes levied for a specific purpose bias, predetermination, refusal to hear, etc., may rather than a levy placed in the general fund to invalidate actions. Substantive due process be utilized for general governmental purposes. means that city action may not be arbitrary or non- relevant to municipal purposes. Federal Grants Civil Liberties. The state and Federal constitu- tions guarantee certain civil liberties and civil The federal government provides a wide range rights, such as the right of peaceful protest, as- of grants, although of late these funds have been sembly, worship, speech, etc. Municipal regula- decreasing. tions which unreasonably impinge on the lawful exercise of these rights whether by prior restraint, prohibition, arbitrary regulation or arrest, are in- r valid. A permit system designed to afford rea- sonable notice and assure adequate control and freedom from unnecessary risks may be appro- priate, but the burden of proof as to validity may be on the city. 18 15 Licenses, Permits, and User Fees Reasonableness. Implicit in every constitutional There are a number of licenses and permits is- statutory and judicial authorization is the recog- sued by cities for which a fee is charged. Some of nition that every action of municipal government these are actually designed to produce revenue based thereon must be reasonable both from the whereas others are more of a regulatory nature standpoint of accomplishing a municipal pur- with the fee charged being designed to cover the pose and from the counterpoint of preventing actual cost of enforcement. unnecessary restriction. In other words, no municipal action can be arbitrary or excessive in The city incurs many increased costs as a result of scope. This is sometimes referred to as substan- commercial activity such as the need for addi- tive due process. tional traffic police patrol. The business license has been a traditional means by which busi- While obviously the primary responsibility for the nesses have contributed to the support of their determination of reasonableness lies with the city. local body, the courts do have jurisdiction to en- join confiscatory abusive or capricious action. The most common types of regulatory permit fees Procedural Requisites. The legislature has de- in cities are building,electrical and plumbing per- termined that many activities which local govern- mits. There are other similar permits for which ment might otherwise undertake may be pursued fees are charged, such as street and curb and only according to strict procedural steps. For ex- also sewer permits. Here again, the fee is set so ample, zoning requires prescribed hearings; that the additional cost to the city is borne by the assessment districts, procedural complexities; person making the improvement. Excessive fees major public works construction, a bid proce- may cause legal problems under Article XIIIA dure; and significant public or private projects (Proposition 13—1978) and XIIIB (Proposition 4 over which the city has discretion must be pre- - 1979)of the state constitution. ceded by an environmental impact study. Failure Revenue From Other Agencies to follow such rules will usually invalidate the (Subventions) action taken. Redelegation. A delegated duty may not be re- A significant part of the revenue received by cities delegated, and the city council, having been del- comes from other governmental agencies. Cer- egated the power to perform legislative functions, tain taxes are actually levied by the state and may not in turn redelegate that authority to a dif- county governments for the benefit of cities. An ferent agency without the consent of the electors example of this in California is the Motor Vehicle or the legislature, or without reserving the right of In Lieu Tax. State law does not permit county and final appellate review thereon. Unless specifically city governments to levy a property tax on auto- restricted, a delegation of administrative func- mobiles; instead this tax is paid when the owner tions with appropriate standards is proper. renews his license each year. It is calculated as Tort Liability.Years ago, the Supreme Court dis- a percentage of the market value of the vehicle, carded the concept of sovereign immunity. Now, as defined by the Legislature. A constitutional ' a city is like any other firm or corporation and has amendment adopted in 1986 permits the Legis- (except for a few remaining specific immunities) lature to distribute motor vehicle in lieu fees only the same liability for the negligent acts of its em- to cities and counties. ployees. Liability for violation of 42 USC 1983 (civil rights, punitive damages and attorney fees) has increased in recent years, as has the pro- tection of individual "property" and "liberty" 14 interests. 19 Environmental Impact. State law now requires to permit another level of government to collect the city to conduct an environmental study(E.I.R.) this tax for them. The state does this for all cities, before undertaking any public project or approv- remitting the collections after having subtracted ing discretionary private projects. Failure to pre- collection costs. This is another example of the pare an adequate E.I.R. or failure to properly relations of one level of government using the pre- consider the same may invalidate the proposal. existing organized machinery of another level to The same is true of the requirement for a compre- avoid duplication wherever possible. hensive general plan. Utilities 3. Limitations on Personal Activities Many cities provide municipal utility service in Incompatibility.No city council member may oc- cupy two different public offices at the same time, the form of water and power. The rates charged if the same are incompatible one with the other. are not subject to regulation by the Public Utili- For example, it would be impossible for a council ties Commission and generally may not be operated at a profit. member to serve also as a city manager, city treasurer or any other such position. Utility Franchises Use of Public Property. No public officer may Each city usually has one or more public utilities use any public property or equipment or facilities desirous of operating within the city limits. Ex- for a personal or private purpose. The law books amples of these are your local gas and electric are replete with cases where individual public offi- companies. More recently, cable television, al- cers have been reprimanded,fined or even impri- though not considered a utility, has become an soned for use of public property for private additional franchise. purposes whether the same constitutes the use of a city car, or use of city stationery. It has been customary that public utilities pay a Binding Future Councils. It is a basic rule of franchise tax to the city normally calculated at a municipal law that one city council cannot forever certain percentage of their annual sales within tie the hands of future city councils with respect to the city. While not providing a major source of legislative enactments; no ordinance passed by revenue, it is an important one and is paid by one city council may remain beyond the repeal or the utility companies in exchange for the right to amendment of a future city council. Each city use city streets and rights-of-way. This franchise council is elected by the people to serve the is granted by the city council and is usually needs and desires of the people at that time, and made on a very long term basis. cannot be restricted, from a legislative stand- Court Fines and Forfeitures point, by prior council action.A council may, how- ever, enter into certain long-term contracts such Court fines for law violations occurring in a city as leases, cable television franchises, or rubbish are a traditional city revenue. All funds received contracts, provided there are no anti-trust over- for violation of the State Motor Vehicle Code must tones. be spent for specific purposes. These funds are used for expenditures relating to police enforce- 4. Reserved Rights ment of traffic laws and other costs relating to Recall. The people have the right to recall any , traffic such as signs and street striping. elected representative not fulfilling their desires. Naturally, the processes of recall are somewhat difficult, in that public officers, once elected, 20 13 should not be promiscuously recalled; but at any FINANCING time the electors by a 25 percent petition deter- mine to oust any public officer, a recall election must be held. It has been pointed out that the city is the level of Referendum. The right of referendum is one of the most important rights reserved to the indi- government closest to the average citizen. Every- one receives service from the city and.likewise + vidual electors. It guarantees that at any time everyone must contribute to its support. more than 10 percent of the electors do not approve of a (non-urgent) legislative regulation, The means of this support varies widely, depend- that 10 percent, by filing a petition within 30 ing upon the type of community served. Some days, may demand that the proposed regulation cities have a high percentage of commercial and be submitted to the electorate for a majority vote industrial properties while others are primarily of approval or disapproval. Exempt from refer- residential in nature. The amount of revenue a endum are certain tax measures, administrative city receives in any year depends on many fac- decisions, and regulations of statewide concern tors, including assessed valuations, and the or cases where the city is acting as agent for the amount of sales within its boundaries, and state state. subventions, and conditions and limitations which Initiative. This is the reciprocal of referendum, the state may impose. and is the vehicle by which the electors can, by There are several general classifications in all 10 percent petition force an election to pass a cities into which the various means of financing law which the city council has for one reason or can be placed. another refused to enact. Property Taxes Taxpayers'Suits.If at any time any taxpayer feels The county within which each city is located lev- that the city council or any board or commission ies and receives taxes equal to 1% of the market thereof is improperly expending public funds or value of all properties. This amount is divided violating any law, that taxpayer may seek an in- among the cities (and other public agencies) in junction to stop the proposed action, or compel such proportions as the State Legislature from the individual city council members to reimburse time to time directs. the treasury the amount of the inappropriate expenditure. Sales Taxes The most significant source of revenue for Cali- fornia cities is the Sales Tax. Heavy commercial and industrial uses in a city sometimes permit the use of the sales tax to partially or even completely replace the property tax as the primary means of revenue. Sales taxes in California range from six to six and 1 one-half to seven percent.Of this,most is for state and public transportation purposes;only one per- cent is levied by and returned to the individual cities. Here again,cities have found it economical 12 21 Included in the more routine operations of a CONFLICT OF Department of Public Works is the erection and INTEREST maintenance of street and traffic signs, striping of streets, painting of pavement markings, sweep- ing of streets, maintenance and repair of streets, Public officers owe an undivided duty to the pub- maintenance of sanitary sewers, maintenance of lic whom they serve, and are not permitted to trees and parkways, and the administration of place themselves in a position which will subject ' weed removal from vacant lots in the city. them to conflicting duties or expose them to the Other Departments temptation of acting in any manner other than in the best interest of the public. It is in consonance The above list by all means does not exhaust the with this principle that city officers may not, under types of departments found in the municipal gov- any circumstances, use their official position for ernments of California, and in no way attempts to their own benefit, or for the benefit of anyone ex- establish departmental importance. Many cities, cept the city itself. Nor may they represent the for example, have some or all of the following de- city in any transaction in which they are person- partments in their organization: personnel, library, ally interested in obtaining an advantage. It civil defense, health, dog pound, environmental makes no difference that the principal was not in control and human resources. fact injured, that the agent intended no wrong, that the other party acted in good faith, or that the agent acted fairly and honorable toward both. The Political Reform Act precludes a public offi- cial from participating in or attempting to influ- ence those governmental decisions or actions in which he or she has a "financial interest" which could be materially affected by the decision. The Act defines the kinds of interests (which includes interests owned by spouses, dependent chil- dren and agents, and certain businesses and trusts) which might cause a conflict and requires public officials to disqualify themselves from decisions which could affect those interests. Thus, city officials should be generally familiar with the Act's provisions so that they can recog- nize potential conflicts. Preexisting statutory pro- visions prohibiting a financial interest by any council member in any council member in any contractual matter involving the city were not repealed by the Political Reform Act, and such contracts are void. 22 11 Police Department In addition, members of the council must file dis- A Police Department's basic responsibility is to closure statements once a year indicating poten- protect and serve the public and the property tial conflicting interests. The types of financial within the city's boundaries. Some of the broad interests required to be disclosed generally in- areas of service provided by the Police Depart- clude investments in business entities, interest in ment include:the prevention of crime,eradicating real property, sources of income, loans or gifts,and positions of employment. Since the law per- the causes, repression of crime, lowering of inci- mits the Fair Political Practices Commission to im- dences, apprehension of criminals, and effective ` pose a penalty for failure to disclose, elected rehabilitation when possible. officials should be certain the statements are Generally, the organization of a Police Depart- complete.Thus,council members should consult ment consists of four basic divisions; administra- their city attorney to be certain they understand tion, service, investigation and uniform patrol. A the law whenever a question in this area arises. Police Department maintains 24-hour watch to deter, prevent and apprehend criminals. It regu- lates traffic, assists in the event of any disaster and provides a variety of information and service to the general public. Present day police officers have received extensive training in the scientific methods of their work. Many police officers work- ing for municipal government have received de- grees in Police Science from universities and colleges. Public Works Department The Public Works Department of a city may be organized to perform a variety of services. Generally, there are three divisions to be found in most Public Works Departments. These divi- sions are engineering, street maintenance and sanitation. Primarily, a Public Works Department is responsi- ble for the design and preparation of plans,speci- fications, and estimates for construction of public works projects such as streets, alleys, storm drains, sanitary sewers, street lights, traffic signals and many others. Inspection of public works projects performed under contract by utili- ties and subdividers is also the responsibility of this department. As a special project, the Public Works Depart- ment usually handles assessment district pro- ceedings whereby particular properties are assessed the cost of particularized projects. 10 23 LEGISLATIVE This department, often in cooperation with the schools, conducts year around recreation pro- VR PROCEDURE grams involving sports,games and crafts, as well as social and cultural programs for the enjoyment (Subject to Charter Requirements of citizens. and Procedural Ordinances) Planning Department 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings may be , The Planning Department acts as the technical held within the city limits only at the place indi- staff advisor to the city council, planning commis- cated by ordinance and at the time set by resolu- sion and city manager on all planning matters. tion; once convened such meeting may be Most planning activities are processed within the adjourned to another location within the city if Planning Department. However, other activities unusually large crowds or other circumstances require review and decision by a planning com- warrant. mission or zoning board. Many of the decisions A. "Adjourned"Meetings. All meetings may be referred to planning commissions are zone continued ("adjourned") to a time, place and changes, variances from present zoning within date certain, but not beyond the next regular the city, conditional use permits, plot plans, lot meeting. Once adjourned the meeting may not splits and many others including subdivisions be reconvened. and condominiums. B. Special Meetings. Special meetings maybe Usually a Planning Department's function is called by the mayor or majority of council mem- divided into two main categories: advance plan- bers on 24-hour notice, as set forth in Govern- ning and current planning. Advance planning ment Code § 54956. Only matters contained in concerns the preparation and maintenance of a the notice may be considered and no ordi- long-range and comprehensive general plan to nances (other than urgency ordinances) may provide guidance for the physical development of be adopted. a city. Current planning relates to the immediate 2. Notice and Agenda. Notice of all regular, plans for physical improvement and concerns the special and adjourned meetings must be pro- processing of applications for zoning and sub- vided. Generally, the agendas of these meetings divisions.Also, it involves departmental coordina- also must be posted. tion with the building department and business license division. 3. Quorum.A majority of the council is sufficient to do business; and motions may be passed two Perhaps no one function of local government impinges upon so many citizens as that of zoning to one if only three attend, but ordinances, resolu- tions granting franchises and payment of money and zoning administration, and certainly this require at least three affirmative votes. function can cause city council members many headaches relating to matters such as down 4. Roll Call. There is never a legal requirement zoning and vested rights. for roll call voting unless some member of the council demands it. However, since all ordi- nances, resolutions for franchises, and motions for the payment of money require the affirmative ' vote of at least three council members,most cities 24 9 Finance Department follow the roll call procedure for these particular enactments. The Finance Department is responsible for plan- a Correct Legal Document. Upon occasion, Wing and directing the fiscal operations of munic- 5.ordinances or resolutions are submitted in ipal government. This department works closely longhand or in draft form with on-the-spot amend- with the city manager, keeping the manager in- ments. These preliminary papers may be re- formed of the financial picture relating to reve- typed in final form; such re-draft, when signed nues, investments and expenditures. Most Finance Departments are broken down into dif- and attested, becomes the original and proper ferent divisions. Generally they are accounting, document to be retained in the files. purchasing and licensing. The Finance Depart- 6. The Minutes. Minutes are the concern of the ment is also responsible for the preparation of city clerk until presented to the council for ap- payrolls, administration of the employees' retire- proval; the council may then, by motion, make ment program, and processing of information for such corrections as conform to fact. the municipal data processing program. The minutes should be a clear and concise state- Fire Department ment of the council actions,including the motions made and the vote thereon. Reasons for making The principal function of a city's Fire Department a motion, council debate and audience reaction is the prevention and extinguishing of fires within are usually irrelevant and may be included or the city's boundaries. The modern fire prevention omitted as the clerk and/or council may choose. program now in effect in California cities involves Whenever the council acts in a quasi-judicial the inspection, investigation and education of citi- proceeding such as re-assessment or zoning zens in an effort to reduce the number of fires and matters, it is necessary to compile a complete the amount of resultant damage. Generally, fire summary of the testimony. protection within a city is provided from fire sta- tions strategically located so as to provide quick 7. Rules. The council may establish its own response to any call for help. Current fire protec- rules, prescribe an agenda, limit debate and tion programs within cities have progressed eject unruly persons. Many of the rules dis- through highly trained employees and the latest in cussed in this section and the remainder of this firefighting equipment. Because of this progress, chapter are common samples but may vary from cities have been given better ratings by the Na- city to city. When a motion is made and tional Board of Fire Underwriters. More recently, seconded, it should be stated by the mayor Fire Departments have assumed ambulance and before debate. A motion may not be withdrawn paramedic services. by the mover without the consent of the member Parks and Recreation seconding it and the approval of the council. A. Motions Out of Order. The mayor may at any Department time, by majority consent of the members, per- With an increase in the leisure time of citizens in mit a member to introduce an ordinance, reso- California cities, the establishment of Parks and - lution, or motion out of the regular agenda Recreation Departments has grown in municipal order. government. This department in many cities has B. Division of Question. If the question con- two interrelated functions,the maintenance of city ' tains two or more divisible propositions, the parks and conducting organized recreational mayor may, and upon request of a member activities for all age groups within the city. shall (unless appealed), divide the same. 8 25 8. Voting. On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice or roll call and rT entered in full upon the record. FV NCTIONS OF A. Roll Call. Upon demand of any member, GOVERNMENT made before the negative has been put, the roll call shall be called for yeas and nays upon any ' question before the council. It shall not be in A primary reason for the existence of municipal order for members to explain their vote during government today is to provide such services to the roll call. Any member may change his or her the taxpayer as the taxpayers cannot (for finan- vote before the next order of business. cial, functional or other reasons) or will not pro- B. Failure to Vote. Every member should vote vide for themselves. A number of services unless disqualified for cause accepted by vote provided by municipal government might be of the council or by opinion of the city attorney. performed by the property owner, but only at con- Self-disqualification, without approval, which siderable expense or inconvenience. results in a tie vote should be avoided as thwart- The services of municipal government can be ing council action. readily observed in action, but the typical citizens 1) The abstainer, in effect, "consents" that a are generally unaware of many of them. This is majority of the quorum may act for him or her. because they are so accustomed to those ser- Rules may be adopted to treat abstentions as vices that they often take them for granted. "yes" votes. To provide desired services, municipal govern- 2) Tie votes are "lost" motions, but may be ments are organized into various departments, reconsidered later. each responsible for a specific function. 9. Resolutions. The following departments are the ones most A. Where the particular resolution has been often found in the municipal governments of Cal- prepared in advance and is available for ifornia. This list will vary, however, depending distribution: upon the desires for service by the citizens and 1) Procedure: motion, second, discussion, whether or not the city contracts for services. voice vote (i.e., all in favor signify by saying "aye," etc.), result declared. (It is not neces- Building Department sary to read a resolution in full or by title, The Building Department is responsible for the except to identify it.) enforcement of minimum standards, regulating 2) Any member may call for a roll call vote,or building construction, electrical, plumbing, and demand that the resolution be read in full. sewer installations on private property. Its pur- B. Where the particular resolution has not been pose in enforcing these minimum standards is to prepared: safeguard life and limb,health,property and pub- lic welfare through the regulation and control of 1) Procedure: motion, second, "no objec- designed construction, quality of materials, use tions?—so ordered!"; instruction to the city occupancy, location and the maintenance of all attorney to prepare such a resolution for pre- buildings and structures within the city limits.The sentation. Building Department usually assists the license division in enforcement of business licenses, en- forcing the zoning ordinance and cooperating with other departments to secure code require- ments in the issuance of building permits. 26 7 The City Treasurer 2) This process may be waived in some rush matters and the resolution may be presented The City Treasurer is responsible for the custody verbally in motion form together with instruc- and investment of all city monies. In many cities tions for written preparation thereof for later this position has been made an appointed posi- execution. In this event, voting procedure tion, but in some cities the position is elective. No. A(1) above should be followed after the resolution has been verbally stated. This Boards, Commissions, and short-cut procedure should be avoided ex- Special Committees 1 cept when absolutely necessary; and should Boards, commissions and special committees be avoided entirely when resolutions are re- composed of local citizens are frequently ap- quired by law or in improvement acts,zoning pointed by the city council to advise or to perform matters, and force account work on public an administrative function in one or more aspects projects. of city government. Common advisory commis- 10. Ordinances. sions include parks, recreation and traffic. Com- A. Where the particular ordinance has not missions commonly administrative in nature been prepared in advance: include planning, library and civil service 1) The "no objection" process may be fol- commissions. lowed,instructing the city attorney to prepare City Employees the same. B. Where the particular ordinance has been City employees comprise the major cost of city prepared in advance: government; they perform the day-to-day func- 1) Introduction (first reading): tions necessary to provide services to the com- (a) Technically, no action is necessary to munity. Department heads administer specific introduce an ordinance other than for the functions of city government and are responsible sponsor thereof to declare the same to be to the city manager. Examples of such positions introduced by the reading thereof in full. are public works director, planning director, po- lice and fire chief, among others. Miscellaneous (b) The more usual and probably prefera- employees may or may not be under civil service ble method is to have the same introduced and may or may not be entitled to pension rights or placed on first reading by motion. under the Public Employees Retirement System i. Any ordinance may be read at either (PERS). Employees have been guaranteed the or both of first and second reading "by right to "meet and confer in good faith" (similar title only." to collective bargaining) with the city council or ii. Voice vote procedure to"read by title its representative. only" is set forth below, (Any member may demand a roll call vote,and the vote must be unanimous, otherwise the mo- tion fails and the ordinance must be read in full). iii. No changes except clerical correc- tions are allowed after first reading. 2) Adoption (at least five days later): (a) Either must be read in full,or voice vote procedure to be read "by title only": 6 27 i. Mayor or clerk reads title;then coun- cil votes on such motion. (Roll call, if CITY Y demanded.) 1E1 Vll ii. If passed unanimously,ordinance is OFFICIALS ready for adoption, otherwise must be read in full. ' (b) Roll call procedure to adopt. (Voice The City Manager vote is legally sufficient.) Note: Each or- The "City Manager," or other similar title, is the dinance should be passed only by this administrative head of city government in cities double motion method: a combination utilizing the council-manager form of govern- motion to "adopt by reading title only" is ment. He or she is appointed by the city council dangerous in that if the council splits four to enforce city laws, to direct the daily operations to one or three to two, the passage is de- of city government, to prepare and observe the fective; reading in full can only be waived municipal budget, and to implement the policies by unanimous vote. and programs initiated by the city council. The 3) Effective Date. All ordinances, except City Manager is responsible to the city council as provided in Section 36937,Government rather than to individual council members; he or Code,shall become effective 30 days after she directs and coordinates the various depart- adoption or upon such later date as may ments, and usually has the authority to hire and be designated in the ordinance. fire employees. 4) Publishing. It is the duty of the city clerk The City Attorney to publish or post the ordinance as set forth in Section 36933, Government Code, The City Attorney is usually an appointed officer within 15 days after adoption; failure to do on either a part-time or full-time basis who is the so may invalidate the ordinance. legal advisor for the council, the city manager, 5) Emergency Ordinances. Emergency and department heads. He or she represents the ordinances must pass by a 4/5ths vote, city in any legal action, handles the acquisition or must state the findings for urgency, must condemnation of property, supervises assess- be published and become effective im- ment district proceedings, and prepares all or- mediately. Emergency ordinances may be dinances, contracts, resolutions and opinions. It declared void if no true urgency existed. is most important to seek and follow sound legal advice. �1. Motions The City Clerk A. Motions may usually be adopted by the"no In some cities the City Clerk is an elected official, objection"method unless any member prefers but many cities have made this position appoin- voice or roll call vote. This method of expedit- tive. The City Clerk is charged with the responsi- ing long agenda is common practice, and any bility of maintaining records of council actions defects are probably cured by the later ap- and of maintaining a permanent record of all city proval of minutes which should reflect a "no transactions. objection" vote as "unanimously carried." (Note:Approval of minutes should be effected only by voice or roll call vote.) 28 5 The salaries of city council members may be set B. Distinction between motion and resolution: within prescribed limits by act ofthe city council. 1) In most cases a resolution is little more In general law cities,council members serve four- than a formal motion set forth in a separate year overlapping terms, with municipal elections written document. In a few matters such being held on the second Tuesday in April of even as assessment procedures or rezoning, a numbered years or consolidated with statewide resolution is required. election dates or school district elections. 2) Motions will generally suffice unless a resolution is specifically called by for law, or unless there is some reason for desiring the particular action formalized by sepa- rate instrument. 12. Relationship of Council to Electors.It must be remembered that the council members are elected by all of the people to serve as represen- tatives of all of the people; authority and respon- sibility for legislative enactments are vested in the council.California follows the council type of gov- ernment where it is the function of the represen- tatives to do that which in their best judgement is proper.California does not follow the"Town Meet- ing" type of government where the people legis- late. Therefore, the council has authority to limit debate on any subject and to act in good faith regardless of the viewpoints of limited minorities. The purpose of council meetings is for the council to debate openly on particular matters, to hear public expression thereon, and to inform the pub- lic of what the council is doing. No council is in- fallible and it is proper that public opinion be sought, but no council member can permit his or her judgment to become subservient to the criti- cism of council meeting attendants. Conversely, council members should remember that they are servants of the people, not free agents, in admin- istering the affairs of government. A. It is the responsibility of the chair to control public debate so that repetitive or irrelevant remarks are not made; so that everyone has had a chance to speak before others speak for a second time; and to expedite the busi- ness at hand. 4 29 B. The responsibility of making decisions is not easy nor without its problems, but it is the re- sponsibilityCITY of council members to vote and de- cide issues, regardless of personal hesitation. COUNCIL There will always be segments of the popula- tion dissatisfied with any decision.The purpose of government is to balance, legally, fairly and City councils in California consist of five or more without favor, the limitations, restrictions or members usually elected at large(by districts in a losses that are to be placed upon the individual few cases)on a non-partisan basis. The mayor is or several individuals against the good, the usually chosen by the city council from their own benefit or welfare of or to a majority of the membership to preside at council meetings and people. to act as the ceremonial head of the city. The city council establishes local laws, sets policy, approves programs, appropriates funds, established local taxes and assessments, and in general,supervises the operations of city govern- ment, the construction of public works, and pro- vides to the citizenry a better, more attractive and healthier place in which to live. The local ordinances adopted by the city council are compiled in a book called the municipal code. These laws are enforceable by the city, and viola- tion constitutes a misdemeanor or infraction. Other directives and policies of the city council are recorded in council resolutions or in the council minutes. The municipal code is generally divided into the principal categories of municipal activity,such as: a. taxes, assessments and fees b. administration c. public safety (crimes, traffic, fire) d. public welfare and morals e. sanitation and health f. business regulations g. public works h. building regulations i. planning, zoning and subdivisions j. nuisance abatement 30 3 The remaining cities are charter cities which have INDEX adopted "bylaws" which are determined locally. These cities are governed by both these bylaws Adjourned Meetings 24 and applicable general laws. g Binding Future Councils ...................... 20 While the full scope of municipal matters is much Boards ......................................... 6 broader than can be contained in a handbook,the Building Department .......................... 7 following information will form an outline on the City Attorney ................................... 5 various facets and functions of the role you have City Clerk ...................................... 5 undertaken. Congratulations on being elected; City Council .................................... 3 you have an exciting and very important job ahead City Employees ................................ 6 of you. City Manager City Officials ................................... 5 City Treasurer .................................. 6 Civil Liberties .................................. 18 Commissions .................................. 6 Committees .................................... 6 Conflicts of Interest ........................... 22 Correct Legal Documents .................... 25 Involvement 1S the key Court Fines and Forfeitures ................... 13 t0 SUCCeSS Debt ............................................ 17 Discrimination ................................. 18 Division of Question ........................... 25 California City officials working together to Due Process ................................... 18 influence policy decisions at all levels, ex-. Eminent Domain ............................... 17 changing information and combining re- Environmental Impact ......................... 20 sources—this is the League of California Equal Protebtion ............................... 18 Cities.It is as powerful and successful as city Failure to Vote 26 ................................. officials make it. Involvement.is the reason Federal Grants 15 ................................ behind the enormous success achieved Finance Department 8 since the League was founded in 1898.And Financing 12 the future of cities' ability to manage the Fire Department ............................... 8 issues that affect them— from influencing Functions of Government ..................... 7 state and federal legislation to needs that Incompatibility 20 arise from our citizenry—lies in working to- Initiative ......................................... 21 gether to find solutions. The League's de- Legislative Procedure ......................... 24 partments and divisions,policy committees, Licenses and Permits ......................... 14 training programs,lobbying efforts,and each Meetings, Regular ............................. 24 of the programs and services— in fact all Meetings, Special 24 9 Minutes p ............................. 25 facets of the League of California Cities— ........................................ rely on realizing the League's motto:Califor- Motions 28 ........................................ nia Cities Work Together. Motions Out of Order .......................... 25 Notice and Agenda ........................... 24 Ordinances .................................... 27 Parks and Recreation Department ........... 8 Permits .... . ...................... . 19 C on gratulations Planning Department ....................... . Police Department ............................ 10 Powers and Limitations ....................... 16 Pre-emption ................................... 18 Procedural Requisites ........................ 19 You are joining nearly 2200 other council mem- Property Taxes ................................ 12 bers in more than 450 cities in California. In your Public Purpose ................................ 17 new status as director of a municipal corporation Public Records ................................ 7 every citizen in the city is a stockholder entitled to Public Works Department ..................... 10 be heard and to criticize your public and private Quorum ........................................ 24 conduct. Your actions on the city council are Reasonableness .............................. 19 everyone's business and for a very good reason. Recall .......................................... 20 As a city council member, you share—along with Redelegation .................................. 19 the other members of your city council—a great Referendum ................................... 21 deal of power over the lives and property of mu- Relationship of Council to Electors ........... 29 nicipal stockholders: your citizens. The commu- Reserved Rights ............................... 20 nity holds the council responsible for protecting it Resolutions .................................... 26 against crime, disease, fire and a host of other Roll Call ........................................ 24 natural, social and economic evils. In return for Rules ........................................... 25 giving the city council these powers, you are able Sales Taxes .................................... 12 to impose taxes and assessments, declare crimi- Service Charges .............................. 15 nal conduct, condemn property, regulate busi- Subventions ................................... 14 nesses and control property use.The powers are Taxpayers' Suits ................................ 21 necessary if the responsibility is to be fully dis- Tort Liability .................................... 19 charged. Use of Public Property ........................ 20 Utilities ......................................... 13 Cities are but one of the three levels of government Utility Franchises 13 which posses governing responsibilities and au- Voting 26 thority. Cities perform the most vital functions which are of most concern to citizens.The federal and state governments deal with broader eco- nomic and social interests of the community. Counties generally operate as an arm of the state and have very little regulatory authority within a city,while special purpose districts,such as flood control, sanitation, air pollution, etc., serve to meet specific purposes.Regionalism,either in the form of a new layer of government or voluntary co- operation, is currently in place around the state.. Approximately 80 percent of the cities in California are general law cities, which means the city is governed by state law contained in the Govern- ment code. HANDBOOK FOR NEW COUNCIL .AEMBERS T,eagie of idifornia Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, California 95814 This document is the composite work of numerous people as it has been continuously revised over the years. Among those due credit are Paul Valle- Riestra,Kate Sproul,Betsy Strauss,and Charles R. Martin. n n 8 JMA MD ID) b D fS U U o � ° D B 11+10)) K Rm-A) He Qdtrbruuom MR14 o 1 fr 4 = i J.� CITY OF �,UNTINGTON SEACK 19 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNT1NCTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Councilmember DATE: September 11, 1995 SUBJECT: H ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF 9/18/95 Please place on the September 18, 1995, Agenda, under my H Item, the following: Since taking office about 3 years ago, I have watched the downtown and its appearance. With some chagrin, I have noticed that, with the exception of a few businesses and building owners, the general appearance of the downtown is appalling. With this in mind, I am proposing that the City Council consider the following actions. 1. Pass an ordinance similar to our weed abatement ordinance which specifies that after proper notice to clean sidewalks, pick up trash, and provide adequate dumpster capacity, the city will provide these services and charge non-complying businesses the city's overheaded costs to provide the services. 2. Make bringing dogs (except seeing eye dogs) to the downtown illegal. I and others have noticed that dogs defecate and urinate downtown with some dog owners making no attempt to correct the problem. Further, some dog owners have been observed feeding their dogs from the outside dining tables. Since downtown is now moving more and more towards outside dining, having dogs there is unsanitary and unappetizing. I believe having dogs in restaurants is illegal. 3. Pass an ordinance which makes the sale or giving away of stickers in the downtown illegal. We do this for spray cans why not for stickers. Sticker blight on traffic signs is out of control. RB:paj xc:. Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant o . jot�� Dave Garofalo 9-13-95 "H"item for 9-18-95 Council Meeting, re: Council workshop. 9-18-95 approved. Date to be determined later(H-1) City Council 9-5-95 re: Designation of voting Delegate for CA League of Cities Annual ,Conference. Approved 9-5-95 (E-14) Memo: Melanie S. Fallon 3-27-95 re: City Council appeals of Planning Commission action(H-2) Ralph Bauer 9-11-95 re: weed abatement bringing dogs to downtown, sales or giving away stickers in downtown. 9-18-95 Council concurred Bauer to meet with City Administrator& City Attorney(H-6) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication 67_a i-al gwA*N- H To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members -7_p 0 r From: Ralph Bauer, Mayor Pro Tem Q 4 Date: April 19, 2002 i Subject: "H"ITEM FOR MAY 6, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— ^� 17) RESIGNATION AS MAYOR PRO TEM _ 1\ � STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In order to smooth the transition for Connie Boardman to become Mayor in December, 2002, 1 should like to tender my resignation as Mayor Pro Tem and suggest that the Council vote to appoint City Council Member Connie Boardman as Mayor Pro Tem, effective as soon as practicable. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I move that the Council accept my resignation as Mayor Pro Tem and elect Connie Boardman as Mayor Pro Tem. RHB:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway . I t )0 _ 6b� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member -,T&r Date: June 11, 2001 Subject: "H"ITEM FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 18, 2001 — COUNCIL ABSENCE POLICY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: During the past six and one-half years of Council service, I have witnessed a plethora of ways Council Members absent themselves from Council Meetings. They have ranged from advance notice at a Council Meeting with the to be absent party bringing the issue forward all the way over to the Council Member seeking approval after the absence. While the Charter seems reasonably clear on the point, a more informal policy has dominated rather than a formal policy. This memo will attempt to draw us closer to a discussion with the advice and consent from all the parties as to how it should be done in the future. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. 1 move that we direct the City Attorney, in concurrence with the City Clerk, to establish the policy for us to deal with future absences from formal Council Meetings. In the meantime, there are several requests and past requests pending that need action: 2. 1 move to accept all past requests for City Council absences and so record them by minute action, FRom 36NLA'K( gaol 000Rb_ Finally, it would be interesting to note the attendance record for all Council Members, on say an annual basis. I would like to request that data since 1994. With a double bypass open-heart operation, two angioplasty procedures, and another major emergency surgery, I remain quite proud of my attendance record since my entry into public office. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Gail Hutton i t2k[.tlb�!; CITY CLERK CITY OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION 1001 JUN IS P 1*,4.1 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: June 14, 2001 SUBJECT: 1. RLS 2001-441. Councilmember David Garofalo. Failure to Attend Regular City Council Meetings. Possible Vacation of Public Office 2. Councilmember Garofalo's "H" Item for Council Absence Policy FACTS The last regular City Council meeting attended by Councilmember Garofalo was on May 7, 2001. Mr. Garofalo did not attend the May 21, 2001 regular Council meeting. However, on May 181n, he submitted a memorandum of that date to the Council (copy attached as Exhibit 1) indicating that it was unlikely that he would be able to attend the May 21" regular Council meeting. On June 1, 2001, preparatory to the Council's June 41h regular meeting, Mr. Garofalo submitted to the City Council his June 1st memorandum (copy attached as Exhibit 2), an "H" item dealing with the issue of swimming pool safety. Mr. Garofalo did not attend the June 4, 2001 regular Council meeting. However, on that day, Mr. Garofalo submitted to the Council his June 4th memorandum (copy attached as Exhibit 3), stating that due to the acute illness and hospitalization of a friend, he would be either late to, or unable to attend the Council's June 4tn regular meeting. When the Council, on June 41n, reached Mr. Garofalo's "H-3b" item on the agenda, Councilmember Peter Green informed the Council that he had spoken to Mr. Garofalo, that Mr. Garofalo's friend's condition was unchanged; and that he, on Mr. Garofalo's behalf, was making a motion to continue Mr. Garofalo's swimming pool safety item to the June 18tn regular Council meeting. The Council, without objection, then voted to continue Mr. Garofalo's item to its June 181n regular meeting. Copies of pages 22 and 23 of the Council's unapproved minutes for its June 4 meeting are attached to this memorandum as Exhibit 4. Over the years, the past practice by which City Council absences have been recorded has varied. They have been received and announced as "in house memos" or council letters; a councilmember may announce the absence and seek concurrent approval of Council or it may be presented to Council as an agenda item seeking approval. In his June 11, 2001 memorandum, Councilmember Garofalo raised specific substantive and procedural issues regarding Council absences. (Attached as Exhibit 5.) gh/01 memo/Garofalo Mtg H�3 Page '2 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: RLS 2001-441. Councilmember David Garofalo Failure to Attend Council Meetings CHARTER SECTION 312(B) Huntington Beach City Charter Section 312(b), in relevant part, states: "If a member of the City Council is absent from all regular meetings of the City Council for a period of thirty consecutive days from and after the last regular City Council meeting attended by such member, unless by permission of the City Council expressed in its official minutes, the office shall become vacant." (Emphasis added.) QUESTION Whether Mr. Garofalo's office, under Charter Section 312(a), has become vacant, because more than 30 days has passed since the last, May 7, 2001 regular City Council meeting that he attended. ANSWER No, for two reasons the office of Councilmember Garofalo has not become vacant. Answer 1: Because Councilmember Garofalo's motion to continue Councilmember Garofalo's H Item on the June 4, 1001, Council meeting was approved and reflected in the official Council minutes, Council gave its implied consent or permission for Councilmember Garofalo's absence and it was reflected in the official minutes. Thereby interrupting a 30 day consecutive time period, therefore no vacancy and forfeiture has occurred. Analysis 1: We find that on June 4, 2001, when the Council, in Mr. Garofalo's absence and at Mr. Green's behest, voted to continue Mr. Garofalo's swimming pool safety item to its June 18th regular meeting, and that this continuance was reflected in the Council's June 41h meeting's minutes, the Council gave its implied permission and consent for Mr. Garofalo to be absent from the June 4th meeting. Since this permission expressed in the Council's official minutes was given within 30 days after the May 7th date that Mr. Garofalo last attended a regular City Council meeting, we further determine that the Council's June 4th action constituted a "break" in the running of the 30 consecutive day time period specified in Charter Section 312(b), and that Mr. Garofalo's City Council office, as a result, did not become vacant because of his failure to attend a regular City Council meeting for a period of 30 consecutive days from and after May 7, 2001. Although not directly relevant to an analysis of Charter Section 312(b), we are impressed by Mr. Garofalo's attempts to keep the Council informed as to why he could not attend the May 21" and June 41h regular Council meetings. gh/01 memo/Garofalo Mtg Attendance Page -3 The Honorable Mayor and Members.of the City Council Re: RLS 2001-441. Councilmember David Garofalo Failure to Attend Council Meetings Answer 2: By alternative analysis the vacancy has not occurred: Since only 28 days have elapsed since the last day Councilmember Garofalo attended a regular meeting. Analysis 2 The last meeting Councilmember Garofalo attended was May 7, 2001. His absence from the 2 regular meetings May 21 and June 4 - amounted to only 28 days since the last Council meeting attended. Since 30 consecutive days had not elapsed from and after the last regular City Council meeting attended by Councilmember Garofalo, and in this instance there is not a further opportunity for a regular council meeting between the 281h and 301h day, no vacancy can occur until there has been 30 (or more) consecutive days absence. Therefore if Councilmember Garofalo attends June 18, 2001 30 consecutive days will not have elapsed to create a vacancy. CONCLUSION The June 41h minutes reflect implied approval of Councilmember Garofalo's absence on the June 41h meeting because Councilmember Green received approval of Garofalo's "H Item" to be continued to the June 18th meeting. This approval and reflection in the official minutes breaks the 30 consecutive days required for vacancy and forfeiture. In the alternative, because only 28 consecutive days and not 30 days between attendance at regular Council meetings has elapsed there is no vacancy and forfeiture of office. We would be happy to answer any additional questions the Council may have in this matter, and to work with the Council and staff in establishing any needed policies regarding implementation of Charter Section 312(b) and absences of Councilmembers from regular Council meetings to avoid the issues presented from time to time in this regard. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GCH/k Exhibits: 1) Garofalo memorandum May 18, 2001 2) Garofalo memorandum June 1, 2001 3) Garofalo memorandum June 4, 2001 4) Pages:22and 23 of Council's unapproved June 41h minutes 5) Garofalo memorandum June 11, 2001 cc: (with exhibits): Ray Silver, City Administrator Bill Workman, Assistant City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk gh/01 memo/Garofalo Mtg Attendance EXHIBIT # 1 FBCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member Date: May 18, 2001 Subject: MAY 21, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING It appears at this time that due to personal responsibilities, it is unlikely that+will be able to attend the May 21, 2001, City Council Meeting. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver / Connie Brockway,/ N = o. 2 a C �t C7 co z D rn ) L., o a (23) June 4, 2001 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 23 Councilmember Green informed Council that he had spoken to Councilmember Garofalo, who had reported that he is at the hospital with a very ill close friend. On behalf of Councilmember Garofalo, Councilmember Green asked to make a motion to continue this item. A motion was made by Green, second Dettloff to continue to June 18, 2001 in regard to directing staff to submit a draft ordinance that would require upon the close of escrow the installation of a motion detector in properties that have pools. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Garofalo Adjournment—City Council/Redevelopment Agency Mayor Julien Houchen adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, June 18 2001, at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk-Clerk Mayor-Chairman EXHIBIT #5 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member Date: June 11, 2001 Subject: "H"ITEM FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 1811 2001 — COUNCIL ABSENCE POLICY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: During the past six and one-half years of Council service, I have witnessed a plethora of ways Council Members absent themselves from Council Meetings. They_have ranged from advance notice at a Council Meeting with the to be absent party bringing the issue forward all the way over to the Council Member seeking approval after the absence. While the Charter seems reasonably clear on the point, a more informal policy has dominated rather than a formal policy. This memo will attempt to draw us closer to a discussion with the advice and consent from all the parties as to how it should be done in the future. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. 1 move that we direct the City Attorney, in concurrence with the City Clerk, to establish the policy for us to deal with future absences from formal Council Meetings. In the meantime, there are several requests and past requests pending that need action: 2. 1 move to accept all past requests for City Council absences and so record them by minute action. Finally, it would be interesting to note the attendance record for all Council Members, on say an annual basis. I would like to request that data since 1994. With a double bypass open-heart operation, two angioplasty procedures, and another major emergency surgery, I remain quite proud of my attendance record since my entry into public office. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Gail Hutton • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HU WING TONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member Date: May 18, 2001 Subject: MAY 21, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING It appears at this time that due to personal responsibilities, it is unlikely that-Fwill be able to attend the May 21, 2001, City Council Meeting. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver / Connie Brockway . 0 2 a 2 _n y n tea; 00 2 D � 4? l v c1 o a J. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member Date: June 4, 2001 Subject: JUNE 4, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING/SANDY LAIRD Sandy Laird was hospitalized several days ago. The liver cancer has become very acute. She took a serious turn for the worse today, Monday. Pending her condition, I may be either late or absent from the City Council Meeting. Should conditions worsen, I will let you know. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway x H c o z c � N z C:) r CDOrr_ D a ''� mc C Q � •D 3Q . N He CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH• HUNTING ON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member D�r - Date: June 4, 2001 Subject: JUNE 4, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING/SANDY LAIRD Sandy Laird was hospitalized several days ago. The liver cancer has become very acute. She took a serious turn for the worse today, Monday. Pending her condition, I may be either late or absent from the City Council Meeting. Should conditions worsen, I will let you know. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway • CITY OF HUNTINGTON.BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members - From: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member Date: May 18, 2001 Subject: MAY 21, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING It appears at this time that due to personal responsibilities, it is unlikely that I will be able to attend the May 21, 2001, City Council Meeting. DG:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway r'• (33) June 4, 2001 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 33 Councilmember Bauer read from the City Charter the rationale for property tax collection. He informed Council that he will not be able to support the item, stating his belief that the city is paying employees a fair retirement benefit in comparison with other cities. Councilmember Dettloff concurred with Councilmember Bauer, stating that the 5% shortfall in the General Fund resulting in the reduction of city services is going to make a difference in people's lifestyles. A motion was made by Cook, second Boardman to adopt Resolution No. 2001-33 — "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Suspending for Fiscal Year 200112002 the Property Tax Override to Pay for Employee Retirement Benefits." The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen NOES: Green, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: Garofalo (City Council) Continued to June 18, 2001 Re: Swimming Pool Safety - Direct Preparation of a Draft Ordinance to Require Upon Close of Escrow, the Installation of Motion Detectors in Properties with Pools ( ) The City Council considered a communication received from Councilmember Dave Garofalo transmitting the following Statement of Issue: We lost another child to drowning, the second in the year 2001! 1 have had the opportunity to meet with staff members, professional water sport educators, and members of the water recreation industry. There is a myriad of devices, costing as low as $100.00, that could help save a child's life. The solution was brought forward by both public and private sector participants that very inexpensive motion detectors would help avoid this tragedy in the future. There is no absolute preventive method or policy; however, the following recommendation is a step in the right direction. I am not asking for emergency level efforts in an otherwise already burdened staff. Some research from other communities is available and I would hope we could see a draft before year-end. • (34) June 4, 2001 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 34 Councilmember Green informed Council that he spoke to Councilmember Garofalo, who had reported that Sandi Laird is still in the hospital and is quite ill. On behalf of Councilmember Garofalo, Councilmember Garofalo asked to make a motion to continue this item. A motion was made by Green, second Dettloff to continue to June 18, 200 to in regard to directing staff to submit a draft ordinance that would require upon the close of escrow the installation of a motion detector in properties that have pools. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Garofalo Adjournment—City Council/Redevelopment Agency Mayor Julien Houchen adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, June 18 2001, at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: Me- Ca ?/C!�►�, 9 /°p�4�'Prlc�q�6 �ur�c�/��„d�y,�ardll5 of C-Dlrnc�//4J�,e�r� n��9 - - - - - -. A i O 7-,4 ------- ------- 17ee�7 = /n 9/12/94- 12/94 2000 Moulton-Patterson 2 Bauer 3 02, -r I Silva 3 3 Julien 2 d. �- D Silva ille 1 0 Garofalo 4 a + - Harman 5 3 1995 Green 1 0 av I 2001 Bauer 5 4 a, i Harman 4 a q., -4, Bauer 1 -� Sullivan 3 I Q- E- Garofalo 3 Leipzig Julien Houchen 1 1996 Leipzig 3 a- qt- Harman 5 / �✓ e-� , J Green 2 Bauer 3 a= Dettloff 1 0 f `' 1997 J Garofalo .2 Green 2 ,Z 4 D Sullivan 0 D 5 Harman 4 4 1 1 Dettloff 12 0 Bauer 1 I 1998 Green 3 6.2- + 1 Bauer 1 1, -+ Julien 7 Garofalo 4 01 -) OL - Harman 12 0 + Sullivan 14 0 + ; 1999 Green 2 1 �- I Julien ,6 :3 a- 3 Harman 2 1 ci- 1 . Bauer 2 al- Garofalo 1 a- D Sullivan 1 I c+- ` r � / l o _1' -�� f Bin. r 1' y f W `E G �r I �r i y-i ► 61 IL cif � Ll ;i �i i i� 1 i it D f" �7._ - i' t_6 1 t �i r 1 r f a� I r � __ - t, - - i -- - - - - - PIP - - - _ Jf 97 II I ®p 60 t p t7 nA L.6L , : f ac CIO / 00 r id, / tor J1 - e- A " - VLj l" 'D • CITY CLERK J. CITY CR WHIT`NG,i4i C 4CH. CA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA ZAhY 11 Inter-Department Communication TO: Honorable Peter Green,Mayor, and Members of the City Council FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: May 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Public Comments at Council Meetings INDEX: Internal Organization and Operation; City Council; Public Meetings; Brown Act; First Amendment BACKGROUND The Mayor has asked for advice regarding the available options to maintain order at City Council meetings when a citizen uses the"public comments"portion of the meeting to verbally attack a public official or employee. We note that the City Council Agenda document contains the following statement: "The City Council welcomes public comments on all items on the Agenda or of community interest. We respectfully request that this public forum be utilized in a positive and/or constructive manner. Please focus your comments on the issue or problem that you would like to bring to the attention of the City Council. Negative comments directed at individuals are not acceptable." Most speakers at Council meetings are able to communicate their point without resorting to personal attacks, abuse, or profane remarks that could be deemed disruptive to the meeting in general. Occasionally,however, a speaker will use the podium to launch a disruptive diatribe against an individual public official or employee. Recently, several Council meetings have involved speakers who have tested this Council request. (See attached sample transcripts from City Council meetings October 5 and November 2, 1998; February 22, March 15, and April 19, 1999.) Please note that a cold reading of the transcripts may be less inflammatory than viewing the actual videotape of the cited comments. The demeanor, tone and gestures of each speaker contribute to the overall impression of the disruptive nature of their presentation. 1 4/s:4-99Memos:M&CC0430 ISSUES 1. Given that the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, what legal rules and principles govern the use of the public comments portion of the City Council meetings? Answer: The Mayor may rule"out-of-order"public comments that actually disturb or impede the meeting. Further,profane or repetitive remarks are out-of-order. However, personal attacks on City officials, even slanderous ones, are protected by the First Amendment. 2. What action can the Mayor take if a city official or employee is verbally attacked by a speaker during the"public comments"portion of the meeting? Answer: As the moderator of the City Council meeting, the Mayor has a difficult job that involves a great deal of discretion. The Mayor cannot rule a comment out of order merely because he disagrees with it, or even if the speaker passionately attacks and even slanders specific members of City Staff. However, a comment can be ruled out of order if it is disruptive, unduly repetitive, or largely irrelevant, as further discussed below. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1424-26 (91h Cir. 1990).) There is no precisely determinable point at which a public comment strays from legitimate public discussion; for this reason, the Mayor's duty to maintain order in the public meeting is a difficult job. 3. Are Councilmembers obligated to stay and listen to personal attacks or abusive comments? Answer: No. 4. If several Councilmembers leave the room during an abusive or disruptive comment, can the quorum be lost? Answer: Yes. If too many Councilmembers leave the room, the quorum may be lost and the meeting may be suspended until a quorum is re-established. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adoption of rules to prevent disruption of meetings. The City Council can adopt a narrowly drawn ordinance that prohibits "personal, impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks which are disruptive"during public meetings. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990.) The City Council may also adopt reasonable rules for decorum at its meetings, or a policy regarding which portions of City Council meetings will be broadcast on television. An ordinance from the City of Norwalk that has been reviewed by the courts and has been deemed to be constitutional is attached hereto. 2. Chair's authority to halt disruptions. As the Chair of the meeting, the Mayor has many tools to halt disruption of the meeting. We would suggest the following: a. A speaker may not be ruled out-of-order if he calls a senior official a"liar,"or a "cheat"or a"law breaker." However, if he repeats the charge from meeting to meeting, or 2 4/s:4-99Memos:M&CC0430 during the course of his comments at a single meeting, then he can be cautioned to provide specifics. If he chooses not to, he can be ruled out-of-order or unduly repetitive, even if he has not used his entire three minutes. b. A certain level of decorum and civility can be enforced. Profanity or shouting should not be tolerated. Like a court proceeding, respect should be shown to the institution of the City Council, and toward City officials, even if the speaker may vehemently disagree with an individual official or a City policy. C. No one should be found out-of-order without first receiving a warning. If, after a polite warning is given and ignored, the Sergeant-at-Arms may be requested to escort the disruptive speaker from the meeting. 3. Disagreement with speaker's view insufficient. As discussed above, the Chair may not seek to silence a speaker merely because he disagrees with the speaker's view. In order to be curtailed, the speaker must be disruptive to the orderly business of the meeting. For instance, in Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 67 F.3d 266 (9" Cir. 1995), a speaker was ejected from the meeting when he was disrupting the proceedings by yelling and trying to speak when it was not his turn at the podium. The court held that an ejection under those circumstances was legitimate and permissible. (Kindt, 67 F.3d at 271.) Thus, disagreement with the speaker's view is not enough, in order to be removed, the speaker must be causing a disruption of the meeting. ANALYSIS (1) Right to Testify (a) Public's Right to Testify. The public has a right to address the City Council at any meeting. (Cal. Gov't Code § 54954.3(a).) The right to express one's views in a public place is fundamental to a free society; however, it is not absolute and is. subject to valid regulation. As a branch of the government, the City Council has a need to manage speech within its institutions. When the government is managing the internal affairs of its own institutions, First Amendment principles are subject to the pressure of special administrative circumstances and undergo corresponding modification. (Post, "Between Governments and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum," 34 UCLA Law Review 1713, 1785 (1987). (b) Reasonable Time, Place, and Manner Regulations. A City Council meeting, particularly the public comment portion, is a"limited public forum." (Madison Joint School Dist. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 429 U.S. 167, 175, 97 S.Ct. 421 (1976); White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) "Public forums" are essentially "soapboxes,"where the right to free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. "Limited" public forums are subject to valid "time, place, and manner"regulations. (Heffron V. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 101 S.Ct. 2559 (1981).) Therefore, city councils have authority to limit speech through the imposition of agendas and rules of order and decorum, many of which are plainly contrary to ordinary First Amendment principles. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) However, the regulations on public comments must be reasonable. (Id.) 3 4/s:4-99Memos:M&CC0430 (2) Permissible Forms of Re ulation (a) Request-to-Speak Requirements. A City Council may require members of the public wishing to address the City Council to fill out a speaker's card and submit it to the city clerk. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) (b) Time Limits. A City Council may regulate the total amount of time on particular issues and for each individual speaker, subject to the requirements of due process. (Cal. Gov't Code § 54954.3(b). See also 75 Cal. Ops. Att'y Gen. 89 (1992), upholding time limits.) Many cities place a time limit on comments by the public, unless it is otherwise prohibited by law, to ensure all members of the public have an opportunity to speak and the council is able to complete its business. Time limits.of one to five minutes are not unusual. In order to effectively enforce a time limit, the city clerk should monitor the time for each speaker, but the mayor should be responsible for enforcing the time limit. (c) Repetitious or Irrelevant Comments. Irrespective of any time limits, the City Council may regulate a speaker who is speaking too long, by being unduly repetitious or by extended discussion of irrelevancies. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) A moderator is vested with a great deal of discretion to determine at which point-speech becomes unduly repetitious or irrelevant. (Id.) (d) Spokesperson for Groups. The right to limit testimony on a given subject implies the right to request a spokesperson be chosen for a group and/or limit the number of such persons addressing the council whenever a group of persons wishes to address the council on the same subject matter. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 54954.3.) (e) Enforcement. A City Council may rule speakers out-of-order for cause. A speaker may not be ruled out-of-order due to the substance of the comments, unless irrelevant to the subject at hand. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) For example, the public comments can be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. (3) Content-Oriented Regulation (a) Political Speech. Under the 1993 amendments to the Brown Act, a City Council may not prohibit public criticism of the policies,procedures,programs, or services of an agency or its acts or omissions. (Cal. Gov't Code 54954.3;Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District, 936 F. Supp. 719 (C.D. Cal. 1996).) When a citizen is given the right to speak at a City Council meeting,his or her speech is considered political speech. (Perry Educational Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37, 60, 103, S. Ct. 948 (1983).) As such, a speaker may not be stopped from speaking because the moderator disagrees with the viewpoint he or she is expressing. (Perry Educational Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37, 60, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983).) Similarly, speech may not be limited by restricting television coverage for some speakers,but not others. This rule was recently affirmed in Baca, supra,where the court invalidated a school district's policy that prohibited oral or written presentations in open session that included charges or complaints against any district employee. During a board meeting, a speaker named and 4 4/s:4-99Memos:M&CC0430 complained about two district employees. The speaker was informed that she had violated the Board's policy, and was physically removed from the meeting by sheriff's deputies. In analyzing this issue, the Federal District Court confronted the Ninth Circuit's (a higher, appellate court) earlier decision in White, which upheld a City of Norwalk ordinance prohibiting "personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks"to the Council, Staff or general public. Although this ordinance arguably had a broad reach,the City restricted its meaning to remarks that"actually disturbs or impedes the meeting." The Ninth Circuit held that such an ordinance is constitutional. The Baca decision was a 1996 decision from a lower court. In this case, at issue was whether speech that was slander could be prohibited. (Slander is a false, oral communication which: (1) charges any person with crime, or(2) tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business. Civil Code § 46.) The City argued that because defamatory statements in a public meeting are "privileged"under state law which means the victims of such speech are essentially prohibited from suing, even if defamed, the City should be able to prohibit such speech. Nevertheless, the Court held that such a prohibition is unconstitutional. Consequently, under the First Amendment, citizens are free to slander public officials during the public comments period of a city council meeting without fear of legal retribution. (b) Fighting Words. "Fighting words" are usually intended as a personal insult to the person addressed,which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. (Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 429 U.S. 167, 175, n.8, 97 S. Ct. 421 (1976).) "Fighting words" are not protected by the first amendment. (Id.) Offensive language, however, does not necessarily constitute"fighting words." (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971),regarding the phrase"F---the Draft.") (c) Test for Disruptive Speech. The test is whether the speech is"disruptive." By the very nature of a City Council meeting, a speaker can become"disruptive" in ways that would not meet the test of actual breach of the peace (Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 526-527, 92 S. Ct. 1103 (1972), or of"fighting words" likely to provoke immediate combat. (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S. Ct. 766 (1942).) An ordinance prohibiting speech which actually causes disruption is constitutional. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) (4) Overbreadth and Vagueness Any ordinance regulating speech at council meetings must be narrowly drafted or narrowly construed so speech is regulated only when it disturbs, or impedes the meeting. (White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).) The ordinance should restrict speech only when it"disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting." (Id.) Prohibiting speech alone would likely render the ordinance fatally vague and overbroad, under well- recognized first amendment doctrine. (Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 (1972).) 5 4/s:4-99Memos:M&CC0430 (5) Right to Make Rules The City Council may make reasonable rules to control the manner in which the public participates at its meetings. (Nevens v. City of Chino, 233 Cal.App.2d 775, 44 Cal.Rptr. 50 (1965).) The council has absolute right to adopt and enforce rules and regulations necessary to protect its public meetings. (Id.) (6) Disorderly Conduct The City Council may exclude or expel all persons from a meeting where a disturbance has been created which will not allow the meeting to continue unimpeded. (Cal. Gov't Code § 54957.9; see also White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990), holding that certain expression and conduct in connection with City Council meetings may be prohibited under "breach of the peace" or"disorderly conduct"ordinances, provided such ordinances are narrowly drafted or narrowly construed.) In the event the meeting is willfully interrupted by groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored, the members may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. (Cal. Gov't Code § 54957.9.) Any person in the audience who engages in disorderly conduct, which disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting, may be punished pursuant to the rules of conduct established by the City Council and may be removed. (Cal.Gov't Code § 36813; Cal.Gov't Code § 54957.9.) However, such rules may not "prohibit public criticism of the policies,procedures, programs or services of the [city] or of the acts or omission of the legislative body." (Cal.Gov't Code § 54954.3(c), exempting public criticism of government practices and policies.) Additionally, any person who willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Cal. Penal Code § 403.) (7) Exception for Journalists However, in a disruptive situation,journalists who are not involved in the disturbance must be permitted to attend the continued session. (Cal. Gov't Code § 54957.9.) (8) Readmission The City Council may establish a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting. (Cal. Gov't Code § 54957.9.) (9) Punishment The City Council "may punish a member or other person for disorderly behavior at a meeting." (Cal. Gov't Code § 36813; but see 76 Cal. Ops. Att'y Gen. 289 (December 30, 1993), concluding that a city may not adopt an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to disclose the substance of closed session discussions.) 6 4/s:4-99M emos:M&CC0430 (10) Microphones/TV Broadcast The Brown Act requires that no legislative body of a local agency shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings. (Cal. Gov't Code 54953.6.) Past practice in Huntington Beach has been to televise the public comments portion of City Council meetings, and to allow speakers to use the microphone. However, neither the Brown Act nor the Huntington Beach City Charter require the City to televise its own meetings, or any portion thereof. We believe that the City Council could adopt a policy or ordinance concerning the television broadcast of its meetings that defines what portions of the meeting will be broadcast, although we do not recommend excluding only the public comment portion of the Agenda. Further the Council may not make"on the spot" determinations regarding whether or not certain speakers will be allowed on television. If you have any further questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney Attachments: 1. Transcripts from Public Comments of October 5 and November 2, 1998, and February 22, March 15, and April 19, 1999 2. Norwalk City Ordinance Chapter 2-1.2 c: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk 7 4/s:4-99Memos:M&CC0430 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS OF JOHN BRISCOE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1998 RE CITY TREASURER VIOLATION OF CITY CODE AND CHARTER MR. BRISCOE: Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council and Viewing Citizens in Huntington Beach: I'm here to expose the situation of dastardly dirty deeds in the elected offices of City Treasurer and City Attorney. First, let me explain how the offices work. MAYOR DETTLOFF: Mr. Briscoe— MR. BRISCOE: Yes. MAYOR DETTLOFF: --could you give us your name for the record. MR. BRISCOE: John Briscoe. Thank you. The City Attorney is responsible for enforcement of City Code and Ordinance on all those—all of those, including elected officials. The City Treasurer is responsible for administering her office following rules of conduct established in the City Charter in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The City Treasurer must follow the law, and the City Attorney must enforce the law. These two people are responsible to nobody and no one, except for elections a couple times each decade. So, if the Treasurer violates the City Charter and Municipal Code and if the City Attorney fails to do her job to enforce the law, there is no recourse. These two folks report to no city council, they are accountable to no city administrator, and they answer only to themselves. However, today, they must answer to us, the public, that pays their elected salaries. The City Treasurer stands accused of—well, apparent high crimes and misdemeanors, and her repeated multiple violations of the City Charter and Municipal Codes. The City Attorney has investigated these violations, babbled back in legal-beagle, apparently, confirming City Treasurer failure to perform and then not only failed to take any action to do her job in enforcing the law. The charges against our elected City Treasurer are serious and significant. In the selection and awarding of pub--her public contracts, the Treasurer has given away millions and millions of dollars without comparative bid in apparent violation of Municipal Code Chapter 3, Section B. To add insult to idiocy, she has provided no written statement of specifications, conditions or requirements of her special chosen favorite million-dollar vendor in apparent violation of Municipal Code Section A. You know, hey, wouldn't you like millions of dollars handed to you without any written standards of performance? Not only is it poor public policy, it's also a clear and apparent violation of our city laws. And these are only the first two. There are many other—more than there—which I'll explain at later upcoming Council Meetings. gh/tran scrp/Briscoe/100598 0 Briscoe Transcript October 5, 1998 ,Page 2 Ladies and gentlemen of the City Council, you must bear with me, as this is the only forum available to make the City Attorney, Gail Hutton, and the City Treasurer accountable to the voters. Gail Hutton must enforce the city laws. She has been requested to do this in several letters and failed to take any apparent action. What we have here is a mutual admiration society of elected officials: the City Attorney patting the City Treasurer on their mutual back, full of self-congratulation on their good fortune as being elected instead of appointed. Gail Hutton has not responded to any of these specific violations as I have requested. No, not in an election year. And they're serious. They are multi-multimillion-dollar violations of code. Gail Hutton apparently will take no action without the City calling her. And I'm asking tonight please call Gail Hutton. Her phone number is 536-5555. 536-555. Call her and ask her to enforce the City Code and Ordinance on the City Treasurer so that City Treasurer follows the Code and Ordinance, just like everybody else has to, with City audits of outside accounts, which she doesn't do, with multiple vendors and competitive bidding, as well as contracts that meet city standards—which they don't. And I'll explain more about that in future Council Meetings. But please, call Gail. 55—or 536-5555 and ask her to enforce the Code with the City Treasurer. Thank you. And I passed out the, uh—several of the letters and communications, and I've also copied Shirley—you—on behalf of the City Council with the specific Charter violations and the City Code violations for your review. MAYOR DETTLOFF: I received it. MR. BRISCOE: Thank you. gh/transcrp/Briscoe/100598 0 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS OF JOHN BRISCOE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1998 RE CITY TREASURER VIOLATION OF CITY CODE AND CHARTER `.`Hello. I'm John Briscoe. Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council: I have a handout for you. I'm here with good news and bad news. Let me share the bad news first. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Grand Jury system used by Judge Kevin Starr to investigate alleged violations of the law by our President. Well, the Orange County Grand Jury has initiated its investigations of alleged violations of the law by our City elected officials. They are evaluating City Code and Charter law-breaking by our Treasurer, Shari Freidenrich. Additionally, they are looking into the failure of City Attorney Gail Hutton to enforce the law. So, the bad news is one elected City official is breaking the law with an inappropriate relationship with her vendor, and another is refusing to do her job and enforce the law. The good news is that from this grand jury investigation—the Orange County Grand Jury—we might fully get fair and equal law enforcement by Gail Hutton. However, that is riot all tonight. It was with great shock and dismay that we watched Shari Freidenrich admit before the cameras during the last City Council meeting that she was an indeed in violation of City Code requirements for three bids when she confessed her intentions to finally bring it before City Council. However, during her frank and public admission of contract-bidding wrongdoing, Ms. Freidenrich tried to cover up and minimize her errors by claiming the amount given away"was only—to her vendor was only$200,000." Well, ladies and gentlemen of the City and Council and the city, it was a shameful sight to watch Ms. Freidenrich soil herself, or misspeak herself, or lie; take your pick. From her own records handed to me, the amount given to her personal vendor for collections administered in her department and her sole responsibility was 2,709,855 dollars and 14 pennies in the first five months of 1998 alone. I've enclosed the personal records of Ms. Freidenrich that just came to light from her own department that were conveniently missing last time, proving this. And you have those as attachments, and I've highlighted and arrow-marked all the amounts. If Ms. Freidenrich wants to define her arcane reference to $200,000—to "...only 200,000, less than one percent of the budget..." Let's also ask her to define the words "alone" and the verb "is." Perhaps she can tell us that if she thought it was the truth in her mind when she lied that it must be all right even if her perjury before the citizens that elected her becomes apparent. Shari, please de-soil yourself. Apologize for your misstatements of financial facts regarding your personal collection vendor hired in violation of City minimum-bid and administration standards. Tell us you will obey the City Code and the Charter starting now, and follow the rules like the rest of us. Thank you very much." ghRranscrp/Briscoe/l10298 c Now we have DAVE FLYNN speaking at the Council meeting of February 22, 1999. FLYNN: My name is David Flynn, and I think most of the people on the Council already know me...and what I say, I usually follow through with. And what I think we need to talk about tonite, is what does this development mean to the members of the City Council. And, I'm here to tell you that this piece of land is more important, and is better known to this State,more important than just to the people here in the City Council, or the people in Huntington Beach, it is a statewide issue. And if any of you wish to hold further public office, or maybe you can get back into THIS office again, I suggest you vote INTO on the annexation, and you do everything possible to make sure that there are no homes built on there. Because I am telling you when you run for re-election, if nobody else does it, I'll do it. I will bring this issue up, and it will follow you like a DAMN DOG the day you get out of office wherever you are....and I'm telling you this is a very important decision..DON'T BANG THAT GAVEL AGAIN AT ME...I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THAT....BUT SOMEONE SHOULD TAKE THAT DAMN THING AWAY FROM YOU...AND I'M GOING TO FINISH SPEAKING...SO YOU BANG ALL THE WAY YOU WANT...AND I'M SPEAKING TO YOU SPECIFICALLY...MR. GREEN... MAYOR: Sergeant at Arms, will you control this if you possible have to... FLYNN: This is a free public forum Mr. Green, and you can bang it all you want but I'm going to keep talking. You are the person I am speaking directly to. You've been opposed to all of the Bosa Chica movement... you ran your campaign saying that you were in favor of no development...but now we see'that you are basically 1 0 against everything here that is trying to oppose development-so I am complaining one more time Mr. Green, if you vote in favor of annexation, or you vote on any issue that results in the building on that piece of land of homes, it will haunt you forever...so I suggest you plan retirement if you do that. I will be there, and I am than ou and I will last longer than ou...and I will follow you wherever younger Y g Y Y � you run for office...and I promise you I will make sure this issue follows you as well. ... MAYOR: (making comments under other speaker) FLYNN: ...votes to build homes...you are giving up the most important piece of land in this city, that has a chance to put this city on the map, for doing something right. That housing tract is not going to put us on the map, so like I said, if you want to end your career here, put those houses on there. (applause) MAYOR: Next speaker please. 2 0 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS OF JOHN BRISCOE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 15, 1999 RE: SHARI FREIDENRICH Lies, lies, lies and lots more lies. Yes, I'm here to.talk about Shari Freidenrich. But first, City Council let me talk to you and thank you for appointing a committee to keep a cold, steely eye on our City Treasurer. One that meets once a quarter Would you please announce your name please John Briscoe and keeps an eye and a tab on things but I'd like to tell you first about her first fib - that we know of-when it was revealed that Shari Freidenrich was giving away City money without competitive bid. At that time she claimed it was under$20,000 claiming exemption. Well then she publicly confessed to City Council that in fact the real amount was that she claimed $200,000. Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive. We discovered that the true figure was millions and millions of dollars over the years. I wrote Shari a letter and said you stated in public forum before the TV cameras and City Council that your personal vendor Dataline Credit has been given 2.7 million dollars from 1985 to May, 1998. You admitted your vendor was a multi-million dollar- 2.9 million vendor. And to our contradiction to your previous statement of the vendor only being a small $20,000 or $200,000 vendor. While we are happy to have you confess your mistake into the public record, your new assertion must also be examined. I demand you provide and produce the records of accounts turned over to Dataline Credit for the past 13 years to prove your claim. But let me have you understand the position you've put yourself into. I'm not going to go into it any further because she has some other math problems with her calculations. Well, in public forum for the City Council and the citizens and the TV cameras, she was emphatic that it was a 2.7 million amount turned over to her collection agency over the course of the entire 13 years. Then she turned around and wrote you City Council a secret memo which I've obtained a copy of. Now it may not been apparent to you in the memo that she was contradicting herself any trying to cover, but I have it here and I'd like to read it to you if that's okay. Its to the Honorable City Council Members, Ray Silver and Melaine Fallon, and its dated October 19`h. In response to John Briscoe's public comments City Council meeting, I submit the following - oh this is from Shari Freidenrich. Shari you want to stand up so they can see you? No I wouldn't stand up either, stay down. She goes on to say I am unable to locate any information in the files from prior years regarding the total dollar spent on collections on an annual basis. Repeat: I cannot locate any information. Now listen to this: I have requested this information from our collection agency. That's like the chicken in the hen house asking the fox to tell us what's going on in the hen house. That's an alleged CPA that's writing this. But the problem is that we have a City Treasurer who isn't, well I guess, I don't know what she's doing to the treasurery, she's giving away and thank you very much for having this meeting to keep a close eye on her. I'll be bringing up some additional information for your consumption. I don't have any more secret memos to bring up but, keep a close eye on her and her accounting. Thank you very much. gh/transcript/Bri scoe/31599 c Public Comment Made By John Briscoe at City Council Meeting of April 19, 1999 BRISCOE: I am John Briscoe and I want to congratulate Councilman Bob Bauer for taking a bold and dangerous political move last month. Councilman Bauer has hitched his political bandwagon onto Shari Friedenrich's City Treasurer's engine. However, Councilman Bauer, you should be warned that your wagon won't be pulled very far. There's not very much fire power there in that engine if you know what I mean. But even as Councilman Bauer has staked his political reputation on Shari Friedenrichs, let me thank him... MAYOR: I would like to interrupt you for a moment, ....every time you come up here, you are.... (inaudible)....our City Clerk...our City Treasurer....and I ...think....it is necessary for me to read for you each time....which everyone else would have...(reading) `..we welcome all public comments we...we respectfully request this be utilized in a positive or constructive manner...please focus your comments on the issue or problem that you would like to bring to the attention of the City Council. Negative comments directed at individuals are not acceptable. I hope you remain within the norm.' BRISCOE: Well, when we lie and cheat, I guess, I assume you will have to tell me if that is negative or not, because that is what we are going to talk about...and that is Shari Friedenrich's first lie at S20,000.00 where she told us that the contract amount.... .. .yes.... ATTACHMENT 1 1 MAYOR: I just turned off your podium. That is true under the Constitution that you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right as far as I know in the Constitution, to a public address system, or to an audience....right? BRISCOE: ...um, and you're the mayor....(tape slows inaudible) ...Shari Friedenrich first told us of...her...was exempt from bidding because it was under 520,000.00, and then she came back and lied to us again and corrected her first lie and told us the correct figure was 5200,000.00, and then she came back again, and covered her previous lies by telling the Community TV cameras that the figure was actually 52.0 million dollars, and that the final lie or truth, or whatever, when Shari Friedenrich sent her secret memo to the City Council admitting that she was utterly and totally clueless on how much money her collection agency had ever actually been given. And Councilman Bauer, could you please explain how your political protege Shari Friedenrich is unable to tell the difference between $20,000.00, S200,000.00, S2 million, or `I don't know anything at all"? Maybe you should unhitch your bandwagon from her engine before you plunge. But actually, Councilmembers, what I do is implore you to carefully monitor all Treasury activities and make her obey the City Charter, which she is not doing, with annual audits of her collection accounts, and make her comply with the law in the City Charter to present an annual report on her multi-million dollar collections account. We have made her submit this out for public bidding, which she refused to do, which Gail Hutton also supported a refusal, contrary to City Code, she finally put it out for bid. Would you please make her follow the City Charter. If you don't like the lies and the stories she's told, at least make her 2 follow the law, our Charter in this City, and submit her collection agency to annual audits to be presented to you, and make her (TAPE SLOWS INAUDIBLE)... MAYOR: (TAPE INAUDIBLE) I have requested that the television be turned off so, you will be swearing to the audience here... I'm not depriving you of the freedom of speech and the assembly here, but again the Constitution does not allow or does not guarantee you television time. BRISCOE: That's absolutely fine. And you also need to have ...or provide the annual report in addition to the audit to the City Council as required under City Charter which she has yet to do. Thank you very much. MAYOR: (TAPE INAUDIBLE) Mr. Sullivan... SULLIVAN: (INAUDIBLE)..I don't agree with the last speaker, but I certainly don't agree with interfering with people's Constitutional rights. MAYOR: (BOTH SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)...Constitutional rights... SULLIVAN; Well sir I think you are. MAYOR: I DON'T THINK I AM. (emphasis added) SULLIVAN: Alright. MAYOR: Do we have any other speakers? FEMALE VOICE: The last speaker, Christopher Cole..(name inaudible) 3 Public Comment Made By John Briscoe at City Council Meeting of April 19, 1999 BRISCOE: I am John Briscoe and I want to congratulate Councilman Bob Bauer for taking a bold and dangerous political move last month. Councilman Bauer has hitched his political bandwagon onto Shari Friedenrich's City Treasurer's engine. However, Councilman Bauer, you should be warned that your wagon won't be pulled very far. There's not very much fire power there in that engine if you know what I mean. But even as Councilman Bauer has staked his political reputation on Shari Friedenrichs, let me thank him... MAYOR:- I would like to interrupt you for a moment, ....every time you come up here, you are.... (inaudible)....our City Clerk...our City Treasurer....and I ...think....it is necessary for me to read for you each time....which everyone else would have...(reading) `..we welcome all public comments we...we respectfully request this be utilized in a positive or constructive manner...please focus your comments on the issue or problem that you would like to bring to the attention of the City Council. Negative comments directed at individuals are not acceptable. I hope you remain within the norm.' BRISCOE: Well, when we lie and cheat, I guess, I assume you will have to tell me if that is negative or not, because that is what we are going to talk about...and that is Shari Friedenrich's first lie at 520,000.00 where she told us that the contract amount.... .. .yes.... ATTACHMENT 1 1 i MAYOR: I just turned off your podium. That is true under the Constitution that you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right as far as I know in the Constitution, to a public address system, or to an audience....right? BRISCOE: ...um, and you're the mayor....(tape slows inaudible) ...Shari Friedenrich first told us of...her...was exempt from bidding because it was under 520,000.00, and then she came back and lied to us again and corrected her first lie and told us the correct figure was $200,000.00, and then she came back again, and covered her previous lies by telling the Community TV cameras that the figure was actually $2.0 million dollars, and that the final lie or truth, or whatever, when Shari Friedenrich sent her secret memo to the City Council admitting that she was utterly and totally clueless on how much money her collection agency had ever actually been given. And Councilman Bauer, could you please explain how your political protege Shari Friedenrich is unable to tell the difference between $20,000.00, S200,000.00, S2 million, or `I don't know anything at all"? Maybe you should unhitch your bandwagon from her engine before you plunge. But actually, Councilmembers, what I do is implore you to carefully monitor all Treasury activities and make her obey the City Charter, which she is not doing, with annual audits of her collection accounts, and make her comply with the law in the City Charter to present an annual report on her multi-million dollar collections account. We have made her submit this out for public bidding, which she refused to do, which Gail Hutton also supported a refusal, contrary to City Code, she finally put it out for bid. Would you please make her follow the City Charter. If you don't like the lies and the stories she's told, at least make her e 2 follow the law, our Charter in this City, and submit her collection agency to annual audits to be presented to you, and make her(TAPE SLOWS INAUDIBLE)... MAYOR: (TAPE INAUDIBLE) I have requested that the television be turned off so, you will be swearing to the audience here... I'm not depriving you of the freedom of speech and the assembly here,but again the Constitution does not allow or does not guarantee you television time. BRISCOE: That's absolutely fine. And you also need to have ...or provide the annual report in addition to the audit to the City Council as required under City Charter which she has yet to do. Thank you very much. MAYOR: (TAPE INAUDIBLE) Mr. Sullivan... SULLIVAN: (INAUDIBLE)..I don't agree with the last speaker,but I certainly don't agree with interfering with people's Constitutional rights. MAYOR: (BOTH SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)...Constitutional rights... SULLIVAN; Well sir I think you are. MAYOR: I DON'T THINK I AM. (emphasis added) SULLIVAN: Alright. MAYOR: Do we have any other speakers? FEMALE VOICE: The last speaker, Christopher Cole..(name inaudible) 3 0 04/28/99 13:47 FAX 562 929 5773 CITY OF NORWALI{ 10 001 Norwalk, California Code of Ordinances 2-1.2 Rules of Decorum for Meetings. a. Decorum. Meetings of the City Council shall be conducted in an orderly manner to ensure that the public has a full opportunity to be heard and that the deliberative process of the Council is retained at all times. The presiding officer of the Council, who shall be the Mayor, Vice Mayor or, in their absence, other member so designated by the Council, shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. b. Rules of Decorum. While any meeting of the City Council is in session, the following rules of order and decorum shall be observed: 1. Councilmembers. The members of the City Council shall preserve order and decorum, and a member shall not by conversation or other means delay or interrupt the Council proceedings or disturb any other member while speaking. 2. City Staff Members. Employees of the City shall observe the same rules of order and decorum as those which apply to the members of Council. 3. Persons Addressing the Council. Public oral communications at the City Council meetings should not be a substitute for any item that can be handled during the normal working hours of the municipal government. The primary purpose of oral communications is to allow citizens the opportunity to formally communicate with the City Council as a whole, for matters that cannot be handled during the regular working hours of the City government. Each person who addresses the Council shall do so in an orderly manner and shall not make personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks to any member of the Council, staff or general public. Any person who makes such remarks, or who utters loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, or engages in any other disorderly conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any Council meeting shall, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the Council, be barred from further audience before the Council during that meeting. 4. Members of the Audience. No person in the audience at a Council meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including the utterance of loud, threatening or abusive language, whistling, stamping of feet or other acts which disturb, disrupt or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any Council meeting. Any person who conducts himself in the aforementioned manner shall, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the Council, be barred from further audience before the Council during that meeting. C. Addressing the CounciL A person wishing to address the Council regarding an item which is on the Council meeting agenda shall submit a request on the form provided, or he may seek recognition by the presiding officer of the Council during discussion of any such item. Persons wishing to discuss a non-agenda item may seek recognition by the presiding officer during the "Oral Communications" portion of the meeting. No person shall address the Council American Legal Publishing Corporation 1 ATTACHMENT 3 APR-23-1999 13:48 562 929 5773 96% P.01 04/28/99 13:48 FAX 562 929 5773 CITY OF NORWALK Z 002 Norwalk, California Code of Ordinances without first being recognized by the presiding officer. The following procedures shall be observed by persons addressing the Council: 1. Each person shall step to the podium provided for the use of the public and shall state his name and address; the organization, if any, which he represents; and, if during the "Oral Communications" portion of the meeting, the subject he wishes to discuss. 2. During the "Oral Communications" portion, any subject which is not deemed relevant by the Council shall be concluded. 3. Each person shall confine his remarks to the Council agenda item or approved "Oral Communications" subject being discussed. 4. Each person shall limit his remarks to five (5)minutes,unless further time is granted by the Council. S. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any single member thereof, unless in response to a question from said member. 6. No question may be asked of a member of the Council or of the City staff without permission of the presiding officer. d. Lnforcement of Decorum. The rules of decorum set forth above shall be enforced in the following manner: 1. fflaaning The presiding officer shall request that a person who is breaching the rules of decorum be orderly and silent. If, after receiving a warning from the presiding officer, a person persists in disturbing the meeting, the presiding officer shall order him to leave the Council meeting. If such person does not remove himself, the presiding officer may order any law enforcement officer who is on duty at the meeting as sergeant-at-arms of the Council to remove that person from the Council chambers. 2. Removal. Any law enforcement officer who is serving as sergeant-at-arms of the Council shall cagy out all orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at the Council meeting. Upon instruction of the presiding officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant-at-arms to remove from the Council meeting any person who is disturbing the proceedings of the Council. 3. Resisting Removal. Any person who resists removal by the sergeant-at-arms shall be charged with a violation of this Section. 4. Penally. Any person who violates any provision of this Section shall, pursuant to Section 1.08.010 of the Code, be guilty of a misdemeanor. 5. Motion to Enforce. if the presiding officer of the Council fails to enforce the rules set forth above, any member of the Council may move to require him to do so, and an affirmative vote of a majority of the Council shall require him to do so. if the presiding officer of the Council fails to carry American Legal Publishing Corporation z APR-26-1999 13:49 562 929 5773 97% P.02 .04/28/99 13:48 FAX 562 929 5773 CITY OF NORWALI{ L0003 Norwalk,California Code of Ordinances out the will of a majority of the Council, the majority may designate another member of the Council to act as presiding officer for the limited purpose of enforcing any rule of this Section which it wishes to enforce. 6.- Adjournment. If a meeting of the Council is disturbed or disrupted in such a manner as to make infeasible or improbable the restoration of order, the. meeting may be adjourned or continued by the presiding officer or a majority of-the Council, and any remaining Council business may be considered at the next meeting. (Ord. #1059R; S 2.01.020; Ord. 1470, S2.) American Legal Publishing Corporation 3 APR-28-1999 13:49 562 929 5773 97X P.03 ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ��}}.� /oaf, �Si�•� C,, HurmNOTONsEAcH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION r/ TO: Honorable Mayok and City Council Members 6'7-99 C o,nC-( IWO, FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member 0 0, DATE: May 12, 1999 SUBJECT: "H"Item for the May 17, 1999, City Council Meeting- Speakers During Public Comments n? 0 Y �T- ISSUE: Speakers during public comments portion of City Council meetings. Q) X- MOTION: I move that neither the Mayor or any City Council Member shall interfere with any public comments by turning off a microphone, TV Transmission, or any other means as long as the speaker stays within his or her allotted time. If the comments are criminal in nature,the Master at Arms can arrest the offending individual. If the comments are libelous,the object of the comments can find redress through the civil courts. /WY eL.e�ED OFHc/�� d� f�EA� 4� /� o�P �ne�r m�'y h DIJb ; PV 77y OPT/wV 7o /f dFa -0 Ar 71fA-/ yr4e.5TllVa of f9-T f} cTG��&)1P�T �n�J�' m Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, and no one individual should have the power to abrogate that right. RB:lp xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator a c GINO J. BRUNO 6571 Montoya Circle Huntington Beach, California 92647 gbruno@ixnetcom.com June 3, 1999 Honorable Peter M. Green, Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Public Comments at Council Meetings c� M Dear Mayor Green: _ ��?--� As you perhaps have been made aware, our City Attorney was "asked ton,;; T respond" to my April 29, 1999 letter to you, and she did so only by transmitting to me a copy of her Opinion dated May 14, 1999 rather than respond to 1-he questions and issues I raised in that letter. In reading her Opinion, I was amused to see that she referred to the style and content of the remarks made at the City Council meetings by Messrs. Briscoe and Flynn (transcripts of which were attached to her Opinion and incorporated therein by reference) as "disruptive diatribe."' I suspect this characterization was because the comments by those citizens were critical of the systemic and historic lack of responsiveness by our City Attorney over the years in a variety of instances, including those matters in which Messrs. Briscoe and Flynn had a particular interest. I understand Mr. Briscoe has now filed suit against our City because of the incidents that occurred on April 19, 1999. In my view, litigation might have been avoided had our City Attorney immediately done what the taxpayers pay her well to do, and that is, protect our City by advising the Mayor and Council members (in executive session if necessary) that seeking to prevent Mr. Briscoe from speaking on a live microphone and in front of live television was unconstitutiona12 and in violation of the Brown Act3. Although she was not asked during that 1 'Occasionally, however, a speaker will use the podium to launch a disruptive diatribe against an individual public official or employee. . . . Please note that a cold reading of the transcripts [attached to the City Attorney's Opinion]may be less inflammatory than viewing the actual videotape of the cited comments. The demeanor,tone and gestures of each speaker contribute to the overall impression of the disruptive nature of their presentation."—City Attorney's Opinion, May 14, 1999. z V.S. Constitution, First Amendment, California Constitution,Article 1, Section 2. 3 California Government Code§§54950—54961. h A:\07-18 r ,\\,A, ` Honorable Peter M.Green,.....,nor City of Huntington Beach June 3, 1999 Page 2 Council meeting for her opinion or counsel, she had a duty, in my view, to be proactive and to properly advise you. It now appears that substantial sums of taxpayers' moneys will need to be expended upon, and considerable staff time devoted to, resolving this litigation, instead of (in the concept of our Mayor Pro Tempore) more importantly repairing potholes or providing youth sports facilities. I witnessed each of the meetings regarding which our City Attorney has provided partial transcripts, and the presentations made by Messrs. Briscoe and Flynn. 1 take issue with our City-Attorney's characterization that those presentations were "inflammatory," or that the "demeanor, tone and gestures of each speaker contribute[d] to the overall impression of the disruptive nature of their presentation." She apparently sought to twist and distort the facts simply to fit the particular legal outcome that she desired. (See, White v. City of Norwalk (1990) 900 F.2d 1421, a reprint of the opinion regarding which I enclose herewith.) As you read our City Attorney's Opinion, you notice that she relied heavily upon the White case in formulating her opinion that you may adopt certain rules concerning presentations made by citizens at our Council meetings. However, you will notice throughout the White case there is discussion of "personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane" remarks and other conduct which "disrupted, disturbed, or otherwise impeded" the conduct of the meetings. And so it is that our City Attorney.had to mold the manner and content of the presentations made by Messrs. Briscoe and Flynn to fit White. In any event, a jury will now apparently be able to determine Mr. Briscoe's demeanor, tone, gestures, and whether his presentation was inflammatory, since those videotapes will become "Plaintiffs Exhibit A." As I said in my letter to you of April 291n. I was dismayed by the fact that our City Attomey took no action during the meeting to correct your attempts, and thus seek to protect our City from the potential of expensive litigation (necessitating, I am certain, outside counsel). In my view, our City Attorney had an affirmative duty to advise you that your efforts to cut off the speaker's public forum microphone and live television violated California Government Code Section 54954.3 and the holdings in Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District(1996)936 F. Supp. 719. But more importantly, where was our City Attomey in all of this? She should have immediately advised the City Council on the potential for legal liability (both expensive and protracted) that could result to our City from your actions. AAD7-18 Honorable Peter M.Green,..,ayor City of Huntington Beach June 3, 1999 Page 3 Section 54954.3(c) (which is a portion of The Brown Act and which must be well known to our City Attorney) specifically provides that a legislative body shall not prohibit the type of public criticism that the citizen was exerting at the April 19`h meeting (irrespective of whether you, or anyone else, happened to disagree with that criticism). In my view, our City Attorney has failed and neglected to provide you with complete and correct legal analyses to enable you to protect our City from further potential expensive litigation involving limitations in the public-comments portion of our Council meetings. 1. Our City Attorney has failed and neglected to advise you, in her "Recommendations" or otherwise in her Opinion, that the final sentence of the statement read preliminarily before the public-comments portion of each meeting (and which is set forth in each City Council Agenda) violates the California and Federal Constitutions, as well as The Brown Act. a. The statement reads: The City Council welcomes public comments on all items on the Agenda or of community interest. We respectfully request that this public forum be utilized in a positive and/or constructive manner. Please focus your comments on the issue or problem that you would like to bring to the attention of the City Council. Negative comments directed at individuals are not acceptable. (Emphasis supplied) Whether we like it or not, negative comments must be acceptable in public fora. (See, Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District, (1996) 936 F. Supp. 719.) b. Our City Attorney should advise you that based upon the law, and having been placed on notice of the impropriety of continuing to publish that sentence, you are continuing to expose the City to litigation. 2. Our City Attorney has failed and neglected to advise you that the White case was based upon facts dissimilar to the facts involved here. White involved plaintiffs who spoke during portions of the meetings on agenda items, not "public comments" portions of the meetings. The first incident in White involved a public hearing on a contract for Norwalk's annual calendar. Norwalk contended Mr. White was "ruled out of order for being unduly repetitive." The second incident in White also involved an agenda item, and the speaker also was "ruled out of order," apparently "for being repetitive." The third incident also involved an agenda item, and Mr. White "was speaking about a legal matter involving a city official." He was AA07-18 Honorable Peter M.Green,,....for City of Huntington Beach June 3, 1999 Page 4 advised that the "subject was a personal matter and that he should submit his information in writing." Again, he was ruled out of order. Mr. White filed suit for damages. Norwalk's ordinance provided in part: Each person who addresses the Council shall not make personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks to any member of the Council, staff or general public. Any person who makes such remarks, or who utters loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, or engages in any other disorderly conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any Council meeting shall, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the Council, be barred from further audience before the Council during the meeting. Mr. White argued that the quoted language violated First Amendment rights. Norwalk argued that the first portion of the quoted language ("personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks") is qualified by the next sentence ("or who utters loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, or engages in any other disorderly conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the. orderly conduct of the Council meeting"). The Court said, "[t]he ordinance can certainly be read in other ways, but we conclude that it is readily susceptible to the City's interpretation. We therefore adopt the City's narrower construction." (Emphasis supplied) You notice, therefore, that White was based upon totally different facts than are presented to the Huntington Beach City Council here. And the Court, by its own admission, said the quoted language could be read in other ways, but it chose to read the specific, conjunctive language in a manner to prevent disruption to the meeting. As I saw the presentations by Messrs. Briscoe and Flynn, they were not disruptive. To the contrary, those speakers seemed polite (although frustrated; justifiably, in my opinion), as illustrated by the transcript attached to our City Attorney's Opinion. As I noted above, a jury must now.decide. Other differences between White and the issues presented here are: a. The language of the Huntington Beach admonition is totally different than that presented in White. b. In the Briscoe/Flynn matters, there was no "loud, threatening, personal or abusive language," or "other disorderly conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the Council meetings." a:w7.1e Honorable Peter M.Green,....yor City of Huntington Beach June 3, 1999 Page 5 C. White involved comments dealing with specific agenda items, not public comments. d. In Huntington Beach, public comments are limited to three minutes; not so in White. e. In Huntington Beach, the speech was not "irrelevant or repetitious," as it was in White. f. In White, the Court said that a "speaker, may disrupt a Council meeting by speaking too long, by being unduly repetitious, or by extended discussion of irrelevancies." This was not the case with Mr. Briscoe or Mr. Flynn. g. The Court concluded in White: The role of a moderator involves a great deal of discretion. Undoubtedly, abuses can occur, as when a moderator rules speech out of order simply because he disagrees with it, or because it employs words he does not like. But no .such abuses are written into Norwalk's ordinance, as the City and we interpret it. Speakers are subject to restriction only when their speech "disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the Council meeting." We do not have that same situation in the Briscoe/Flynn matters. It appears clear, therefore, that our City Attorney should not place so much emphasis on White as being the controlling case. 3. Our City Attorney failed and neglected to advise you that the White case was cited in another Federal case where the Court "distinguished" the facts of White from the facts there under discussion, so that the Court there would not have to come to the same White result. That case is City of Dayton v. Esrati (1997) 125 Ohio App. 3d 60, 707 N.E.2d 1140. Although a case from another jurisdiction is not binding on California Courts, its result is contrary to White. In City of Dayton, Mr. Esrati, a regular attendee at Council meetings donned a ninja mask, _but was otherwise respectful and caused no disturbance. Mr. Esrati argued, and the Court agreed, that he was demonstrating his dissatisfaction with the City Commission, and exercising his right of free speech. The Court there distinguished the California White case and several others, saying: AA07-18 Honorable Peter M.Green,fir • City of Huntington Beach June 3, 1999 Page 6 These cases are factually distinguishable, however, because they involved such conduct as citizens refusing to yield the floor, to abide by time limits, or to limit comments to agenda items. In other words, the govemment officials in those cases acted in response to vocal and/or physical disruptions that prevented the meaningful or orderly continuation of the public meetings. 4. Although our City Attorney cited the United States Supreme Court decision of City of Madison v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n (1976) 429 U.S. 167, 97 S.Ct. 421 and Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1995) 67 F.3d 266 in her Opinion, she failed and neglected to quote from Kindt the important and "on point" portion which reads: In City of Madison, Joint Sch. Dist. No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm's, [citation omitted], the Supreme Court stated that a school board meeting was open to the public under state law, and that any citizen was permitted to address the board during the time the board had dedicated for public commentary. To a claim that state law nevertheless prohibited a teacher from addressing the school board on union matters, the Court answered: To permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views to the govemment is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees. Whatever its duties are as an employer, when the board sits in public meetings to conduct public business and hear the views of citizens, it may not be required to discriminate between speakers on the basis of their employment, or the content of their speech. (Emphasis supplied In Kindt, (which was decided by the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, the same Court which decided White) the Court had to explain White by saying, in White, "[w]e went on to say that disruptions could be prevented and that a speaker may disrupt a board meeting 'by speaking too long, by being unduly repetition, or by extended discussion of irrelevancies"' Clearly, the White case, and our City Attorney's Opinion, should be viewed with caution by the Huntington Beach City Council in its application to the current issues. I would urge that you re-read Baca (a reprint of which I enclosed with my April 29th letter) and compare it with White, upon which our City Attorney so heavily relies. And, I urge you to delete the final sentence of the statement you read at the beginning of the public-comments portion of our Council meetings. AA07-18 Honorable Peter M.Green, • City of Huntington Beach June 3, 1999 Page 7 Thank you. Very truly u s, mo uno GJB:s ; Encl. cc: Dave Garafalo, Mayor Pro Tempore Dave Sullivan, City Councilman Tom Harman, City Councilman Shirley Dettloff, City Councilwoman Ralph Bauer, City Councilman Pam Julian, City Councilwoman Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Connie Brockway, City Clerk The Independent AA07-18 900 F.2d 1421 Page 1 (Cite as: 900 F.2d 1421) P Walter E. WHITE; James C. Griffin, Plaintiffs- "personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane" Appellants, remark if such remark or any other conduct V. "disrupted, disturbed, or otherwise impeded" CITY OF NORWALK; William H. Kraus, City conduct of meeting; even though meetings were Administrator; Robert E. White, City limited public forums, they nonetheless involved Councilman, City of Norwalk; Cecil N. Green, governmental process with governmental purpose, in City Councilman, City of furtherance of which overly disruptive conduct could Norwalk; J. Kenneth Brown, City Attorney, City be restricted. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14. of Norwalk; Daniel Lispi, Defendants-Appellees. [2]MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS G-594(2) 268k594(2) No. 88-6430 Ordinance governing decorum at city council meetings was not unconstitutionally overbroad in United States Court of Appeals, permitting adverse action against person who uttered Ninth Circuit. "personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane" remark if such remark or any other conduct Argued and Submitted Aug. 7, 1989. "disrupted, disturbed, or otherwise impeded" conduct of meeting; even though meetings were Decided April 18, 1990. limited public forums, they nonetheless involved governmental process with governmental purpose, in Civil rights action was brought against city and furtherance of which overly disruptive conduct could various city officials for purportedly ruling citizens be restricted. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14. out of order when they sought to speak at city council meetings. The United States District Court [3] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW a90.1(1) for the Central District of California, William P. 92k90.1(1) Gray, J., entered judgment against citizens, and they In dealing with agenda items, city council does not appealed. The Court of Appeals, Canby, Circuit violate First Amendment when it restricts public Judge, held that: (1) ordinance governing decorum speakers to subject at hand. U.S.C.A. at city council meetings was not facially overbroad Const.Amend. 1. even though it restricted disruptive speech, and (2) evidence pertaining to previous incidents involving [4] FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE a1969 citizens and city council was properly excluded. 170Ak1969 Although trial judge may comment on the evidence, Affirmed. he may not either distort it or add to it. [1] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,*-90.1(1) [5] FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE a1969 92k90.1(1) 170Akl969 For purposes of constitutional challenge to facial In suit to recover damages for restrictions placed on validity of ordinance governing decorum at city plaintiffs' speech at city council meetings, trial council meetings, city's narrow construction of court's comment that person was not likely to be ordinance to permit adverse action against person subjected to substantial anguish and emotional making proscribed remarks only if meeting was distress if he was treated with courtesy and that it disrupted, disturbed, or otherwise impeded was would be difficult to conclude that one plaintiff's reasonable even though broader reading was constitutional rights had been deprived since he possible. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14. could not remember what he was saying at meeting , did not improperly distort or add to evidence, [2] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW(9=90.1(1) particularly in view of fact that court more than once 92k90.1(l) emphasized that its comments should be disregarded Ordinance governing decorum at city council and that all questions of fact were solely for jury's meetings was not unconstitutionally overbroad in determination; moreover, trial was not complicated permitting adverse action against person who uttered factual one that turned on questions of credibility. Copr.©West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 900 F.2d 1421 Page 2 (Cite as:900 F.2d 1421) [6] CIVIL RIGHTS G=241 was a motion on the floor and that White would 78k241 accordingly have to stop speaking. White states that Since claim was that plaintiffs had been denied their when he attempted to continue, the mayor had him constitutional right to speak at city council meeting escorted from the room by a deputy sheriff. The on three separate occasions, evidence of previous defendants contend that White was ruled out of order incidents involving plaintiffs and city council was for being unduly repetitive and was escorted,to his properly excluded even though plaintiffs contended seat for refusing to stop talking after the Major ruled that incidents would provide background and show him out of order and asked him to desist. that council was engaged in conspiracy to violate their civil rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14; The second meeting in question took place in either 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. January, February or March of 1980. Plaintiff *1422 Jeffrey M. Epstein, Los Angeles, Cal., for Griffin claims that he was speaking on an agenda plaintiffs-appellants. item when he was interrupted by a council member who declared him out of order and had him escorted John C. Barber of Wood, Ward, and Garnett, out of the Council chambers. Griffin did not recall Tustin, Cal., for defendants-appellees. the topic he was addressing nor what he said, but he testified that he made no personal attacks and did not Appeal from the United States District Court for the yell, curse or use foul language. The defendants Central District of California. contend that there was simply no evidence sufficient to establish what occurred, and suggest that Griffin Before BROWNING, FARRIS and CANBY, was probably ruled out of order for being repetitive. Circuit Judges. The third meeting occurred on January 25, 1982. CANBY, Circuit Judge: White alleged that he was speaking about a legal matter involving a city official. He claimed that he Walter E. White and James C. Griffin brought this was told that the subject was a personal matter and action against the City of Norwalk, California, and that he should submit his information in writing. He certain of its officials, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. alleged that when he attempted to take a written White and Griffin are citizens of Norwalk who were statement out of his pocket to distribute to the ruled out of order when they spoke or attempted to Council, he was immediately ruled out of order and speak at City Council meetings. In district court, removed from the room. [FN1] they sought: (1) a declaration of unconstitutionality and injunction against enforcement of Norwalk FN1. The meetings of October 9, 1979 and January Municipal Code § 2-1.2, which prescribes rules for 25, 1982 were taperecorded, and the jury was persons addressing the City Council; and (2) provided with transcripts. The meeting involving damages against the City and its officials for *1423 Griffin in early 1980 could not be identified with preventing plaintiffs from speaking, in violation of particularity; it appears that some meetings during that period were not taped. their rights of free speech and equal protection of the laws. The district court denied declaratory and White and Griffin brought this action in October injunctive relief, and a jury rejected the damages 1982, seeking to have the Norwalk City Ordinance claim. We affirm both decisions. governing appearances before the City Council declared unconstitutional and enjoined, and also I. Factual Background seeking damages for interference with their first and fourteenth amendment rights on the three occasions The events that precipitated this litigation took place discussed above. Both claims having been denied, at three meetings of the Norwalk City Council they appeal. between 1979 and 1982. At the first meeting, on October 9, 1979, plaintiff White was recognized to II. Challenge to the Ordinance speak during a discussion concerning a contract for the City's annual calendar. White contends that In order to understand this case, it is essential to while he was speaking, a council member know that there is surprisingly little relationship interrupted him and incorrectly claimed that there between plaintiffs' claim for declaratory and Copr. 0 West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 1 900 F.2d 1421 Page 3 (Cite as: 900 F.2d 1421, *1423) injunctive relief and their claim for damages. meeting. If such person does not remove himself, Plaintiffs attack the ordinance purely as being the presiding officer may order any law unconstitutional on its face, for overbreadth and enforcement officer who is on duty at the meeting vagueness. They have laid no foundation for as sergeant-at-arms of the Council to remove that attacking it as applied. The provisions of the person from the Council chambers.... ordinance that they challenge played no part in the 3. Resisting Removal. Any person who resists jury trial concerning their three abortive appearances removal by the sergeant-at-arms shall be charged before the City Council, and the jury was not with a violation of this Section. instructed on the ordinance. [FN2] Indeed, the 4. Penalty. Any person who violates any provision record indicates that the ordinance was adopted in of this Section shall, pursuant to Section 1.08.010 January 1980, after the first meeting in dispute had of the Code, be guilty of a misdemeanor. occurred. [1][2] Plaintiffs focus particularly on the FN2. The jury was not, for example, instructed that proscription against "personal, impertinent, plaintiffs were properly ruled out of order if they had slanderous or profane remarks." They argue that made "personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane such imprecise and content-oriented terms render the remarks." On the contrary, the case was argued and ordinance fatally vague and overbroad, under well- presented by the judge to the jury as one that turned recognized first amendment doctrine. See, e.g., simply on whether plaintiffs were "reasonably" ruled Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, out of order; that is, whether they had already made their points to the Council and were becoming 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972) (criminal statute punishing repetitious. Plaintiffs do not raise any contention that utterance to another of "opprobrious words of the issue was improperly framed for the jury. abusive language" is void for overbreadth); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 94 S.Ct. Plaintiffs are consequently compelled to show that 970, 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974). the ordinance is void on its face, if they are to succeed. The ordinance provides, in pertinent part: The City, however, offers a construction of the *1424 2-1.1(b) Rules of Decorum. While any ordinance that is far narrower than that of plaintiffs. meeting of the City Council is in session, the The City asserts that, properly construed, the following rules of order and decorum shall be ordinance does not permit discipline, removal or observed: punishment of a person who merely utters a 3. Persons Addressing the Council ... Each person "personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane" who addresses the Council shall not make personal, remark. That provision is qualified, the City states, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks to any by the next sentence of the ordinance, which member of the Council, staff or general public. authorizes removal of any person: Any person who makes such remarks, or who who makes such remarks, or who utters loud, utters loud, threatening, personal or abusive threatening, personal or abusive language, or language, or engages in any other disorderly engages in any other disorderly conduct which conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly impedes the orderly conduct of any Council conduct of the Council meeting.... meeting shall, at the discretion of the presiding Norwalk Mun.Code § 2-1.1(b)(3) (emphasis added). officer or a majority of the Council, be barred Thus, the City asserts that removal can only be from further audience before the Council during ordered when someone making a proscribed remark that meeting.... is acting in a way that actually disturbs or impedes 2-1.1(d) Enforcement of Decorum. The rules of the meeting. The same threshold is required, decorum set forth above shall be enforced in the according to the City's reading of the ordinance, for following manner: warning and removal under section 2-1.1(d)(1) and 1. Warning. The presiding officer shall request for prosecution under section 2- 1.1(d)(4). that a person who is breaching the rules of decorum be orderly and silent. If, after receiving a The ordinance can certainly be read in other ways, warning from the presiding officer, a person but we conclude that it is readily susceptible to the persists in disturbing the meeting, the presiding City's interpretation. We therefore adopt the City's officer shall order him to leave the Council narrower construction. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 Copr. 0 West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 900 F.2d 1421 Page 4 (Cite as: 900 F.2d 1421, *1424) U.S. 474, 480-84, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 2500-01, 101 to be addressed and dealt with. Public forum or not, L.Ed.2d 420 (1988) (Court's narrow construction of the usual first amendment antipathy to content- ordinance supported by representations of town oriented control of speech cannot be imported into counsel as to town's interpretation). the Council chambers intact. [FN3] In the first place, in dealing with agenda items, the Council Plaintiffs argue that, even as construed by the City, does not violate the first amendment when it restricts the ordinance is fatally overbroad. They point out public speakers to the subject at hand. [FN4] that in Gooding v. Wilson, the statute struck down Madison School Dist., 429 U.S. at 175 n. 8, 97 by the Court punished the use of " 'opprobrious S.Ct. at 426 n. 8; see Cornelius v. NAACP Legal words or abusive language, tending to cause a Defense & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 802, 105 breach of the peace.' " Gooding, 405 U.S. at 519, S.Ct. 3439, 3448, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (public 92 S.Ct. at 1104 (quoting Ga.Code Ann. § 26-6303) forum may be created by government designating (emphasis added). *1425 In Gooding, however, it "place or channel of communication ... for the was clear that the state's interpretation of"tending to discussion of certain subjects"). While a speaker cause a breach of the peace" required no actual may not be stopped from speaking because the breach, but simply focused on the offensiveness of moderator disagrees with the viewpoint he is the words. Id. at 525-27, 92 S.Ct. at 1107-08; see expressing, see Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local also Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community, Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 60-61, 103 S.Ct. 393 U.S. 503, 508, 89 S.Ct. 733, 737, 21 L.Ed.2d 948, 963, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (Brennan, J., 731 (1969) (no showing of actual disruption of dissenting), it certainly may stop him if his speech school operations by wearing of black armband). becomes irrelevant or repetitious. [FN5] A more fundamental flaw in plaintiffs' position is FN3.As Professor Robert Post has noted: that their first amendment arguments do not take The most analytically interesting example of an account of the nature of the process that this institution designed to foster symbolic interaction is ordinance is designed to govern. We are dealing not the town meeting, whose very purpose is the creation with words uttered on the street to anyone who of a forum for public discourse and decisionmaking. chooses or chances to listen• we are dealing with Even that constitutionally benign purpose, however, > g when implemented through the authority of a meetings of the Norwalk City Council, and with moderator, has the power to limit speech through the speech that is addressed to that Council. Principles imposition of agendas and rules of order and that apply to random discourse may not be decorum. Many of these limitations are plainly transferred without adjustment to this more contrary to ordinary first amendment principles. structured situation. Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum, 34 City Council meetings like Notwalk's, where the U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1713, 1799(1987) public is afforded the opportunity to address the FN4. The Norwalk City Council offers two kinds of Council, are the focus of highly important individual and governmental interests. Citizens have an opportunity to citizens to address the Council at g meetings. During the regular part of the meeting, enormous first amendment interest in directing citizens can sign up to speak with regard to agenda speech about public issues to those who govern their items. Norwalk Mun.Code § 2-1.1.b.3. During a city. It is doubtless partly for this reason that such separate portion of the meeting devoted to "Oral meetings, once opened, have been regarded as public Communications," citizens may be recognized from forums, albeit limited ones. See Madison School the floor to address any topic they choose, subject to Dist. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, the Council's determination of relevance. Id. at §429 U.S. 167, 175, 97 S.Ct. 421, 426, 50 L.Ed.2d 2-l.l.c.2. 376 (1976); Hickory Fire Fighters Assn, Local 2653 v. City of Hickory, 656 F.2d 917, 922 (4th FNS. The focus of plaintiffs' claim for damages, which was tried to a jury, was on the issue whether Cir.1981). plaintiffs were or were not properly ruled out of order because they had made their point and were [3] On the other hand, a City Council meeting is becoming repetitious. still just that, a governmental process with a governmental purpose. The Council has an agenda Similarly, the nature of a Council meeting means Copr. 0 West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 900 F.2d 1421 Page 5 (Cite as: 900 F.2d 1421, *1425) that a speaker can become "disruptive" in ways that would not meet the test of actual breach of the [4] The trial judge did make comments to the jury peace, see Gooding, 405 U.S. at 526-27, 92 S.Ct. at that went beyond the normal instructions. With 1108, or of "fighting words" likely to provoke regard to damages, the judge suggested that "if a immediate combat. See Chaplinsky v. New person is treated with courtesy, he's not likely to be Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 *1426 S.Ct. 766, subjected to ... substantial anguish and emotional 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). A speaker may disrupt distress." With regard to Griffin's hazily recalled a Council meeting by speaking too long, by being appearance before the Council, the judge said that unduly repetitious, or by extended discussion of "if he [Griffin] doesn't know what it was and what irrelevancies. The meeting is disrupted because the he was saying, I would think it would be difficult to Council is prevented from accomplishing its business conclude that he had been--that his constitutional in a reasonably efficient manner. Indeed, such rights had been deprived." conduct may interfere with the rights of other speakers. [5] On the basis of these and other remarks, the plaintiffs contend that the trial judge argued the case Of course the point at which speech becomes unduly for one side, and took a position in front of the jury repetitious or largely irrelevant is not mathematically on the ultimate issues of fact. It is clear that a trial determinable. The role of a moderator involves a judge may comment on the evidence, "but he may great deal of discretion. Undoubtedly, abuses can not either distort it or add to it." Quercia v. United occur, as when a moderator rules speech out of States, 289 U.S. 466, 469-70, 53 S.Ct. 698, 698-99, order simply because he disagrees with it, or 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933). Certainly the practice is not because it employs words he does not like. But no without its dangers. But the ultimate question is such abuses are written into Norwalk's ordinance, as "whether the judge has made 'it clear to the jury that the City and we interpret it. Speakers are subject to all matters of fact are submitted to their restriction only when their speech "disrupts, disturbs determination.' " United States v. Kelm, 827 F.2d or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the 1319, 1323 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Quercia, 289 Council meeting." So limited, we cannot say that U.S. at 469, 53 S.Ct. at 698). Here, the judge more the ordinance on its face is substantially and fatally than once emphasized that his comments could be overbroad. [FN6] See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 disregarded and that all questions of fact were solely U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L.Ed.2d for the jury's determination. 830 (1973) (to invalidate statute on its face, overbreadth "must not only be real, but substantial Moreover, this was not a complicated factual trial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly taming on questions of credibility, as in Maheu v. legitimate sweep.") Hughes Tool Co., 569 F.2d 459, 471 (9th FN6. The same narrowing construction defeats the Cir.1978), relied upon by plaintiffs. For two of the plaintiffs' contention that the terms "personal, meetings, the jury had a transcript that eliminated impertinent, slanderous, or profane" are questions of historical fact. Our review of the whole unconstitutionally vague. record convinces us that the judge did not distort the fact-finding process by his comments, or unfairly We therefore affirm the district court's denial of prejudice plaintiffs. We find no abuse of discretion. declaratory and injunctive relief. [6] Finally, plaintiffs argue that the trial court III. The Damages Claim abused its discretion by excluding evidence of previous incidents between plaintiffs and the City With regard to their damages claim, which was Council. We disagree. The incidents, if they were tried to the jury, plaintiffs raise two issues. First, ever actionable, had become barred by limitations. they contend that the trial judge's comments to the Plaintiffs contend that the incidents nevertheless jury on the evidence went beyond permissible limits. would have provided background, *1427 and served Second, they contend that the judge improperly to show that the City Council was engaged in a excluded evidence of disagreements between the conspiracy to violate their civil rights. Their claim, City Council and the plaintiffs that antedated the however, was that they had been denied their incidents in issue. We reject both contentions. constitutional right to speak on the three occasions Copr. 0 West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 900 F.2d 1421 Page 6 (Cite as: 900 F.2d 1421, *1427) set forth in the pleadings. The district judge ruled that, if no violation could be proved on those IV. Conclusion occasions, the earlier incidents added nothing to the claim. In light of the case as it was framed for the The decisions of the district court denying jury, without objection, the district court was declaratory and injunctive relief, and dismissing the correct. Whether it was reasonable for the City damages claim on the basis of the jury's verdict, are Council to rule plaintiffs out of order, on the ground that they had made their points, did not turn on any AFFIRMED. questions of animosity arising from earlier incidents. The district court did not abuse its discretion. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ©West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works LOAMid (c1�L Ui�w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINOTON BEACH O/� S`����� CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION b E Fcwa D j a (�-7-99 C'ovnc;I MY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members en DATE: May 12, 1999 ZZ FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member = -<c SUBJECT: 'W'Item for the May 17, 1999, City Council Meeting+ > Environmental Symposium ISSUE: The Mayor has scheduled an Environmental Symposium for September 9, 1999,without City Council approval. It is anticipated that well over four hours of staff time will be required to support this symposium. City Council policy requires approval by the City Council of such an activity MOTION: Since the city staff is already over committed, and since we have many environmental groups in the city, I move that no more staff time be devoted to an Environmental Symposium, and that the Mayor solicit the city's environmental groups for volunteers to carry out the functions described in the Mayor's memo dated 4/14/99. RB:1p xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Attachment ®� BLOM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable City Council Members From: Peter Green, Mayor Date: April 14, 1999 Subject: Coastal Environmental Symposium At the October 19, 1998 City Council Study Session the Council received information from the Environmental Review Board on their plans for an Environmental Symposium. The City Council Liaisons recently met with the subcommittee of the Environmental Review Board that is planning the symposium. The following is an update on plans thus far. Current plans call for an all-day event to take place at the Waterfront Hilton Hotel on September 9, 1999. The symposium would revolve around issues relative to coastal cities including coastal challenges, protecting coastal resources, coastal economics and directives for the future. It is the intent of the Environmental Review Board to invite various prominent public officials as well as members of educational institutions, and the business community to participate, including the potential for underwriting sponsors. Staff duties would include assisting the Environmental Review Board with the coordination of all aspects of the symposium. This would include registrations for the event, agenda development, securing speakers, securing sponsors, publicity, and travel arrangements. It is anticipated that approximately 50 hours of staff time will be needed to coordinate this event. Based on initial reactions, this effort should bring a return in form of attendees to the conference that will spend dollars at Huntington Beach businesses. In addition, this event should heighten our visibility as a leader statewide on coastal issues. If you have any comments or questions regarding the above, please contact me. PG:lp xc: City Administrator Assistant City Administrator Department Heads Staff Liaison to the Environmental Review Board Attachment 0 -�i9 9c un Ineenx/� J• 4 CITY .OF.-HUNTINGTON 'BEACH ,/1 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, WMT"ON KACN Z C TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members - Y Y � . . FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member D a DATE: April 12, 1999 w SUBJECT: "H" Item for the April 19; 1999, City Council Meeting Procedure-Appointment of Council Liaisons to City Boards and Commissions STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Many boards, commissions, and organizations require the appointment of Council liaisons. The City Council has not established official procedures for the-appointment process. _ iI'l 077���/ � � � - - = tea 1_ -0-H0e Mrr2i7TfF RECOMMENDED ACTION: MRyoR i-' 7-61-11 A'?6 1019-sT Form an Ad-Hoc Council Sub-Committee to recommend procedures for Council consideration in the matter of appointing Council liaisons to various boards, commissions, and organizations. DS:Ip xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Vize�o o VA �1'o It�9Ri»A✓ ,. 6r�N�,�eh�/a�-F Yes r` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Cc City Council Interoffice Communicationrn a "t ! 02-//9 rr, To: Honorable City Council Mem ers C •C From: Peter Green, Mayor Date: December 17, 1998 � D Subject: Disclosures from Closed City Council Sessions It was disturbing to read in the "Huntington Beach Independent" today that, "The City Council may have violated open meeting laws when it voted in closed session to hire an outside attorney to handle a lawsuit against the City, a media attorney and expert in open meeting laws said." Further, the reporter alleges to have obtained a confidential City Attorney's memo on this subject. The confidentiality of the discussion and votes in closed session is absolutely necessary for the full and open debate while at the same time protecting the City's position on closed session issues. The City of Santa Ana has an ordinance to guard against the violation of confidentiality. Their Code Section 2-108 reads as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any member of the City Council or any Officer or Employee of the City or any other person present during a closed session of the City Council to disclose to any person the content or substance of any discussion which took place during such closed session on any matter legally authorized to be heard in closed session, unless the City Council has authorized the disclosure of such information by majority vote." I believe we are in need of a similar ordinance. Therefore, I move that: MOTION: Council_direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance, similar to that adopted by the City of Santa Ana, in opposition to disclosure of information discussed in City Council Closed Sessions. Attachments:Article from the "Huntington Beach Independent' Copy of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2-108 Copy of the Irvine Municipal Code Section 1-2-318 Thursday, December 17, 1998 ----- front Independent 3 • Closed. session vote may have broken law ,Attorney says a City Council decision to hire outside attorney—during that negotiations." of the act. outside attorney to fight lawsuit should have been dosed session meeting. Councilwoman Shirley Newton's comments troubled "If any[vote]is made final, Dettloff said she has asked Councilman Ralph Bauer. made in open session. you have to report it out," Hutton for a clarification of the "When we do something citym a Holl Seacliff develop- Harman said. vote that was taken in closed inadvertently,sometimes T � Y P Independent Lent disagreement with the PLC Some of his colleagues dis- session before making a decision [Hutton]calls our attention to it, agree. on whether the action should and sometimes she doesn't," Land Co.The case could cost the „You can't always report an have been reported. Bauer said. "It's ironic to think HUNTINGTON BEACH— Y P Y P city it million. motion that's made," Green said. Newton said Hutton doesn't that our own attorney can et us The City Council may have vio= Y g "It simply makes sense to me "There must be some privacy in appear to have been in violation into trouble." lated open meeting laws when it that the City Council as the P � PP voted in closed session to.hire client should have the absolute outside attorneys to handle a right to select the attorney of its lawsuit against the city,a media choice," Harman said. attorney and expert in open Hutton did not return phone meeting laws said. calls made to her office. But in "It[the vote]should have s a confidential memo dat been done in open meeting," Friday and obtained by The— said Tom Newton,an attorney Independent, Hutton did F� with the California Newspaper respond to the council's action. ^_ Publishers Association. "I must respectfully advise Mayor Peter Green said he you that the Huntington Beach 3 _ doesn't feel the City.Council did City Council does not have that anything wrong. authority," Hutton wrote. "Since discussion of the law- She cited a section of the 4` suit was agendized, I don't see city charter that states: "The how the Brown Act has been city attorney is to represent and violated," he said. F appear for the city in all actions The vote was taken last and proceedings in which the ; month, with some protest by city is concerned or is a party." Hutton. In a memo last week, Harman cited another section f she refused to hire the attorney, / 0 Y of the charter that appears to sparking a debate over the rights contradict that statement: "TheF . x and relationship the council has City Council shall have contro « with Hutton. of all legal business and pro- � ;W Councilman Tom Harman said ceedings_..and may employy he plans to bring the matter up . other attorneys to take charge." for discussion during Monday's In addition, Harman said he council meeting. believes Hutton violated theN HIw„ m Harman, an attorney himself, Brown Act by not reporting the - M said the council wanted the out- action the City Council took— side attorneys to represent the namely instructing her to hire an w Huntington Beach u .I" l-UUl It-A" iU 7J f41 J7YJ r vc 1 2-108 SANTA ARIA CODE 3 2-200 Sec. 2-108. Disclosures from closed session. It shall be unlawful for any member of the city council or any officer or employee of the city or any other person present during a closers session of the city council to disclose to any person the content or substance of any discussion which took place during such dosed session on any matter legally authorized to be heard in closed session, unless the city council has authorized the disclosure of such information by majority vote. (Ord. No. NS-2067, § 1, 10-1-90) Sec. 2-109. Participaiion in real estate incentive pro- grams. (a) No councilmember shall be eligible to participate in, or directly or indirectly receive any benefits from, any city- sponsored real estate incentive program, except as provided in subsection (c)hereof. (b) City-sponsored real estate incentive program,for purposes of this section, shall mean any funding program managed by the City of Santa Ana,the redevelopment agency,the housing author- ity, or other agency which is administered or funded, in whole or in part, by the City of Santa Ana, and which provides loans, grants or other monetary or economic benefits to individuals or business entities to be used for the acquisition, construction, repair or improvement of real property. (c) The prohibitions set forth in this section shall be inapplica- ble where they are in conflict with state or federal law. (Ord. No. NS-2306, § 1, 12-2-96) Secs. 2-110--2-199. Reserved. ARTICLE III. CITY SEAL AND CITY EMBLEM Sec. 2-200. City seal—Designation. The city seal is the impression made by that certain instrument retained and used by the clerk of the council for the purpose of attesting documents as acts of the city council.The general design and the details of the impression made by the city seal, Supp.No. 137 154.2 -_� TOTAL P.02 DEC-17-1998 13:39 714 647 6520 P•82 Z0'd X86 Sb09 VZL PTL 6S:ZT 866T-LT-03C CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 98-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE ADDING SECTION 1-2-318 TO THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSIONS The City Council of the City of Irvine DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1-2-318 is hereby added to Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Irvine Municipal Code, to read as follows: SECTION 1-2-318. Disclosures from Closed Sessions Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any member of the city council or any officer or employee of the city or any other person present during a closed session of the city council to disclose to any person the content or substance of any discussion or action which took place during such closed session on any matter legally authorized to be heard in closed session, unless the city council has authorized the disclosure of such information by majority vote. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Irvine at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1998. MAYOR OF THE CITY OF IRVINE ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE 1311048170-OW1/321i83d•i 211/OZ/98 zoo[A 33NIA2II 3o d,LIo 9t09 tZL t% %Vd 69:ZT 96/LT/ZT /ol �PPi�o%v f�-s CWY OF HUNTINGTOOBE Aq " A CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION ,�'Peee-r 6717Wr 7b kt✓lekJ FB. 77ie SCX otienreD SAslness oR-4i n44AC NUNTINOTON BEACH Ay)o A-LL 017MR- APPL/CABLC- /Q eCP 16Li41W An O PROPOS 2I i4mEndmeh r5 TD O vje. R.EC.U LA77 avS SD 77tAT,sai4 4e61 r1 Yn,*r¢J MA66 tFYn4-44 s1+1nenT,5 64 d 1 SPAS mAy E,(A5r lw ob4 cDA)/1'lFz&,;4,L A✓¢ro TO: Mayor Shirley Dettloff and City Council Members FROM: Pam Julien, City Council Member s DATE: October 7, 1998 eIN Amt)? l SUBJECT: "H" Item — October 19, 1998, City Council Meeting To Allow Massage Establishments/Day Spas in Commercially Zoned Districts ISSUE: I would like the City Council to consider a motion to direct staff to modify the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to permit massage establishments such as hotel spas or day spas within commercial zoning districts. With the recent updates to the sexually oriented business regulations, businesses of this type are permitted in industrial districts only (assuming compliance with all applicable ordinances and requirements). As such, legitimate day spas or hotel spas in commercial zoning districts would be rendered non- conforming. I feel that this would be a disservice to those businesses which are currently established in commercial zoning districts that provide these services. MOTION: Direct staff to pursue a change to the existing ordinances to permit legitimate massage establishments/day spas in commercially zoned districts. PJ:PV:lp xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Peter Vanek, Assistant Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: HONORABLE MAYOR RALPH BAUER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney SUBJECT: NEW CLOSED SESSION PROCEDURE DATE: January 24, 1997 The Brown Act vests the council with the discretion to utilize a closed session where the City Attorney has approved the matter under an exception to the open meeting provisions of the Brown Act. Council's decision to exercise its discretion and go into closed session should be manifested by a vote of the council. I have modified the procedure for closed session to include a vote on each item for closed session consideration to assist the City Council in making its determination. Please make the appropriate motion, second it and vote on the recess to closed session before recessing to closed session. GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney GH/bmh c: Connie Brockway,City Clerk Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver,Asst. City Administrator All City Attorney staff Attachments: Closed session memo H.B.P.O.A Gun Range Closed session memo City v. McDonnel Douglas 97memos/clsdsess/1/24/97 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 5:00 P.M. - Room B-8 Huntington Beach, California Monday, January 27, 1997 An audio tape recording of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk Call To Order Mayor Bauer called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, (Julien arrived at 5:10 p.m.) Absent: Garofalo The Mayor informed Council of a new closed session procedure recommended by the City Attorney as set forth in the communication from the City Attorney dated January 24, 1997 titled New Closed Session Procedure. The Mayor clarified what he believed to be the procedure to be used prior to Council recessing into closed session for this and future meetings. Mayor Pro Tempore Dettloff informed Council that she always looks to the City Attorney for legal expertise as to whether Council should recess into closed session on certain items. The City Attorney stated that she will continue to advise Council regarding whether recessing to closed session on an item is legal. She stated that the City Council's motion is to determine if they wish to recess to the closed session. The City Attorney referred to the form which has been provided to Council for each closed session. The City Administrator reported on the matter and stated that staff relies on the City Attorney's Office for legal advice relative to the holding of closed sessions. Councilman Harman questioned if the public has a right to address Council at a meeting such as this adjourned Council meeting. The City Attorney informed Council that pursuant to the City Charter and Brown Act, Public Comments is not required. The City Attorney responded to Councilmember Harman's question regarding reporting out of actions taken in closed sessions. Councilmember Sullivan stated his understanding that at an adjourned meeting, the public has a right to comment on an item that has been carried over from the regular meeting on which there is new information provided. The City Attorney responded that all past Councils have allowed this practice to occur. i Page 2 - Council/Agency M.-ates - 01/27/97 Councilmember Sullivan asked the City Attorney if the City Council takes no action during a closed session on an item, is it necessary for the Council to state that no action has been taken. The City Attorney stated that this is a more complex question that she would report on at a future date. In response to Councilmember Julien, the City Attorney clarified the reasons for her request that Council vote on a motion to recess to closed session. She stated that all closed sessions would be recommended to Council as the advice of the City Attorney. (City Council) Motion To Recess To Closed Session -Approved - McDonnell Douglas Corporation (120.80) A motion was made by Sullivan, second Dettloff, to recess the City Council to closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is City v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation - U. S. District Court Case No. SACV 94 29 LHM (RWRx) or Subject: City v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The motion carried by unanimous vote with Councilmember Garofalo absent. (City Council) Motion To Recess To Closed Session -Approved - H.B.P.O.A. Lease Of Gun Range (120.80) A motion was made by Harman, second Dettloff, to recess the City Council to closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). (Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation). Number of Potential Cases - One (1). Subject: H.B.P.O.A. Lease of Gun Range. The motion carried by unanimous vote with Councilmember Garofalo absent. Reconvene The Mayor reconvened the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency at 7:00 p.m. in Room B-8. Adiournment - City Council/Redevelopment Agency The Mayor adjourned the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Friday, January 31, 1997 at 12:00 noon at the Central Library, Lower Level, 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman FE - jet CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 6_ CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 5„ TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk �J\c l FROM: Dave Garofalo, Council Member DATE: December 5, 1997 SUBJECT: H Item re: Council Meetings Outside City Hall I would like to place the following suggestion on the Council agenda for December 15, 1997. Please consider scheduling at least 2 Council meetings in 1998 to be held outside of City Hall. The first could be at Edison High School to accommodate special needs of South East Huntington Beach and perhaps the second at either Golden West College, Marina High School, or Ocean View. In either case, discussing the agenda with issues pertaining to the geographies would also be helpful. DG:paj a _ rn � cl� z z tJ7n. i n Uj m "s' n C.D.- ? , U 'y ` (17) 12/15/97 - Councie,Agency Agenda - Page 17 C. (City Council) Councilmember Bauer- Request Report Re: Cash Flow From Downtown Parking Structure -Consultant To Define How To Maximize Income To Parking Structure -Prepare Financial Program (275.10) Communication from Councilmember Bauer requesting 1. A report on cash flow from the downtown parking structure; 2. retention of an expert to define how the city may maximize income to the parking structure; and 3. By °p�4996(June 1, 1998], present a financial program for the parking structure which covers A. debt service B. all maintenance and operations costs; C. sufficient income to provide capital in the event that other parking facilities must be constructed to deal with downtown parking issues. Recommended Action: Direct staff to prepare a report for the City Council on the Downtown Parking Structure regarding cash flow, retention of an expert to define how the city can maximize income, and prepare a financial program as outlined in the communication from Councilmember Bauer dated December 10, 1997. [Approved 7-0] H-6. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Dave Sullivan H-7. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Dave Garofalo (City Council) Request By Councilmember Garofalo To Schedule City Council Meetings At Locations Outside City Hall - 120.10 Communication from Councilmember Dave Garofalo dated December 5, 1997 recommending that Council consider scheduling at least two council meetings in 1998 outside of City Hall. Recommended Action: Consider scheduling at least two City Council meetings in 1998 to be held outside of City Hall; the first at Edison High School to accommodate special needs of Southeast Huntington Beach residents, and perhaps a second at eithe Golden West College, Marina High School, or Ocean View High School. In either case, designing the agenda with issues pertaining to the geographics of each area would also be helpful. [Approved subject to budget being presented by staff and input at Council Workshop 6-0 (Harman: NO)] Council/Agency Adjournment fat 12:02 a.m.]To Monday, January 5, 1998, at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Council/Agency Agendas And Minutes Are Available At No Charge To The Public At The City Clerk's Office By Mail And Through Paid Subscription. Complete Agenda Packets Are Available At The Central Library and Library Annexes On Friday Prior To Meetings. Video Tapes Of Council Meetings Are Available For Checkout At The Central Library At No Charge. CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street- Second Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (17) FB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmemb s � - FROM: Dave Garofalo, City Councilmember DATE: July 22, 1996 SUBJECT: LABOR NEGOTIATIONS/POA As we continue to move from discussing "impasse" to implementing the process, it becomes even more apparent that we are exclusively reacting to staff input for our total decision. While we have been available as listeners to all who approach us during the "Public Comment" portion of our Council meeting, there is no substitute for us being good listeners at a specifically scheduled study session. Even if there was not one response from any single Councilmember, the simple gesture of allowing the negotiating team/leadership of this employee association to talk directly to us would mitigate that issue once and for all. I am finding it very difficult to support a plan based on a unilateral action without any face-to-face contact with the other side. There are certain things a Board of Directors must delegate, and some responsibilities that have to be accepted. One meeting, even only a listening meeting, would be a prudent thing to do in light of us considering unilateral decision making. While I understand staff advise to stay out of labor negotiations, listening to the other party, one time, is not interfering with negotiations. In fact, when has communication not been the best tool in any crisis situation where two parties are at odds. This basic technique has stopped missile launchings this quarter century, perhaps it could help in simple labor talks between a community government and it's own police department. This is a specific request for Council action. DG:paj xc: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 . DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 96-1 Council/Agency Meeting Held: (o D ferred/Continued to: 444 Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: January 16, 1996 Department ID Number: AD 96-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator/Ex tive Direct /lid PREPARED BY: PATRICIA A. DAPKUS, Management Assistan SUBJECT: Special Meeting Schedule Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysi E ironmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Approval of a schedule of special meetings to discuss the budget, redevelopment issues, privatization, the General Plan update and EIR. Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Approve the schedule of special meetings as follows: January 22 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Privatization and Redevelopment Issues February 12 (2nd Monday, 5:00 PM) Budget February 26 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) General Plan/EIR March 11 (2nd Monday, 5:00 PM) Budget/General Plan/EIR March 25 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Public Hearing #1, General Plan/EIR April 8 (2nd Monday, 5:00 PM) General Plan/EIR April 22 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Public Hearing #2, General Plan/EIR May 6 (Regular Meeting, 4:00 PM) General Plan/EIR (If Necessary) May 13 (2nd Monday, 5:00 PM) Public Hearing #3, General Plan/EIR SPMTGRCA.DOC -2- 01/09/96 5:22 PM I t :-1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT OENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 96-1 Alternative Action(s): 1. Approve an-alternate schedule as follows: January 22 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Privatization and Redevelopment Issues February 26 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Budget March 25, 1996 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Budget & General Plan/EIR April 22, 1996 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) General Plan/EIR May 28, 1996 (4th Tuesday, 5:00 PM) Public Hearing #1 General Plan/EIR June 24, 1996 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) General Plan/EIR July 22, 1996 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Public Hearing #2 General Plan/EIR August 19, 1996 (regular meeting, 4:00 p.m.) General Plan/EIR (If Necessary) August 26, 1996 (4th Monday, 5:00 PM) Public Hearing #3 General Plan/EIR 2. Amend and approve the above schedule. 3. Direct staff to return with an alternate schedule. Analysis: There are several issues which require an in-depth discussion by the City Council over the next few months. In order to accommodate these, staff has prepared a schedule of special meetings for City Council consideration. These special study sessions will occur primarily on the Mondays between the regular City Council meetings. If these schedules are too demanding, or if it does not meet the calendaring needs of the Council members,staff respectfully requests direction as to alternate days and times. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page NONE SPMTGRCA.DOC -3- 01/09/96 5:22 PM e RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration SUBJECT: Special Meeting Schedule COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 RCA ATTACHMENTS ............................... TATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attome Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable ... ....... ......... ........ ........ ... . ........ _ _ ......... ........ .............. ..... - ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ....... _ . ... .. ..... . . ...... _ . ...._. ...... ... ......... ........ ..... _... EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS _... . :REVIEWED RETURNED fORWARDED . ... _ . _. .. Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk .... MRETURNOFITEEXPLANATIONFOR (Below • . • Only) Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved Denied City Clerk's Sign ture Council Meeting Date: December 18, 1995 Department ID Number: AD 95-4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrato ecutive Dire PREPARED BY: Patricia A. Dapkus, Management Assistant SUBJECT: January 1996 City Council Meeting Schedule Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) / 5 / A� Statement of ISU Should the January 1996 City Council meetings be rr�'dved to the 2nd and 4th Mondays to adjust for the holidays which fall on the 1 st and 3rd Mondays. Fundinq Source: N/A i�;�,/�6 1-1160 7 Recommended Action: Approve mev img the re lar meeti s and associated public hearings of the City Council for January fth 00 e st and 3r uesdays •� the 2-a a�u I a R 4th-Mondays-(Jam-8th-and-4anuary_22nd)-on-a-one time Gasisfor-1-996- Alternative Action(s): 1. Hold the January meeting for 1996 as scheduled on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays. REQUEST FOR %.,JUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT:,:,.iENCY.ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 95-4 Analysis: This coming January both of the regular City Council meetings fall on legal holidays. The normal procedure for City Council meetings which fall on a holiday is to reschedule the meeting for the next regular business day. In this case, the 1 st and 3rd Tuesday. Some of the Council members have suggested that it might be preferable to have the regular meetings for January of 1996 adjourned to the 2nd and 4th Mondays. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): Page City Clerk's - NONE JANHOLID.DOC -2- 12/11/95 2:57 PM RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT: COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ._........................................... . ............ ......... ... ........ ........._......... ........ ......._ .. _._ _.. ......... ......... ............. ....... ..... . . RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Attached Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Attached Bonds (If applicable) Attached Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached .... ....... _ _ . . .............. ....... ......... ... ....._ _... ......... . . _ .. ... ......... ......... EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS __ __ REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk ..... ... _ ......... .. ......... ......... _ ......... . ........ ... . ............... - .........- ...... .............................. .. .. ............ . EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: SpaceOnly) 2-irift-1 CITY 49 HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNUNGTON BEACH r Al�1 � � � - TO: City Councilmembers FROM: Victor Leipzig, Mayor DATE: October 9, 1995 SUBJECT: COUNCIL BADGES Recently, I was polled to see if I wanted a Council Badge (similar to those department heads and police officers carry). I realize that past Council's had badges which they used for entry into various functions, identification purposes, as well as for hanging on the wall in their homes. It is my personal opinion that the Council should resolve, as a whole, not to distribute badges to Councilmembers. I think this is an unnecessary expense which has more potential for harm than good. I will be agendizing this as an Witem for the next Council meeting. Until the time that Council can meet on this, I have given direction to hold off on ordering any badges. VL:paj xc: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Ron Lowenberg, Police Chief CITY F HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Dave Garofalo, CouncilmemberNt DATE: September 13, 1995 SUBJECT: H Item for 9/18/95 Council Meeting Re: Council Workshop There are several major issues that may require a Saturday morning City Council workshop. Philosophically, the new City Council confronted with the realities of the mid-1990's, combine to cause change. Staff, today, needs to hear from us some direction on several major issues: 1. Affordable Housing 2. Redevelopment and Eminent Domain 3. Economic Development Please consider allocating about four hours, appropriate department heads only, with the emphasis on our dialogue with staff. I believe this would help move the process forward, providing staff with a clear direction from this Council make-up. I therefore suggest that we schedule a Saturday Council workshop within the next 6 weeks. DG:paj xc: Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant Council/Agency Meeting Held: - �- Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signatu e Council Meeting Council Department ID Number: AD95-103 Date:09-05-95 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator PREPARED BY: RICHARD D. BARNARD, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegate for California League of Cities Annual Conference IFStatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment( Statement of Issue: Each year the League of California Cities holds their general business meeting during the League's annual conference. The League is requesting the city council designate a voting delegate and alternate to vote during the League's general business meeting. Fundinci Source: N/A Recommended Action: Appoint Council member Shirley Dettloff as the voting delegate and Council member Peter Green as the voting alternate. Alternative Action(s): Appoint other members of the city council to serve as the voting delegate and alternate. REQST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: Council DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD95-103 Analysis: The League of California Cities is holding their annual conference from October 22-24, 1995 at the Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco. On October 24, 1995 the business meeting of the League will be held. Under the League's bylaws each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy during the League's business meeting. The League has requested that the city designate a voting member and alternate on or before September 29, 1995. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): City Clerk's NONE Page Number 0013754.01 -2- 08/28/95 9:57 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINC.TON BEACH ,o a a- TO: Peter Green, City Council Member VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director DATE: March 27, 1995 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS City Council Member Peter Green has requested an analysis of the City Council's appeals of Planning Commission actions for the last three years. The request also included an analysis of the fees not collected, possible impact on the budget, current city policy (written or unwritten), and the practice of other cities. The following is a point by point analysis: 1. Council Appeals: The following is a breakdown of the appeals filed in the last three years. 1992: Sixteen (16) appeals filed, three (3) of the sixteen (16) appeals were filed by Council Members. 1993: Nine (9) appeals filed, five (5) of the nine (9) appeals were filed by Council Members. 1994: Six (6) appeals filed, five (5) of the six (6) appeals were filed by Council Members. 1995: Two (2) appeals filed to date, both appeals were filed by Council Members. Totals: Thirty three (33) appeals filed, fifteen (15) of the thirty three (33) were filed by Council Members. 1 Council Member Green Appeals of PC actions March 27, 1995 2. Fees not collected/Budget Impact: The current fee schedule became effective on August 20, 1993. The fee for appeals of Planning Commission actions to the City Council are as follows; $500.00 for a single family residential owner appealing decision of their own property and $1,200.00 for any other decision. The prior fee was $500.00 for any appealable Planning Commission action. The following is a breakdown of the appeal fees not collected for the last three (3) plus years: 1995: 2 appeals @ $1,200.00 = $2,400.00 (as of 3/27/95) 1994: 5 appeals @ $1,200.00 = S6,000.00 1993: 5 appeals @ $1,200.00 = $6,000.00 (all appeals filed after fee increase) 1992: 3 appeals C $500.00 = S1,500.00 Totals: 15 appeals/$15,900.00 in fees not collected In addition to the fees not collected, the impact on the budget is also felt in other areas. Staff time preparing the staff reports and legal notices require the coordination of multiple departments and staff members. A typical public hearing requires a cost to publish a notice in the local newspaper ($60.00), and a cost to bulk mail legal notices to all property owners within a 300 feet radius ($50.00). The Management Services Institute (MSI) Report, dated June 1991, identified the cost/revenue associated with processing an appeal to the City Council. In general, the city reccvers only 7.9% (loss of 92.1%) of the actual cost to process the appeal when an appeal fee is collected. 3. Current City Policy: The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, adopted October 3, 1994, governs the appeals of decisions. Section 248.28, Subpart A, of Chapter 248; Notices, Hearinqs. Findings. Decisions and Appeals states: A City Council member or a Planning Commissioner may appeal a decision of the Director, Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment Council Member Green Appeals of PC actions March 27, 1995 Committee, Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other person but need not be accompanied by the fee prescribed for an appeal. The prior Zoning Ordinance (Division 9), Article 968, Section 9883, Notice stated in part: Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that a filing fee is necessary if the appeal is made by a member of the City Council. 4. Other Cities: Attached please find a survey conducted. of eleven (11) Orange County cities and one (1) Los Angeles County city. Of the twelve (12) cities surveyed, nine (9) waive the fee if the appeal is filed by a City Council member. The three (3) that do not waive the fee have the following procedure. Two (2) of the cities do not waive the fee if a single City Council member appeals the decision. However, one (1) city waives the fee if two (2) members agree to appeal the decision (Anaheim) and the other city waives the fee if two-thirds of the City Council agree to appeal the decision (Fountain Valley). The third city (Long Beach) does not waive the fee (please see survey notes). tf you need any additional information regarding this issue, you may contact Herb Fauland, Associate Planner at X5438. Attachment: Twelve (12) city appeal fee survey xc: City Council Planning Commission Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Linda Niles, Senior Planner Herb Fauland, Associate Planner MTU:MSF:hf,y/ (395hf1) 3 ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY: CITY COUNCIL POLL OF APPEALS PROCEDURES City: Form to Fee: Appeal Waive Fee City Time: For Council Clerk: member: Anaheim letter S350 22 calendar If 2 City Council Members appeal,yes; days if 1 City Council Member appeals,no. Buena Park standard 1/2 of 10 ,vorking days Yes form permit fee Costa Mesa standard S195 7 calendar Yes form comm. days S50 res. Fountain. Vly. standard 1/2 of 30 calendar If 2/3 of the Council Members appeal,yes; form pe„nit days if I City Council Member appeals,no. fee Garden Grv. standard S50 21 calendar Yes form days Irvine standard S380 15 calendar Yes form days l✓aguna Bch. standard S 3 3 0 10 calendar days Yes form for comm—,20 cal- endar days for res. Long Beach standard form S900 10 calendar dav_s SEE DOTES ON:TEXT PAGE and letter to S1050 Los Alamitos standard 1/2 of 20 calendar days Yes form permit fee Newport Bch, standard S278 14 calendar days Yes form to S876 Seal Beach letter to 1/2 of 40 calendar days Yes Cit\ permit Council fee Westminster letter to S250 5 calendar da;,s Yes Secretary of to Planning S510 Abbreviations: Comm.=commercial res.=residential Bill 6.Doc