Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE 3773 AMENDING HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE - HB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL NOTICE Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general ORDINANCE NO.3773 circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Moptedby the City tounell. Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case on AUGUST'10,2007. A50479. - - -- "AN ORDINANCE'OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING PROOF OF CHAPTER 9:20 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLICATION MUNICIPAL CODE RE, DATING.TO PUBLIC NU DITY" • SYNOPSIS: I THE-CITY OF HUNTING- ,TON BEACH MUNICIPAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SODS AND CURRENT STATE LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT PUBLIC NU- DITY. ALTHOUGH STATE SS, LAW-DOES HAVE STAT- 7 sUTES GOVERNING "IN- COUNT 1�j OF ORANGE ) DECENT EXPOSURE" <T j AND "LEWD CONDUCT;" THE COURTS HAVE IN- �+ JERPRETED THESE LAWS TO REI am the Citizen of the United States and a SEXUAL, GRATIOF CIATION ELEMENT. THIS MEANS resident of the County aforesaid; I am over A SUBJECT WALKING the age of eighteen years, and not a party STRE°, WHO WAS NOT I DISPLAYING BEHAVIOR to or Interested In the below entitled matter. (INDICATING SEXUAL am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON 1NOT!GRATIFBE-VIOLATING BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of STATE LAW OR THE CITY ORDINANCE: IREC€NTLY; THE POLICE general circulation, printed and published in DEPARTMENT;HAD INCI- DENTS. INVOLVING A the City of Huntington Beach, County of "NATURIST" LIVING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. Orange, State of California, - and the ION SEVERAL OCCA SIONS,' THIS SUBJECT' attached Notice is a true and complete copy STOOD NAKED IN HIS ;'FRONT YARD, OR THEM as was printed and published on the ;THRESHOLD OF HIS; ;RESIDENCE; IN FULL following date(s). (VIEW,OF 'THE -PUBLIC; (WALKING ON THE SIDE=s 'WALK. SINCE THE SUB JECTS BEHAVIOR DID NOT INCLUDE AN OVERT, jELEMENT OF 'SEXUAL' �GRATIFICATION, ;THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS ABLE ONLY TO TAKE REPORTS FROM THE .CITIZENS WHO AUGUST 30, 2007 COMPLAINED. THESE REPORTS WERE SUB MITTED TO THE.ORANGE. COUTY DISTRICT ATTOR- NEY'S OFFICE,WHO DE- CLINED TO PROSECUTE; THE .SUBJECT, CITING] THE MISSING SEXUAL. GRATIFICATION ELE- MENT. , INSTEAD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SUGGESTED THE: CITY ENACT AN ORDI declare, under penalty of perjury, that the PUBICNUDITY. TINGj fore goingis true and correct. THE FULL TEXT,OF THE ' ORDINANCE IS AVAIL-, ABLER 'IN 'THE CITY. j CLERK'S OFFICE. ' ,� PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Executed on AUGUST 30, 2007 Beeacac ityh a t Huntington Bt a regular meeting held August 20, at Huntington Beach, California 2007 by :the following roll call vote: AYES: Bohr, Carchio, Cook, Coerper; Green, Hansen,Hardy NOES: , ABSTAININ::None ABSENT:None Signature This ordinance is effec tive 30 days after adop-! tion. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH',CA 92648. , 714-536-5227 JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Published Huntington Beach Independent Au-{ gust 30,2007 985-1 8' Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of nine years old to appear, bath, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, playground, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or on any other public land, or on any private property open to public view from any public beach, playground, park, public place, or public right-of-wina manner as to knowingly and intentionally: (a) Expose his or her genitals, pubic hair, natal cleft, perinregion or pubic hair region, or expose the nipples and/or areola of threast except as necessary while engaging in the breastfeeding of an the age of years ,1 a. , , 07-989/12459 ORDINANCE NO. 3773 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9.20 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIP CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC NUDITY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain a ollows: SECTION 1. That new Section 9.20.015 be; and is hereby added Chapter 9.20 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, said section to read as follows: Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any perso over the age of nine years old to appear, bath, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, play round, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or on any other public land, or on any private p perty open to public view from any public beach, playground, park, public place, or public ri t-of-way in such a manner as to knowingly and intentionally: (a) Expose his or her genitals, pubic ha' , natal cleft, perineum, anal region or pubic hair region, or expose the n' ples and/or areola of the female breast except as necessary while engagi in the breastfeeding of an infant under the age of two years old; or (b) Expose any device, costume or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates the male or femal genitals, pubic hair, pubic hair region, natal cleft, perineum, anal region, or e nipple and/or areola of the female breast. SECTION 2. This ordinance sh become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED y the -City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200 Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: C City Cler ity Attorney 71- y/23/6 7 REVIEWED D APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City dministrator Police Chief 9515 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3773 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Chapter 9.20 PROHIBITED PUBLIC CONDUCT (542-5/49, 1935-11/74,2992-4/89, Urg. Ord.3192-4/93, 3215-12/93, 3289-8/95, 3 12-3/99) Sections: 9.20.010 Dressing in public places 9.20.015 Public Nudity 9.20.020 Human waste 9.20.030 Picketing of private residences 9.20.040 Trespassing on school grounds 9.20.050 Nuisance 9.20.010 Dressing in Public Places. No person shall dress or un ess for the purpose of putting on or taking off a bathing garment in or upon any public street, alley or other public place, or underneath any pier or wharf in the city, or upon any public beach, or within any public toilet, or within a vehicle other than a house trailer, motorhome or ca per designed for living purposes. (542-5/49, 1935-11/74) 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful/#Or any person over the age of nine years old to appear, bath, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, playground, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or/on any other public land, or on any private property open to public view from any public beach, playground, park, public place, or public right-of-way in such a manner as to knowingly and intentionally: / (a) Expose his or her gen�itals, pubic hair, natal cleft, perineum, anal region or pubic hair region, or expose the nipples and/or areola of the female breast/except as necessary while engaging in the breastfeeding ofian infant under the age of two years old; or (b) Expose any de 'ice, costume or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates tl7e male or female genitals, pubic hair, pubic hair region, natal cleft, perineum, anal region, or the nipple and/or areola of the femme breast. 9.20.020 Human waste. No person shall urinate or evacuate his bowels on private property in an area exposed to the public vi�w, or on any public street,sidewalk, alley, park, or other public place, except in a public r s room. (2992-4/89) 9.20.030 Picketing of private residences. In enacting this section, the City Council finds as follows: (Urg. Ord. 3192-4193) (a) Protecting the well�Ieing, tranquility, and privacy of the homes of residents of the City is a significant gove ental interest. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) (b) A special benefi of the privacy all residents enjoy within their homes is the ability to avoid intrusions and u wanted speech. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) i 9568 1 (c) Picketing which targets the dwellings of specific residents of the City is an inherent and offensive intrusion on residential privacy. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) (d) Picketing before or about dwellings obstructs and interferes with the free and fe use of public sidewalks and public streets. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) (e) The purpose of this section is to protect and preserve the well-being, tran ility and privacy of the home by ensuring the residents of the City are free from picketing irected specifically at them. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) (f) This section is enacted for the further purpose of protecting the free d safe use of public sidewalks and streets. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) It is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing within 300 fee of a residence or dwelling of any individual, where such picketing is focused or targeted agai t that residence, dwelling or individual. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93, 3412-3/99) Violations of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. No fine imposed pursuant to this section for any single violation thereof shall exceed Five Hundred dollars ($500), nor shall imprisonment exceed six (6) months for each violation hereof and each day that any such separate violation continu e s'shall constitute a separate violation. (Urg. Ord. 3192-4/93) j 9.20.040 Trespassing on school grounds. No person shall enter posted school grounds without first obtaining permission from the administrative office of the school or school district, except for the following persons: (3215-12/93) , (a) Students, currently enrolled at that school: (3215-12/93) (b) Teachers, staff members and other employees of the school district. (3215-12/93) (c) Service providers and vendors doing business with the school, including counselors. (3215-12/93) (d) Volunteers approved by the school. (3215-12/93) (e) Parents of students currently,enrolled. (3215-12/93) (f) Law enforcement and other governmental employees and representatives having business at the school. (3215-12/93) (g) Attendees at school events that are open to the public, while those events are open and only in the area open for the event. (3215-12/93) (h) Attendees at authorized Civic Center Act functions. (3215-12/93) r 9.20.050 Nuisance. It shall be deemed a public nuisance for any person to dress or undress for the purpose of putting on or taking off a bathing garment in or upon any public street, alley or other public place, or underneath any pier or wharf in the city, or upon any public beach, or within any public toilet, or within a vehicle other than a house trailer, motorhome or camper. (3289-8/95) It shall be deemed a public nuisance for any person to urinate or evacuate his bowels on private property in an area exposed to the public view, or on any public street, sidewalk, alley,park or other public plILe except in a public restroom. (3289-8/95) I 9568 2 o CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Dr. Penelope Culbreth-Graft, DPA, City Administrator FROM. Ken Small, Chief of Police DATE: July 18, 2007 SUBJECT: RCA for Agenda Item G-2(a) (Public Nudity Ordinance) The purpose of this memorandum is to correct an error in the Request for Council Action (RCA) for agenda item G-2(a) during the July 16, 2007 City Council Meeting. The RCA recommended that the council adopt an ordinance related to public nudity. In the analysis section, the RCA incorrectly stated that no charges had been filed against a subject who was observed standing naked in either his side yard, the threshold of his residence, the front window or a nearby parking lot in full view of the public walking on the sidewalk. The statement that no charges had been filed was not correct, and I wanted to ensure that you had the correct information before you considered this matter for second reading and adoption on August 6. Over the course of almost a year, the police department received a large number of complaints regarding a subject standing naked at his residence in full view of the public as they walked by on the public sidewalk. On most occasions the subject was standing within a few feet of those walking by. These complaints came in the form of telephone calls, emails, visits to the police station and questions to passing officers. Most often, complainants were told that the city did not have an ordinance prohibiting public nudity, and the subject was not violating any state law. Therefore, there was nothing that could be done to stop the subject's conduct. That explanation was not satisfactory for most complainants especially those who lived in or visited the area often and who observed this subject naked over and over again. There were a few instances when police officers completed reports because they believed the conduct of the suspect went beyond mere nudity and may violate state laws related to indecent exposure or child annoyance. These cases generally involved females, and in many cases young females, as potential victims. The cases were submitted to the Orange County District Attorney's Office for filing consideration in late 2006 and early 2007. The District Attorney's Office declined to file most of the cases, because they lacked the element of lewdness and recommended that the city should consider adopting a public nudity ordinance. Two cases were filed as felony indecent exposure violations. However, an element of filing these cases was that the subject had a prior conviction for indecent exposure in 1996. In June 2007, the subject appeared in court and was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to the 1996 conviction. After that occurred, and at the time the RCA was written, it was the police department's belief that the two criminal charges that were filed would have to be dismissed. We have learned that those cases have not been dismissed, and a pretrial hearing is scheduled for August 7, 2007. We are unsure what will happen at that hearing, but it is clear that the cases cannot be prosecuted as felonies without the prior conviction. If you have any questions regarding this matter, I would be happy to answer them for you. I apologize that inaccurate information was included in the original RCA for this matter. Responding to this matter has been difficult, frustrating and time consuming for members of my staff. I know it has been frustrating for the residents and visitors who were exposed to this situation as well. It is my hope that the council will adopt the public nudity ordinance on second reading to provide the police department with a way to more quickly resolve any similar situation that may occur in the future. Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: peter karlovich [pjkarlovich@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: OPPOSITION to proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear representatives of Huntington Beach, CA: My name is Peter Karlovich. I live at 207 Bailey Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, but frequently visit California, as well as other naturist-friendly destinations. I am writing today to express my OPPOSITION to proposed Ordinance Number 3773. 1 OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond current California state law. This proposed ordinance is unnecessary and unfair to law-abiding naturists. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop?The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non- threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. The extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. I respectfully ask that you do NOT pass this ordinance so that I may continue to visit and enjoy Huntington Beach in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Peter J. Karlovich 7/16/2007 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:03 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Ordinance 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Pauline Moore (mailto:pmoore@communitymanagement.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance 3773 I am a California resident who has spent vacation time in Huntington Beach. I have been a naturist for over 25 years. While I am opposed to lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct, I am opposed to Ordinance 3773 which I see as an attempt to target naturists and go beyond existing state law. Pauline M. A. Moore 2489 Raleigh Drive San Jose, CA 95124 ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-Secure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ -7. Lugar, Robin From: Robert Morton [morton2002@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:43 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: in opposition to Ordinance 3773 To the City Council of Huntington Beach, My name is Robert Morton III, and my wife and I wish to express our opposition to proposed Ordinance Number 3773. We are not constituents but we frequently travel to California for exactly the kind of cultural open-mindedness that you find in Huntington Beach. It strikes me as unfortunately and extreme that this proposed ordinance would abrogate state law with regards to nude recreation, in particular to target the behavior of a single citizen who no longer lives there. Please consider the political and economic ramifications of this ordinance, and I hope you find that it's in everyone's best interest to work together on these concerns instead of acting unilaterally. Thanks for your consideration, Robert Morton 1 �` 6`may. ANDREW S. ROSS 4227 EAST WEST HIGHWAY BETHESDA, MD 20814 202/257-8563 July 14,2007 Mayor Gil Coerper Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook Council Member Keith Bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Huntington Beach City Council City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Council Members: I am a resident of Bethesda,Maryland, and I am outraged by your proposed passage of Ordinance Number 3773. I clearly and specifically ask that you all vote to OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I specifically OPPOSE the attempt to target American citizen,taxpaying naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. Additionally,I would like you all to consider the following points: 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law,fine-tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group,like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd,non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. The extent of the proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender,with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. These proposed legislative actions would appear to be barred by existing anti-discrimination statutes. 6. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. I am a long way from you all,but I am outraged at attempts to target naturists for criminalization that goes beyond the state law! I clearly and specifically ask that you all vote to OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I thank you in advance for your consideration of my plea in this letter. Respectfully, Andrew S. Ross 2 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: SageSwiger@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Please OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear Council Members, I would like for you to know that I OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 . I especially OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond California state law. I vacation regularly in Huntington Beach and spend a fair amount of money there, and this ordinance would have a very negative impact on my decision to continue to do so. Stephen Sage 7015 Northwood Road Dallas, Texas 75225 Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. 7/16/2007 111-7610 Lugar, Robin From: Morley Schloss [morleynaturist@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 7:40 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Ordinance 3773 Dear Council Members, I urge you to defeat proposed ordinance 3773. This ordinance would solely target naturists for prosecution. It would not impact public lewd behavior which can be easily prosecuted under existing California laws. What people wear or don't wear is not the business of government. Furthermore, any ordinance requiring women but not men to cover their chests is clearly unconstitutioinal, a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The top court in New York State outlawed such discrimination in 1992. Naturist recreation (skinnydipping and sunbathing) has a long tradition in the United States. A 2006 Roper Poll found that 25% if Americans have skinnydipped in mixed company. Do you really want to criminalize people who are nude in their backyard? Morley Schloss 14125 North Rd. Loxahatchee Groves, Florida 33470 (561) 791-1361 Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary.! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: NorthSwanson@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Opposed to new law targetting Naturists Dear Huntington Beach City Council members: My wife and I are Naturists. We travel at least twice each year to Southern California and enjoy a day at the beach most times. Huntington Beach is frequently our beach of choise when we haven't the time to drive further to a naturist beach. We feel it is unwarranted to specifically target naturists with this proposed odinance. Naturism is a family- oriented lifestyle and harbors no sexual or inappropriate behavior. Please DO NOT enact this arbitrary ordinance. As we understand it, the naturist who caused your police chiefs ire no longer resides in Huntington Beach. Thank you for your consideration. Naturally, H. N. and Diedre J. Swanson Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. 7/16/2007 PUBLIC NUDITY ORDINANCE August 6, 2007 COMMUNICATIONS CU� ruu,� � Cu-�rO�S Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:14 AM To: City Clerk Agenda; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Nudity ban in huntington beach FYI Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Terri Cohrac [mailto:tjcohrac@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:57 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Nudity ban in huntington beach Honorable Council Members, We are homeowners in the City of Huntington Beach, and would like to support the ban on public nudity. While we agree that people have the right to go nude if they wish, we believe that the rights of the majority of people who prefer not to view nudity in public outweigh the small minority. Those who wish to go au natural may certainly do so in their homes or on their property, as long as their lifestyle is not visually imposed upon their neighbors or passers-by. Thank you for your common sense vote on this issue, and your continuing service to the community. Gregory &Terri Cohrac 18312 Springtime Lane Huntington Beach 7/19/2007 Page l of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:27 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: New proposed naturist ordinance Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Boyd Conklin [mailto:boydconklin@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:49 AM To: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Subject: New proposed naturist ordinance Dear representatives of Surf City aka Huntington Beach my name is Boyd Conklin and my wifes sister and niece live in two separate residences in your fair city. I was just in HB yesterday myself. My address is 839 Hampton Court, Vista, California 92081. I clearly and specifically OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I clearly and specifically OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already- endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. 6. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely, Boyd Conklin 7/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monda my 16, 2007 5:26 PM To: City Clerk Agenda �ti%C Subject: FW: Proposed nudity ordinance#3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: George Davis [mailto:george12357@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:02 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Re: Proposed nudity ordinance #3773 Dear Council members: I am a former resident of Huntington Beach, still have friends there, and visit about once a year or so. I wish to speak out against the proposed ordinance. Points to consider: Nude is not lewd. Where is the threat to public safety? Where is the violence? Is Huntington Beach looking for an uptight image? In much of Europe, i.e. Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, Mediterranean France and Spain and many other areas, the proposed ordinance would be considered an anachronistic joke. Or, doesn't Huntington Beach want European visitors? What irrevocable harm would befall any man, woman, or child to see another naked human in public? In fact, if anyone has a 500 or word or less essay on the subject claiming harm, I would be honored to arrange publication in various naturist publications that I am familiar with. I hope that you are all mature grown-ups and see the folly of this ordinance. Sincerely, George Davis 887 Bush St., #504 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 722-2968 PC Magazine's 2007 editors'choice for best web mail—award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. Check it out! 7/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: delsoca11 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:42 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: City Counsil I am trying to contact the City council to let them know that I want the nudity law to be left alone. someone complained about a individual being naked and I am commending the nudist. If one person can bring it to this, then one person can stop it. Get to real issues. David Delaney 16868 Algonquin St. H.B. Ca. 92649 Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. 7/17/2007 Lugar, Robin From: Lloyd Johnson [Iloydjay@tns.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 3:00 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear City Council, I wish for you to know that I oppose the proposed ordinance 3773. There is already sufficient state law to prosecute lewd behavior. It is wrong to criminalize nudity on private property. I am a nudist living in San Diego. Such a law would prevent me from ever visiting Huntington Beach. I'm also certain many others would choose other vacation spots. Lloyd Johnson http://www.cuyamaca.net/lloyd.johnson/ 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: gymnoboi [gymnoboi@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: naturist opposition Dear Councilman, I recently found out about the proposed ordinance that targets naturists. I strongly urge you to not let this happen. As Florida has found out naturists and nudists contribute substantially to local and state tourism revenue's. As a former resident of southern California I had planned to continue to visit the area but will re-think this if such and ordinance were ever passed. Respectfully Dennis Kater Food fight?Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food& Drink Q&A. 7/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:46 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Concerned of Britain Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Peter Knight [mai Ito:pete084@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:58 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Concerned of Britain Hi My name is Pete Knight, I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom, I am also a naturist, and a member of British Naturism. I came across a news item on the British Naturism web site which indicated that your council plans to ban nudity on a local beach, this is a very worrying situation as I had intended to tour nudist beaches and resorts in California, but it appears that you don't want my dollars. I and many others take our vacations at places where we can maintain our all over tan and the few places we can go are constantly under attack, why should this be the case? Earlier this year I toured naturist beaches and resorts in New Zealand and Australia, next year I will be taking a party of nudist tourists to New Zealand, I hope to extend this to Australia, and perhaps the US, providing there are still some beaches left to tour. Have you not considered that nude people spend money in your towns too, have you not considered making your beach a nudist friendly beach to attract more buff dollars, you could learn a lot from France and Spain just how much money you could attract with a nudist beach with decent facilities. I understand that one man, who has since moved, was the cause for concern, but you seek to punish every nudist, this I can not fathom out, its like banning all drivers because one driver went over the speed limit. I really do hope you reconsider your plans and the impact it could have on the local economy. Regards P. W. Knight 7/17/2007 Lugar, Robin From: robmcp@adelphia.net Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:23 PM To: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Subject: I OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance#3773 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue I am an evangelical Christian but I OPPOSE proposed ordinance #3773. I truly believe that we should do something about flaunting nudity or exhibiting lewd behavior. And if this is the case it is covered under State Law PC 314.1. This law and the subtleties of its application in case law have been hammered out in the courts so it isn't necessary, in my opinion, for Huntington Beach to start doing that all over again. It's going to cost a lot of time and money to do so. According to numerous studies, more and more people are telecommuting and a significant number of these are staying nude in their own homes and fenced yards. Yes there might be an occasion passerby or peeping tom that might see a portion of a naked body from a distance. So what! Deal with it like any other neighborhood complaint--cite him/her or fine him/her, but do not arrest the person. I suggest we let it be like the kind of thing where when someones tree is too tall and blocks someone's view, he is cited or fined when there is a complaint. In this day of Patriot Act loss of privacy, when we invade someone's privacy, we need to center on threats of terrorists not that of a nude body. Let people work naked or sun naked in their yards, assuming proper precautions are taken to avoid exposing themselved to the general public. Most Europeans set aside naturist areas for people to do no tanlines sunning. No one is asking for this. I think we should simply let people be naked in their own domiciles. Thank you for your consideration. Robert McPherson PS I am a resident of Redondo Beach and often travel to Huntington Beach to shop, visit friends and go to the beach (fully clothed) . 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:19 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: A message opposing proposed Ordinance Number 3773 from a Los Angeles Area Resident Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Eileen [mailto:mynonobservance@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: A message opposing proposed Ordinance Number 3773 from a Los Angeles Area Resident I oppose the proposed Ordinance Number 3773 because I do not believe that it addresses the issue that you are attempting to legislate. I find it spurious in nature. Determining that any person above nine years of age cannot be nude on a beach is rather ridiculous. Initially because your set age limit is an arbitrary number, but mainly because unless someone is displaying lewd or sexual behavior inappropriately there is nothing wrong with being nude on a beach. I would appreciate your recognition of California as a forward thinking State and hope that you would curtail this needless legislation. There are already plenty of laws on the books to deal with inappropriate nudity effectively. Sincerely, Eileen Murphy 18375 Collins Street#221 Tarzana, CA 91353 Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 7/23/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:23 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Proposed Anti-Nudist Ordinance Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Marc Welter [mailto:mands@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:39 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Anti-Nudist Ordinance Dear Huntington Beach City Council, Please vote against Ordinance#3773. Simple nudity should not be unlawful. Sonya Robinson Ventura, CA Marc and/or Sonya 7/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: jesse tigner[nakedjesseman2006@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:09 PM To: city.council@surfcity.hb.org Subject: Opposition to proposed ordinance#3773 To the Mayor and Council Members: I'm writing at this time to oppose ordinace#3773 which affects swimsuit-free beach vacationing at Huntington Beach, California. I have been hi-coastal since the 80s and have often thought of finally relocating to California and becoming a permanent resident here. I'm semi-retired and have always sought out one of California's many clothing-=optional beaches, especially in southern California. Making a harmless recreational choice like naturism and turning it into a crime does not snake moral or economic business sense, especially in an area where naturism and clothing-optional beaches have existed side-by-side without upset or problems. State law already deals with the unrelated problem of lewd behavior (which has nothing to do with naturism as a lifestyle) and that singling out innocent naturists is not only unnecessary, but most assuredly petty and mean-spirited. The existing state law has a long history of thoughtful judicial interpretation to support it. This particular proposed city ordinance is not well thought out...not even close. I am deeply concerned about this attempt to erode personal freedom for no substantive reason other than small mindedness and the unfortunate but continuing human condition known as prejudice. My name is Jesse Tigner-Hayden-McCrary,Jr of African-american and Irish descent and I currently live and work in New York City and am bi-coastal and semi-retired but have no interest in living in a state that allows a bigotted and small-minded local bureaucrat to change perfectly good existing laws, that have been fined tuned over the years,to suit his own questionable agenda. Thank you Jesse Tigner-Hayden-McCrary,Jr Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search. 7/18/2007 Page 1 of 2 Flynn, Joan From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:42 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Public Nudity Ordinance Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: NaturaSol@aol.com [mailto:NaturaSol@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:02 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: NaturaSol@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Public Nudity Ordinance The Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Subject: Proposed Public Nudity Ordinance I am in response to news stories on the City of Huntington Beach's plans to install an ordinance to ban public nudity. As a naturist and as a community activist in my city of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, I have been involved with several groups, that are tax supported, who seek to attract tourists to this community. One of those projects was the establishment of a designated European style clothing-optional Naturist family beach, on the ocean, in a county regional park. That park is Haulover Beach Park. Today, that 1/4 mile beach attracts over 1.4 million visitors a year. Miami-Dade County earns over$1.5 million in parking fees and this section of beach has an economic impact in excess$200 million on South Florida. A check with Miami-Dade County Police will reveal that that 1/4 mile of beach, where people are nude, has the least number of problems than any other section of the county We were able to do that without having to challenge an anti-nudity ordinance, which expert lawyers said, could be defeated in court under US Constitutional protections. I am asking you to consider carefully this ordinance and to not pass it into law. Ordinance's of this ilk have a tendency to be"overbroad"and extremely costly to defend in court. Many written around the USA have been overturned in court. There are private property rights, civil rights, religious custom rights and other Constitutional considerations involved in this issue. If one person was offended by one person being nude, under existing laws, that offended person could file a complaint with the police department, and the person being nude could be cited under a"disorderly conduct' rule of law. The court could take it from there. Naturists believe that the human body, in of its self is not illegal, but, that behavior while nude or clothed can be inappropriate. 7/25/2007 Page 2 of 2 A careful review of the circumstances involved in this case would reveal that an ordinance banning nudity would be the wrong course of action. If we start creating ordinances every time we had a citizens complaint, we would soon find us going down the same road that Germany of the 1930s and Russia of the 1920s went. A review of crimes that keep the police the busiest should then be reviewed and ordinances to ban activities, on a priority basis, could be developed. The Huntington Beach city council would learn that domestic violence is the number one cause of police calls. Would you ban marriage? Male/female relationships? There has been no adverse secondary effect on the community caused by one eccentric individual being nude on his lawn. A nuisance, yes. If you go down the road of"adverse secondary effects" in this incidence, then the fairness doctrine would have the courts asking you if the council proposed ordinances banning those groups and institutions involved in the child molestation crimes. Thank you for your considerations and I respectfully request that you vote down this ordinance, which a large number of citizens in your community, who are Naturists, finds to be very offensive to them and even un- America. Richard Mason, President Florida Naturist Association PO Box 53 0306 Miami Shores, Florida 33153 Phone: 305 620 7090 cell: 305 283 3633 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 7/25/2007 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:46 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: naturalist Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: wade alien [mailto:wadediego@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: naturalist I am appalled at the conduct of the mayor, city council and the high and mighty Sherriff of Huntington Beach for your behavior concerning the elimination of the rights of law abiding taxpayers to be as god made them.... clothing optional. SHAME ON YOU... I will pray for you misguided sinners. Sincerely, Reverend Wade B. Allen 7/25/2007 Page 1 of 1 Ross, Rebecca From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:38 PM To: City Clerk Agenda; Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: Huntington Beach Proposed Ordinance 3773 Importance: High Attachments: Huntington Beach - NAC 08-01-07.pdf Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Bob Morton [mailto:execdir@naturistaction.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:48 AM To: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Cc: Sharpe, Jean Subject: Huntington Beach Proposed Ordinance 3773 Importance: High Honorable Council Members: Thank you for your attention to the attached letter. Bob Morton Executive Director Naturist Action Committee www.naturistaction.org TEL (512) 282-6621 FAX (512) 282-2503 - � 7 La if 6 MAG U C16L, 8,2,2007 MIUMMMMUM P.O. BOX 132 OSHKOSH,WISCONSIN 54903 TEL(512)282-6621 FAX(512)282-2503 August 1,2007 Mayor Gil Coerper Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Keith Bohr Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Jill Hardy Regarding: Proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Honorable Council Members: I appreciate the opportunity to have met with many of you on Monday. During those meetings,I listened carefully to what each of you had to say. Quite reasonably,you have asked to see our specific proposals for changes to the ordinance.1 have attached those amendments to this correspondence. The changes we propose are intended to accomplish three things: 1) The removal of the reference to"natal cleft" avoids a largely unenforceable prohibition against "thong" style swim suits. "Natis" is the Latin term for buttock, and"natal cleft"refers to the cleavage between the buttocks. Although the application of the proposed ordinance to thong style swim suits may have seemed obscure,this is the phrase that would have done it. 2) Removing the criminalization of female breasts avoids the gender inequality issues inherent in laws and regulations that impose differing standards based solely on the sex of an individual. Recent cases in Sacramento and elsewhere have demonstrated the difficulty in enforcing such laws and the potential liability associated with attempts to do so. 3) Positioning the entire issue as a matter of public safety ultimately crafts a more reasonable and enforceable ordinance. It avoids the creation of a"nanny law" that appeared to have been aimed more at social engineering than at the safety of the citizenry.The ordinance, as introduced,would not have made good law for Huntington Beach.The revision is an improvement. Please look over the attached amended text.I invite you to call me at(5.12)282-6621 if you wish to discuss any parts of it, and I thank you in advance for your gracious and serious consideration of this matter. Naturist Action Committee Robert A. Morton Executive Director attachment, as noted cc: Jennifer McGrath HB City Attorney The Naturist Action Commilice.Inc.is a 501(c)(4)nonprofit organization. For the consideration of Huntington Beach City Council August 1, 2007 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 3773 SECTION 1_ That new Section 9.20.015 be; and is hereby added to Chapter 9.20 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, said section to read as follows: Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of nine years old to appear, lath bathe, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, playground, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or on any other public land, ate ^ ..eAy en to publie view fr^m-any ny in such a manner as to that knowingly and or intentionally endangers the public safety: (a) Expose his or her genitals, pubic hair, natal perineum, anal region or pubic hair region, ar expose the nipples and/or- ar-eela of the female bfeast e*eept as fieeessar-y while eligaging in t br-easifeeding of an infiant. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. The Naturist Action Committee,Inc.is a 501(c)(4)nonprofit organization. Page 1 of 2 Ferrera, Caren From: Allen Baylis [rab@baylislaw.com] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 11:07 AM To: rab@baylislaw.com Subject: Urgent action needed for HB ordinance Importance: High As you may know, the Huntington Beach City Council is set to vote August 6th on a new ordinance prohibiting public nudity. The Naturist Action Committee (NAC) has proposed changes to the ordinance that will protect innocent nudity by tying the prohibition to conduct that knowingly and intentionally endangers public safety, and renders it gender neutral by eliminating the criminalization of female breast exposure. Please send a short email stating that you are a resident of Huntington Beach, that you are aware of the proposal submitted by the Naturist Action Committee and that you support adoption of NAC version of the ordinance. Please point out that the proposal protects public safety while steering clear of enforcing a particular view of what social policy should be through the use of penal laws. Also, please forward this to as many HB residents that will be willing and able to send supporting emails to the City Council as soon as possible. Submissions must reach the city by 3:00 PM on Aug. 6th! Send email to: city.council(c-surfcity-hb.org NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 3773 SECTION 1. That new Section 9.20.015 be; and is hereby added to Chapter 9.20 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, said section to read as follows: Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of nine years old to appear, ba+k bathe, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, playground, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or on any other public land, in such a manner tie that knowingly ar4 or intentionally endangers the public safety: (a) Expose his or her genitals, pubic hair, mt+ttl perineum, anal region or pubic hair region,or R.Allen Baylis Director, Naturist Action Committee CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.Please do not copy or forward this email to any person or entity without the express consent of the original sender.If you are not the intended recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message.Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. b M R J� K4 8/6/2007 U —6 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 8:27 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Urgent action needed for HB ordinance Attachments: Urgent action needed for HB ordinance Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: HBpair@aol.com [mailto:HBpair@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: bobnwhitney@juno.com; CHECKS2REX@aol.com; CoupleInCA92648@aol.com; HBtwosome@aol.com; hbviper@earthlink.net; MIDLIFECRISIS2@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Fwd: Urgent action needed for HB ordinance We are in full support of the recommendations made by the NAC in the matter of prohibiting indecent conduct in our city of Huntington Beach and ask that you follow their lead. David &Vicki Lasky 7822 Seaglen Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 6 _0 /_7- I alt �Yl IM CGS i 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 8:27 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Ordinance 9.20.015. Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Lisa de Torres [mailto:dragons.wine@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 12:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance 9.20.015. As a resident of Huntington Beach I would prefer that the City nudity ordinance be left as it is. I was raised by a naturist and I assure you that the simple act of being nude causes no harm to anyone. However since the city feels action must be taken I will support the Naturist Action Committees' proposed amendment to ordinance 9.20.015. It protects public interest with out forcing that opinion on everyone. Thank you, Lisa de Torres kof( Comrac*Colloyt 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:02 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Nudity Ban Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Mike Powell [mailto:Mike.Powell@rdmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 8:14 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Nudity Ban Honorable members of the City Council, Please consider a NO vote on the nudity ban. This is an unnecessary ordinance that has many potential negative aspects not the least of which could be surfers being sited or arrested for changing into wet suits at the beach if a towel were to drop. The premise presented by the police chief appears to be at least flawed. Existing law has always been sufficient to deal with this issue and should be sufficient now and in the future. Mike Powell HB RESIDENT Laft � ITea i 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:19 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: (no subject) Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: BeansOnWindfall@aol.com [mailto:BeansOnWindfall@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: (no subject) I am writing to suggest that you quit wasting your time passing a law that is brought on because of ONE man!!!! Because this one man has a lack of good judgement, you have spent endless hours and time--meaning taxpayers money. Are you going to waste more of our taxpayers money when you pass this and he challenges the law in court? What I would like to see is a city council that takes on the problems of the city that effect a larger group--not just one man. How about looking at a law that prohibits the daily delivery of unwanted flyers that are left on door steps that blow away and litter our streets? Reducing litter, that would be something that would effect more than ONE person. have not talked to a single person that resides in HB that feels the time spent on this is nuts. Do they take the time to write in, no, because they feel it is as much of a waste of thier time as the time you are wasting. Janet Bean Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. Vvi M W m c s/6/2007 Maize Page 1 of 1 Ross, Rebecca From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:48 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: City Ordinance 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Paul [mailto:paulg001@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: City Ordinance 3773 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Huntington Beach, CA I am writing in concern of proposed amendments to City Ordinance 3773. We have been residents of Huntington Beach for several years and are sad to see our City Government trying to restrict the way of dressing inside resident's homes and yards. I may understand an ordinance concerning public property, but when you include private property you are going too far. For this reason we OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance 3773. Paul& Leslie Gustafson 7652 Danube Drive Huntington Beach, CA � _ 6 7- Laq (0 M M 8/6/2007 Ross, Rebecca From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:16 PM To: City Clerk Agenda; Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: Proposed Ordinance re Nudity Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Elva Kopacz [mailto:elva_kopacz@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Ordinance re Nudity I have resided in HB for 22 years. I am not a naturalist, however I believe that the criminalization of nudity which occurs without sexual content is a step in the wrong direction for HB. Issues of the environment, infrastructure and public safety should be paramount to enacting a "horse and buggy" statute banning nudity per se. Elva P. Kopacz, 6822 Spickard Dr. Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more....then map the best route! http: //maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars-yp.pizza-yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996 --71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 F 6 Lot b m m Km cAi vn (1 , 1P Ferrera, Caren From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:18 PM To: City Clerk Agenda; Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: proposed amendment to Ordinance Number 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Lloyd Johnson [mailto:lloydjay@tns.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: proposed amendment to Ordinance Number 3773 Dear City Council, I wish for you to know that I support the amendments proposed by the Naturist Action Committee. I think there should be something about intent, otherwise people will be cited for inadvertently running in front of open blinds from the shower to the phone. Since it's supposed to be about protecting the public, put something in there about endangering public safety. Furthermore, including female breasts an offense leaves you open to discrimination and requires you to define exactly what an infant is. Lloyd Johnson http: //www.cuyamaca.net/lloyd.johnson/ 1 ' I Aug 06 07 02: 28p City Of Huntingtonl!'Beach 95365233 ; p.jl City Council & Suff''ity City Administrator's office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TEL: 714-536-5202 i FAX: 714-536-5233 ax To: Joan Flynn&Jennifer McGrath From: City Admin/City Council i Fax: 374-1557&374-1590 Pages: 5 including cover sheet Phone: Kay @ 55531or 5202 % Date: 8/6107 i R.Allen Baylis' letter Re: CC: (Director Naturist Action Committee) ❑ Urgent 0 For Review ❑ Please Comment 0 PI`ease Reply ❑ Please Recycle 0 Comments: i Pat Dapkus 'asked me to fax this letter to you that the Council members just received from R. Allen Baylis. i i i Rug g06 07 02: 28p� C Rty ��Of Hunt ngton 'Beach 95365233`, p. 2 r ---- - - i 777�� 1\. Allen $ IiS Attorney 1t Law 9042 Garfield Ave.,Sule 306,Huntington Beach,CA 92646 1?hone:(714)96U915 Fax (714)96210930 I" axL i To: Huntington Beach City Council From: R.Allen Baylis Fax: (714)53 -6233 Pages: 4 including cover page Phone: L Date: M12007 Re: Proposed Ord.3773 CC: 0 Urgent 0 For Review ❑Please Comm&A ❑Pleajse Reply 0 Please Recycle I I s Comments: Thank you. R.AIL-n Baylis f i i i I ' Aug 0607 02: 28p City of'. HuntingtonlBeach 95365233 p.'3 Aug' 06 07 02: 55p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. e, I i August 6,2007 R. Allen Baylis Esgj Director,Naturist Action Committee 9042 Garfield Ave.,Suite 306 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 i Dear Honorable Council Members of the City of Huntington Beach: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, a Directo' of the Naturist Action Committee, and a practicing attorney. I am submitting this letter to urge the City Council to amend proposed ordinance Number 3773,as suggested by the Naturist Action Committee. 1 specifically reyuesvthat this letter be made part of the official record. UNFAIRLY TARGETS A PARTICULAR CLASS OF PEOPLE Police Chief SmalVs analysis in support of the proposed ordinance fails to state any semblance of'a current or future threat to public safety and'is therefore unnecessary and unjustified. While some people choose to be offended by the sight of a natural human being,many do not: It is also inappropriate for`law enforcement or the City Council to support one point of view over another regarding non-public safety related issues.This proposed ordinance is targeted not only at an individual naturist,but also at naturists as a creed. Such laws only serve to further erode citizens' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Now,the City Counsel must choose to respect the individual liberties of citizens in the face of scare tactics of those who find evil and doom lurking around every corner. Such an ordinance is unnecessary to achieving the legitimate goals of the City in that the City has little,if any interest in protecting oversensitive people from being offended by the sight of a naked htzrrian being.!Codifying intolerance is simply not a legitimate exercise of the government's police power. You will here,.from;people that suggest that you should pass this ordinance in order to protect the children. Suggesting that children need protection implies that there is some threat to their safety or well-being. However, studies conducted over the past 50 years indicate that children raised in an environment where nudity is dealt with in a matter of fact manner rather than being taught to be ashamed of the human body grow rip to be well adjusted adults,less likely to engage in sex an a young age and have a more positive body self image. The proposed ordinance also discriminates against women by prohibiting exposure of the breasts of females, but not those of males. Conduct that a nian may engage in with impunity would be a criminal offense if engaged in by a female. Such gender based criminalization is,discriminatory toward women and is open to legal challenge under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Virginia(Virginia Military Institute)S 18 U.S. 515,andfor under Article I Section 7 of the California Constitution. i Aug 06 07 02: 29p City Of HuntingtonlIBeach 95365233 4 Hug Ub U'/ ue: bSp x. Hiien tsa�ii5 j oacoa-► �cci p� . i The Supreme Court stated in United States v. Virginia: Parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for that action... To meet the burden of justification, a State must show "at least that the [challenged]classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed'are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives...The heightened review standard applicable to sex-based classifications does not make sex a proscribed classification,but it does mean that categorization by sex may not be used to create or perpetuate the legal, social,;and economic inferiority of women. The City's proposed ordinance does not comply with these requirements. Most states don't criminalize exposure of the female breasts (California for example) while others provide constitutionally based protection for female topfreedom. The State of New York protects the right of women to bare their chests in any place that a man may do so. (See The People of the State oflVew York v. Santoretli,et al. 80 N.Y.2d 875 Indeed,the concept of"public sensibility" itself, when used in these contexts,may-be nothing more than a reflection of commonly-held preconceptions and biases. One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that "public sensibilities" grounded in prejudice and unexamined stereotypes do not become enshrined as part of the official policy of government.Thus, where "public sensibilities"constitute the justification for a gender-based classification, the fundamental question is whether the particular"sensibility" to be protected is in fact, a reflection of archaic prejudice or a manifestation of a legitimate government objective. Titone, J. (concurring) (internal citations omitted) RIGHTS OF NATURIST CITIZENS Social attitudes about nudity are changing. In 2006,the Naturist Education Foundation commissioned a Roper poll to-age the ehange.in public attitudes toward nude sunbathing. 'Without going into detail here,the results of that poll can be seen here; http://www.naturisteducation.org/ProjeGts/NEP-Roper Poll 2006/nef- rGper_poll-2006.html(copy also attached) The language defining public view is extremely broad. This would criminalize back yard nude sunbathing if someone in a public place somewhere could possibly view the nude person(s)on their own private property.This would also prohibit legitimate naturist events, and have a chilling effect on nude political protests such as the World Naked Bike Ride to protest dependence on oil. i Aug 06 07 02: 29p City Of Huntington ;Beach 9536533 p. 5 Rug 06 07 02: 55p R. Rllen Batilzs p. -r For example,if a naturist club wanted to rent a'private pool, gym or other recreational facility for nude recreational events,and allow;non-members to attend;they would be prohibited from doing so with this ordinance it effect. This would infringe on their rights to free association and peaceful assembly. Public Nudity takes place with increasing frequency in the U.S. with no problems. Examples of peaceful'occurrences of public nudity include;the annual Bay to Breakers Run/Walk in San Francisco the World Naked Bike Ride that takes place in cities around the world in June of each year,the Seattle Solstice Festivalin Washington State,the Burning Mari Testival in Nevada,and at Clothing-Optional beaches all along the coasts of our great State. s Life in a free society requires that we have a certain level of tolerance for other people's behavior even though we may find it to be distasteful or offensive. In this country,there is no overarching right"not=to-be-offended." We cannot pass a new law every time someone cries that someone offended hire or her_To do so will ultimately require us to tailor all of society's behavior so as not to offend even the most sensitive arnong us. Essentially, the government has neither duty nor right to protect everyone from being offended,as protecting one person from being;offended requires restricting the rights and freedom of the other. Passing the proposed anti-nudity ordinance will only encourage the unhealthy gymnophobia of those who are so sensitive as to'be afraid of the nude human body. It must be remembered as well, that City Council has a duty to represent all citizens including those whose lifestyle choices they might personally disagree with,such as naturists. This proposed ordinance would only'serve to perpetuate the myth that the human body is dirty and something to be ashamed of. On behalf of all of the residents of this city and naturists from across North America, those who hold naturist values and abhor excessive government control,we urge you to adopt the language suggested by the Naturist Action Committee. Perhaps the City Council will at least, delay any action until such time as all viable alternatives that will fit the City's needs while respecting the rights of the people have been explored. The procedure being followed does not permit a current assessment of public sensibilities and as a result,permits unexamined and archaic stereotyped notions to become the basis for public policy. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, R.Allen Baylis Director,Naturist Action Committee I Aug 06 07 02: 49p City Of' Huntington 11each 95365233 p• 14 OW 001 ZOO 1 q.J:00 /147340014 urr 1t+G ur-ru i i ,0 fic r i' Cr�r�eO #641 Fax Transmission PLEASE PRINT TO. UhQI ! FROM: 51U FAX �J�^�a� : . SENDER'S NUMBS •�J ' PHONE #: DATE: D #OF PAGES: �- (including cover) j Message: s� Owl _J If you have any diflicufts with this transmission,please contact the sender at the phone number listed above. OFFICE DEPOTS,TERMS OF USE SENDER AGREES NOT To USE THIS FAX TO:(1)TRANWIT MATERIAL WHOSE TRANSMISSION 18 UNLAWFUI., HARASMS, LIBELOUS,ABUSW THREATENING,HARMFUL,VULGAR,OBSCEI!IE.PORNOGRAPHIC OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE; (10 CREATE A FALSE IDENTITY,OR OTHOWISE ATIWT TO MIKEAD OTHERS'AS TO THE IDENTnT OF THE SENDER OR THE OR" M OF THIS FAX;(114 POST OR TRANSwr ANY MATERIAL THAT MAY S+l MGE THE COPYRIGHT,TRADE SECRET,OR OTHER WORM OF ANY THIN PARTY; (IV) VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL.STATE OR LOCAL TAW IN THE LOCATION. OR (V) CONDUCT ACTNITIES RELATED TO GA MBLMIG,SWEEPSTAKES,RAFFLES.LOTTERIES,CONTESTS,POHn SCHEMES OR THE LICE. PLEASE NOTE THAT OFFICE DEPOT DOES NOT RENEW THE CONTENTS OF ANY FAX SENT USING n3 3E MET. FURTHER,BY SIGNM BELOW THE SENDER OF THIS FAX H£REBY'AGRBE6 TO INDEMNIFY OFFICE 09W TO THE FULLEST EXTw OF THE LAW AND FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS,SIM.OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OR IN CONNECTION WIT'11 THE REQUEST TO SEND,OR SENDING IN FAX (C 'S SIGNATURE i VISIT FFICE DEPOT FOR YOUR: Stom Information • Color Copies-High Volume Copies • Digital color,'and Black &white Copies OFFICE DEPOT STORE; 970 1 • Business Cards, Letterhead and Envelopes • Custom Pre-inked Stamps 11-100 GARDEN GROVE SEND • Customs Signs and Banners GARDEN GROVEI CA 92640 • UPS Shipping Service PHONE:714j534-6601 • Passport Photos FAX:7141534�6612 • Ad Specialties Thank you for using Office Depct's Cu nmmer FAX Service [Att PA ' >m K n/mr(ail ! ,I Aug 06 07 02: 49p City Of' Huntington Beach 95365233 . P• 2 G CSI 17b/ZOO I G3:�u 11 R73VDo1L - Vrr lac v�ru V To Whonn It May Concern—City Council,Aug.b 2007 i I am a junior high/high schoolteacher in Fullerton,and I read an article in this morning's newspaper about your city council meeting toiuight. I am particularly concerned with your upcoming vote an nudity. I wanted io tell you about an incident that happened to me and my students at the beach,(Huntington Beach)about a year ago. We were cleaning up'the truh at the beach as part of our community service project for the school. As we were crossing the bike pathJpidestrian path that leads to our car,a man rode by on his bikes totally naked. He wasn't doing anything"sexual,"but just riding his bike. However, I had junior high students with me, and even though I AM a biology teacher,I don't think my students should have been exposed to the nudity while at a public place. If someone wants to be in the nude at a nudist beach,then that is his or her decision and I(and my students)can CHOOSE not to go there. But when the nudity is being exposed tons in a PUBLIC place,them there is a problem. Good luck with your decision tonight. I feel that if the public can witzms the nudity,WITHOUT CHOICE, then the nudity should be banned. Tbank You, Mrs.Jane Norman I i Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:04 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: Nudity Very late last night. Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Ron Davis [mailto:rdd@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:00 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Junginger, Craig Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Nudity I don't doubt the need to have a city ordinance regarding public displays of nudity. However, I don't think it appropriate to enact an ordinance by directly or indirectly misleading the city council and the public as to the effect of the ordinance and the circumstances under which it can be enforced. As an example, I believe an uncontested statement was made that the only way a person could be prosecuted under the ordinance was if a police officer personally witnessed the offending conduct. The statement went unchallenged by the city attorney and the chief of police. Since both were actively involved in the drafting of the ordinance one would presume that they understand our municipal code to potentially treat the matter as a misdemeanor. Both are well aware of the right of a citizen to make a citizen's arrest and the legal obligation of a police office (Penal Code § 142) to take the offending parry into custody. Accordingly, someone who sees his or her neighbor in the buff from the public right of way can make a citizen's arrest. Moreover, whether the police department will actually take a report under the circumstance, what the citizen has witnessed will indeed be a crime in our city and I am not aware of the discretion of the police department to refuse to take a report relating to criminal conduct and to investigate it. In addition, councilman Carchio expressed concern about an individual walking from the shower past windows that allowed his private parts to be viewed from the public right of way. The chief of police responded to the question by reading the section of the ordinance which provided, "in such a manner as to knowingly and intentionally expose his or her genitals . . ." with special emphasis on the highlighted words. Of course, most lay people, including Mr. Carchio, believe the word "intentionally" in a 8/13/2007 Page 2 of 2 statute means that the person is really trying to flaunt their exposed genitals to the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, Mr. Carchio was correct in that the person, who knows he has no clothes on and knows he's walking by a window that is open to public view, violates this ordinance even though he did not intend to flaunt his genitals in public. The implication that the ordinance would not cover such an event went unchallenged by the city attorney. Perhaps a reading of cases interpreting the word "intentionally"to mean "the crime in which the mental element involved is simply the intentional doing of an act declared to be a crime irrespective of whether the perpetrator knows or does not know that such act, intentionally done, constitutes the commission of a criminal offense." Finally, to council's willingness to adopt a law with language which they never intend to be enforced on the theory that we should trust government never to enforce the clear language and mandate contained in an ordinance, I will remind the council that years ago a bicycle licensing ordinance was passed so that fees might be generated and in the event that bikes were lost or stolen, they could be returned to their rightful owners. I dare say that those who voted for the ordinance never envisioned truckload after truckload of bikes seized for residents and guests alike during several fourth of Julys. Nor was there an expectation that the laws relating to drinking in public would be contorted to prohibit people from having a beer at a location in their home or on their property that was visible to the public. And, the people so observed, weren't warned -they were arrested. Just as though we write laws because we can't trust the public to voluntarily refrain from engaging in anti-social conduct and yet we're expected to trust that government won't enforce the plain and clear language of an ordinance. It just makes sense to write an ordinance that we intend to enforce and eliminate that language and those acts that we don't consider a problem. While I respect Chief Small and the Huntington Beach Police Department there are sometimes officers, like members of the general public, who display poor judgment. The DA who prosecuted the alleged Duke rapists and the officer in Oregon who arrested and cuffed two seventh graders for slapping butts on Slap Butt Friday come to mind. I know it probably won't happen here. But, then again, that's what the parents of the seventh graders and the lacrosse players and their families thought. For those of you who wish to discuss this further, you have my email address with this attachment and my phone number is 714-969-1239. Ron Davis 8/13/2007 Rug 20 07 12: 47p R. Allen Ba91is 5625947227 p• 2 August 20,2007 R.Allen Baylis Esq. Director,Naturist Action Committee 9042 Garfield Ave., Suite 306 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Huntington Beach: I am writing to provide you with additional information regarding the proposed ordinance 3773. In spite of some of the Councilmembers assertions that public sentiment is squarely in favor of the proposed criminalization of public nudity,quite the opposite is true.The City Council has received approximately 90 communications via email and fax regarding the proposed ordinance. All but two or three of those communications were OPPOSED to the ordinance. Of the 14 plus speakers at the last two City Council meetings, only 2 supported the ordinance. One of those speakers found it necessary to provide false information to you regarding her naturist neighbor. In the public forums, such as newspapers etc,the overwhelming majority of the comments and letters have at least questioned the necessity of such a law, if not stated outright opposition to it. I have included the comments posted online to the Orange County Register web stories relating to the proposed ordinance. You will note that they almost uniformly OPPOSE the ordinance. While I understand that online polls are of limited value due to there lack of compliance with standard polling practices,the results are certainly at least a rough gage of public sentiment on the subject.The results of the Orange County Register's we poll clearly indicate that most people oppose the ordinance. The question posed was and results follow: Should the City Council ban public nudity? Yes, I don't want to see my neighbors naked. 19% No,it's not dangerous enough to deserve a new law. 81% Total votes as of 8-20-07 at 12:30 PM 1241 Clearly,the public does not support this ordinance. It should also be noted that as an attorney, and published author on the subject of California Iaw relating to nudity, most laypeople do not understand that public nudity is not per se illegal in this state. I would suggest that many of the complaints received by the police in the downtown area would not have been made had the complaining party known that it was not illegal to be nude under the circumstances. Shlen nerely BayIi Director,Naturist Action Committee Ca (S ^ 14 Rug 20 07 12: 47p R. Rllen Baylis 5625947227 p.3 I recently wrote the purpose of government is to help us reach things together we could not reach alone,and to provide for or coordinate the defense of those achievements. If simple nudity detracts from the achievements we have made to date, it is news to me! If that were the case than we would be able to statistically track the impact of nudity on property values, crime rates,cases of assault and similar things in society and we cannot. I will concede there is no way to "know" someones motivation for wanting to be nude, but we should be judging people on the things they ARE DOING not those they MAY DO. It would be great to know the feelings of people that have lived next door to a nudist, or perhaps a nudist family or which presently have a relative practicing the nudist lifestyle.Nudism is a lifestyle of openness and acceptance, and this is why you don't read of nudists complaining about the things clothed neighbors do in their front or side yards. Certainly there are far greater evils in society than worrying about someone watering their lawn in a speedo,bikini or less! Dennis Costea Jr. -Aug 19,2007 05:59:28 PM Remove Comment Since nudity is the question. Why dont we ask ourselfs. Is nudity harmful. Are all the nude beaches in the world full of wirdos and or mentally sick people,Lets look again because this amount to millions of individuals of all ages. Seems to me that those who oppose recreational nudity are the sicklings and a product of society that does not accept a natural human body. American society must change their views on the human body and not isolate from the rest of the world. Itis time for a change Roy Rodriguez-Aug 17,2007 08:I6:49 PM Remove Comment one more thing my European friends will laugh about--United States lots of freedom as long as it doesnt offend the ruling class--we are so prudish-the 1st time i encountered public nudity it was a family mom,dad,grandpa,grandma,girl and 2 boys having a picnic-- it was so natural and so civilized--if Huntington Beach wants to do the right thing--set aside an area for nudity be a leader not a follower of snobby Newport or Mission Viejo rich-Aug 13, 2007 12:43:24 PM Remove Comment if this beach will be a nude i wont be going to this beach anymore none-Aug 08,2007 02:01:25 PM Remove Comment Aug 20 07 12: 47p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 4 Bare heads,bare arms, bare legs, bare feet are all legal. When did the rest of us become taboo?And -Miere did the authority to make such decisions about such a basic way of life come from?MYOB Stuart-Aug 04,2007 06:59:34 AM Remove Comment Just wanted to second the people who wrote pro body acceptance and therefore pro nudity. Citating Oscar Wilde. If people were meant to be nude they would have been born this way. I want to add further. Making nudity the subject of sex taboo around children in an effort to protect them is an example of the cure being worse than the disease. It teaches children shame increases their interest in nudity and sex in unhealthy ways and makes them more venerable to sexual abuse. Strange that they only allow letters numbers question marks and exclamation marks for these posting. It prevents one from writing orderly English! And it took me the double time to revise my text! And similar restictions with the name field! I think I will never visit this site again for reading something or entering continents. It is just too offensive and driven by cencors and self censors! Erich-Jul 22, 2007 06:41:56 AM Remove Comment hi folks, 1 naturist are regular everyday people,2 naturist are all over the world,3 there are more naturist than a lot of people think,and i,m one of them. 4. being nude for money, is who the law should be going after, like dancers,prostitudes,etc let me see a baby born with clothes on,Iol,remember adam and eve don-Jul 19,2007 12:25:26 PM Remove Comment Continued from last post. The all caps name on the front of the card is the name of the trust fitnd set up by the social security administration to give us the necessary remedy with which to handle our debts, or charges,which are at least civil, including infractions, or can be criminal. Bonds are obtained by prosecuting attorneys to underwrite their court cases and are traded nationally,and internationally. These bond's CUSIP numbers are the six digit number of the court case,or citation/ticket,number which expands to nine digits when the trading of these bonds goes international. The payoff to anyone holding the bond of either a prisoner or soldier is worth more when they die then when they are alive, because these bonds are insured against their death. People are in prison for their failure to use their unlimited credit to offset their debt due to their being in dishonor for questioning the law for which they are being charged. These laws are being used to underwrite the national bankruptcy/debt. Look at the date of our current California indecency law, penal code 314-1. 1872-3. It does not precede the Civil War.By coercing Aug 20 07 12: 47p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p.5 defendants to plead guilty to lessor charges, even bogus ones, is an attempt by the prosecution to get the initial investment on the bond back. Also suspect are court fees. Checks paid to the court have often been endorsed by the very judge sitting on the case putting him/her in conflict of interest and recusable. Look at the backside of your canceled check returned to your bank. Who is the endorser'.?If not the judge him/herself, then who is fronting for them,or how many are fronting for the judge in multiple layers of protection, or is the fronted protection an investment pool represented by a third party acting as fiduciary for the investors/judges,etc? Websurfer-Jul 18,2007 10:32:46 AM Remove Comment Denial of the debt risks a default judgement against the defendant. To deny any statute, ordinance,etc. is to deny the debts, be they local, state,or federal. Bankruptcy occured in 1933 with the confiscation of lawful gold money and the passage of HJ . 192 which disallows the payment of debts replacing it with the discharge of debts. Although such proposed regulation,such as this,is reprehensible to the Constitutional foundation underlying the previous legitimate government which ended shortly after the Civil War, it is not reprehensible under the current corporation,US of A, Inc. This corporation has all the trappings of government intended to sucker us into believing that nothing has changed while executing all judgements in commercial venue, misnomered courts of justice. So, acceptance of a crime is one's attempt to discharge a small portion of our national debt by using our unlimited credit account number located on the backside of our social security card. Its first character is a letter representing the Federal Reserve Bank Branch which holds this account, A Boston, B New York, C Philadelphia, D Cleveland, F Richmond,F Atlanta, G Chicago,H St. Louis,I Minneapolis, J Kansas City, K Dallas, L San Francisco. The social security number on the front of our card is the account number representing our liabilities, or debts. Continued on next post. Vinvasi -Jul 18,2007 10:13:41 AM Remove Comment I'm all for having a sense of legislated public modesty,but when it comes to someone in the privacy of their own home, I gotta draw the line. Unless there's an intent of overt sexual gratification that is plainly visible from the public right of way, 1 think any nudity ban would simply go too far. CentralOC-Jul 18,2007 06:09:59 AM. Remove Comment In this day and conservative era, I can understand those who want to tighten the anti- nudity laws a bit to prevent what they regard as a continuing nuisance. But those laws should not be written too broadly. A person should have a right to sunbathe nude on his Rug 20 07 12: 47p R. Rllen Baylis 5625947227 p. 6 own property from a place where the general public would not generally expect to see him without extraording effort. In the city areas where nudity would not be expected to be encountered, laws could be made to prevent too much exposure. But at least there should be beach areas where the "Textile Uniform of Moral Compliance" should not be compelled. Robert Austin- Jul 17,2007 03:51:36 PM Remove Comment It figures someone with the last name of"Small" would lead the charge to ban nudity. He must have issues of self-loathing! LMAO! -Jul 17,2007 03;21:55 PM Remove Comment The last time HB passed a morality law it was the 'no drinking beer on your own front lawn'law. HBPD were arresting folks on their own property and even chased some into their own homes and arrested them there. I can see it now. HBPD breaking down doors and arresting folks because their venetian blinds weren't closed tightly enough. Gary Owen-Jul 17,2007 02:52:10 PM Remove Comment Give me a break. Nobody needs to be nude in their front yard. However,that's not the issue.The issue is one's right to enjoy his personal property as he sees fit. Since when is what people nees the bench mark for determining laws in this country. You should have paid more attention in your civics class. Greg-Jul 17,2007 12:59:54 PM Remove Comment I suspect there is a busybody soccermom out there with too much time and money on her hands. Thomas-Jul 17, 2007 12:55:12 PM Remove Continent Gee. I wish I lived there! I'm a Christian from Santa Cruz; CA. And My friends look at me weird because I'm a nudest! Hey! GOD IS EVEN A NUDEST! It must be hard though for those people have to stand up for what I/we/thay believe in. I hope they doen't Aug 20 07 12:48p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p- 7 pass that stupid law! People should be aloud to go were they want in what ever thay are wering-JUST as long as people sit on a towl in puplic,are clean,and don't do ANY sexual stuff. What is so wrong that we have to hide our bodys under cloths! I HATE IT! Rebekah VD -Jul 17, 2007 11:53:07 AM Remove Comment We were made "in God's image" so how could a nude person be so repulsive?How sad to think that we must outlaw certain parts of the human body from view because of irrational fear. Christine Docimo-Jul 16, 2007 10:29:00 AM Remove Comment So if your face offends me, let's pass a law to keep you covered?Being so uncomfortable with an unclothed human body-a natural state- is very unhealthy and maybe you should seek counseling. Charles Laines - Jul 16, 2007 10:20:07 AM Remove Comment Why do you need to be nude in your yard?Live in the freakin Country if you insist on doing this. People do not want to see your below parts, especially a mans. Geez. Men have no control over their erections. give me a break-Jul 15, 2007 07:50:35 PM Remove Comment Overt sexual activity in common public areas disturbs many people and that is understandable. However, simply being nude in your yard,either front or back, in a park, on a posted beach,on a hiking trail or other public areas should not be considered a crime. Nude is not lewd. For many, it is a comfortable lifestyle. Live and let others live as they will as long as they are not crossing the line into overt public obcenity. Bruce Durand-Jul 15,2007 11:08:00 AM Here is Chief Small's statement to the City Council "Recently, the Police Department had incidents involving a "naturist" living in the downtown area. On several occasions, this subject stood naked in either his front yard,or the threshold of his residence,in fill view of the public walking on the sidewalk. Since the subject's behavior did not include an overt element of sexual gratification,the Police Department was able only to take reports from the citizens who complained. These reports were submitted to the Orange County Aug 20 07 12: 48p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p• 8 District Attorney's Office, who declined to prosecute the subject, citing the missing sexual gratification element. Instead,the District Attorney's Office suggested the City enact an ordinance prohibiting public nudity." Strategic Plan Goal C-2 Provide quality public services with the highest professional standards to meeting community expectations and needs,assuring that the city is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall. What are the police missing here?Any reference to a threat to public safety! Essentially, some citizens expect the police to be able to do something to legitimize their being offended,and the police would like to accommodate them by codifying their intolerance. This proposed ordinance is to beted not only at an individual naturist, but naturists as a creed. Simply not acceptable! Allen Baylis -Jul 15, 2007 10:07:45 AM Remove Comment Nothing is more free and comfortable than being naked. Whoever is in support of this ordinance should visit a nude recreation area or a nude beach before making such a vote. Just a weekend of your time and you'll see what I am talking about. You will automatically become comfortable writh your body and seeing other people who are doing the same. John-Jul 15, 2007 09:34:56 AM Remove Comment As long as no one is doing a sex act or doing it for the wrong reasons who cares if someone is walking around naked in public view. The human body is beautiful. I wish I could live in a town like that. I would have no problem seeing a naked person walking down the street. I'd most likely be one of those people because it really is not a big deal because under the clothes we are all really the same. Lupe- Jul 15,2007 09:27:52 AM Remove Comment I find today's society's obhorrence of nudity and anything sexual rediculous to the extreme. In fact the the worst crime you can commit these days are those that can be considered to have some sexual component. Look at the sentencing of sexual crimes compared to simple,aggravated assault, vehicular involved incidents,even murder compared to the punishment if the incident is deemed to have a sexual aspect. Simple nudity a crime? Why is it so offensive to people?Are they so uncomfortable with thier own body/Sexual parts? comagnant-Jul 15, 2007 09:08:43 AM Remove Comment Council/Agency Meeting Held: B�G/o Deferred/Continued to: jP7t�b R JdOMro-7- `Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City&0erk'jfSignatVr ID Council Meeting Date- 7/16/2007 Department ID Number: PD-07-002 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY 4DP� CITY IL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PENELE CULTH-GRAFT, ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: KENNETH W. SMALL, CHIEF OF POLICET�; Act SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 Relating to Public Nudity Fstatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The Police Department is recommending that Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.2 relating to public nudity be amended as to Section 9.20.015, which prohibits public nudity. Funding Source: No funds required. Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt, Ordinance No. 3773 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 9.20 Of The City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating To Public Nudity. Alternative Action(s): Motion to: Do not adopt Ordinance No. 3773 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/16/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PD-07-002 Analysis: Currently, State law and the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code do not prohibit public nudity. Although State law does have statutes governing "Indecent Exposure" and "Lewd Conduct", the courts have interpreted these laws to require a sexual gratification element. This means a subject walking naked on a public street, who was not displaying behavior indicating sexual gratification, would not be violating State law or City Ordinance. Recently, the Police Department had incidents involving a "naturist" living in the downtown area. On several occasions, this subject stood naked in either his front yard, or the threshold of his residence, in full view of the public walking on the sidewalk. Since the subject's behavior did not include an overt element of sexual gratification, the Police Department was able only to take reports from the citizens who complained. These reports were submitted to the Orange County District Attorney's Office, who declined to prosecute the subject, citing the missing sexual gratification element. Instead, the District Attorney's Office suggested the City enact an ordinance prohibiting public nudity. Strategic Plan Goal: C-2 Provide quality public services with the highest professional standards to meeting community expectations and needs, assuring that the city is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Ordinance No. 3773 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 9.20 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Public Nudity. -2- 6/28/2007 1:43 PM ATTACHMENT # 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3773 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9.20 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC NUDITY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That new Section 9.20.015 be, and is hereby added to Chapter 9.20 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, said section to read as follows: Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of nine years old to appear, bathe, sunbathe, walk or be on any public.park, playground, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or on any other public land, or on any private property open to public view from any public beach, playground, park, public place, or public right-of-way.in such a manner as to knowingly and intentionally expose his or her genitals, pubic hair, perineum, anal region or pubic hair region, or expose the nipples and/or areola of the female breast except as necessary while engaging in breastfeeding. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of August 5200 7 M ATTEST: D AS TO FORM: City Clerk City A rney REVIEWE ND A PROVED: INITJATED AND APPROVED: QJ� �" ACT,m City Administrat Police Chief 07-989/12459 Ord. No. 3773 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of August,2007,and was again read to said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of August,2007, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Bohr, Carchio, Cook, Coerper, Green, Hansen, Hardy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certity that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on August 30,200T In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn,City Clerk Ci Clerk and ex-officio flerk Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Ordinance No. 3773 - Legislative Draft Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of nine years old to appear, bath, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, playground, beach, or in the water adjacent thereto, or on any other public land, or on any private property open to public view from any public beach, playground, park, public place, or public right-of-way in such a manner as to knowingly and intentionally: (a) Expose his or her genitals, pubic hair, „aW eleft, perineum, anal region or pubic hair region, or expose the nipples and/or areola of the female breast except as necessary while engaging in the breastfeeding of an infant uncle,. the age of twe yeafs-ems;,- the male-or- female-genitals, pubs , , ,, o on, h l d/r the nipple aner- l f the female brews 07-989/12459 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: POLICE SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 Relating to Public Nudity COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2007 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not A licable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Staff Report (if applicable) Attached O Not Applicable ❑ Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Ap licable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ( ) Deputy City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator Initial City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: r (Below • . For • RCA Author: Kenneth W. Small, Chief or Police/Mindy James ORDINANCE NO. 3773 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9.20 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNIC AL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC NUDITY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain s follows: SECTION 1. That new Section 9.20.015 be, and is hereby adde to Chapter 9.20 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, said section to read as follows: Section 9.20.015 Public Nudity. It shall be unlawful for any pers over the age of nine years old to appear, bath, sunbathe, walk or be on any public park, pla round, beach, or in the water adjacent.thereto, or on any other public land,or on any private p operty open to public view from. any public beach, playground, park, public place, or public ri t-of-way in such a manner as to knowingly and intentionally expose his or her genitals, p ic hair, natal cleft, perineum, anal region or pubic hair region, or expose the nipples and/or areola of the female breast except as necessary while engaging in breastfeeding. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become e ective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City ouncil of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day f 200_ Mayor ATTEST: D 5; ASTOFORM: City Clerk / ity 4Arney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Police Chief 07-989/12459 Agenda Item 6 - 2a . City Council Meeting July 16 , 2007 a .1 y»F '� Mh:'~,�'+ •' ,' 'a� ,�;�t"f�`. :. o, c''1�' �,r+"+�` s� �6 r nrc -^'�Y o+ � .�.vr�. � ,,� •;da # 'aye `�,Yr.* 'i� .,_� r s ,,,�',[ TJI� i. � �t� , � r f`'• � Jet" �+P� n � pr�, r "wg" r e.['"r✓ .;y f`' ,, a� y.� .�' � 1 t s , y$, r 5 't a. � �„�, &LIKE t .;" ,. -• qk h ° ... �J y2 :a���� �' a4 � k � A r��i"#iF�€:�"'c�" � �...� f,.• z+ H- JL 44 _, �1'<' �'�'.`' " ya0�w.'1�y� � < "4^yry "u 4 ,I:w�"''t�✓�' ' 9 � � _ � " ar �. •g. yt�` `a '�"., aryl v ���� �`�� + Jib� � � � r 4 i'�x'S4e � ...I r i 7tn,��'-� �94-yd�t ♦ .G'§.r ry k7'fi ,� s Cart t °�r"ro, ,J y fi' >.♦ �t*:f4sNs� shy , n � r Yr ` ,.Y� � �Ie RwF' V. il'�r l• *w�+"r�X �"x ��r o. ��i�i �artt'd✓? rfi.N �^ � � wt. Ct i F' yr* wy Y'ry rz 1� .s�' � �°"''« 1# .►.,,.:one♦.. Y a i i W r ILI " g n �a w n£ "'N" rr t its lion M- v 1 t , t ' I y � � z t �fl <l �l♦ d' �lS Jrt�.. A �'�.3 y �b F �i l 4 �' G C` FP'�tjl j IS Y/'iti AND �c ��Illfi�-fillII e # ,k 2ik a o .tee r illlli"IlII{' illlll a 4'ya r1 V 'w' i > Fy 7� { Y fr ..r".,. •�.y j TTV�, t � n INC —JAW", `' ,r ix'i` tip t sa+ x 3 _ f j 1 rlaw liia t Q-4 ti /},,�p(tI l��r � 777 /„ Esparza, Patty From: Lloyd Johnson [Iloydjay@tn t Sent: Monday, July 16, 200 :00 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear City Council, I wish for you to know that I oppose the proposed ordinance 3773. There is already sufficient state law to prosecute lewd behavior. It is wrong to criminalize nudity on private property. I am a nudist living in San Diego. Such a law would prevent me from ever visiting Huntington Beach. I'm also certain many others would choose other vacation spots. Lloyd Johnson http://www.cuyamaca.net/lloyd.johnson/ �- Jul ', 16 07 03: 19p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 1 July 15, 2007 R. Allen Baylis Esq. Director,Naturist!Action Committee 4050 Katella Ave:, Suite 204 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Dear Honorable Council Members of the City of Huntington Beach: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, a Director of the Naturist Action Committee, and a practicing attorney. I am submitting this letter in opposition to the City's proposed ordinance Number 3773, and specifically request that this letter be made part of the official record. The Naturist Society is a national organization that supports and promotes body freedom and body acceptance through nude recreation, (www.naturistsociety.com). The Naturist Action Committee is the political arm of The Naturist Society, (www.naturistaction.org). We work to protect and advance the rights of naturist throughout North America. UNFAIRLY TARGETS A PARTICULAR CLASS OF PEOPLE In 2000, the City considered a public nudity ordinance nearly identical to 3773. That ordinance was proposed as a method of regulating the 'recently opened nude dancing establishment, which has since gone out of business. In 2000, naturists opposed the ordinance due to its impact on innocent, law abiding naturists in Huntington Beach. The City Council voted not to adopt the ordinance in 2000 due in large part because they were concerned about affecting people not intended to be the target of the ordinances prohibition of nudity. Now, naturists are the direct target of proposed ordinance 3773. The proposed ordinance is flawed, could result in legal;challenges and would make bad law for the city of Huntington Beach. Police Chief Small's analysis in support of the proposed ordinance fails to state any semblance of a current or future threat to public safety and is therefore unnecessary and unjustified. Whilei some people choose to be otTended by the sight of a natural human being, many do not. It is also inappropriate for law enforcement to support one point of view over anothef regarding non-public safety related issues. This proposed ordinance is targeted not only at an individual naturist, but also at naturists as a creed. Such laws only serve to further erode citizens' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, the City Counsel must choose to respect the individual liberties''of citizens in the face of scare tactics of those who find evil and doom lurking around'every corner. Such an ordinance is unnecessary to achieving the legitimate goals of the City in that the City has little if any interest in protecting oversensitive people from being offended by the sight of a naked human being. Codifying intolerance is simply not a legitimate exercise of the government's police power. You will here from people that suggest that you should pass this ordinance in order to protect the children. Suggesting that children need protection implies that there is some threat to their safety or well-being. However, studies conducted over the past 50 years CoA4 m(w� Cr��rQ `I. 14-o7 Jul 16 07 03: 19p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 2 i i indicate that'children raised in an environment where nudity is dealt with in a matter of fact manner'rather than being taught to be ashamed of the human body grow up to be well adjusted adults, less likely to engage in sex an a young age and have a more positive body self image. The proposed ordinance also discriminates against wo men by prohibiting exposure of the breasts of females', but not those of males. Conduct that a man may engage in with impunity would be' a criminal offense if engaged in by a female. Such gender based criminalization is discriminatory toward women and is open to legal challenge under the'U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Virginia (Virginia Military Institute);518 U.S. 515, and/or under Article I Section 7 of the California Constitution: The Supreme Court stated in United States'v. Virginia, Parties who seek to defend gender-Based government action must demonstrate an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for that action... To meet';the burden of justification, a State must show "at least that the [challenged] classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives...The heightened review standard applicable!to sex-based classifications does not'make sex a proscribed classification, but it does mean that categorization by sex may not be used to create or perpetuate the legal,social, and economic inferiority of women. The City's proposed ordinance does not comply with these requirements. Most states don't criminalize exposure of the female breasts (California for example) while others'provide constitutionally based!protection for female topfreedom. The State of New York protects the right of women to bare their chests in any place that a man may do so. (See The People of the State of New York v. Santorelli, et al. 80 N.Y.2d 875 Indeed,the concept of"public sensibility" itself, when used in these contexts, may be nothing more than;a reflection of commonly-held preconceptions and biases:One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that "public sensibilities" grounded in prejudice and unexamined stereotypes do not become enshrined as part of the official policy of government. Thus, where "public sensibilities" constitute the justification fora gender-based classification, the fundamental question is whether the particular "sensibility" to be protected is, in fact, a reflection of archaic prejudice or a manifestation of a legitimate government objective. Titone, J. (concurring) (internal citations omitted) RIGHTS OF NATURIST CITIZENS Jul ' 16 07 03: 19p1 R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 3 Social attitudes about nudity are changing. ilin 2006, the Naturist Education Foundation commissioned a Roper poll to gage the change in public attitudes toward nude sunbathing. Without going into detail here,the results of that poll can be seen here: http://www.'naturi'steducaiion.org/Projects/14EF-Rciper_Poll 2006/nef- roper_poll 2006.himl (copy also attached) The language defining public mew is extremely broad.;This would criminalize back yard nude sunbathing if someone in a public place somewhere could possibly view the nude person(s) oni their own private property. This would also prohibit legitimate naturist events, and have a chilling effect on nude political protests such as the World Naked Bike Ride to protest dependence on oil. For example: if a naturist club wanted to rent a private!pool, gym or other recreational I facility for nude recreational events, and allow non-members to attend, they would be prohibited from doing so with this ordinance in effect. ,This would-infringe on their rights to free association and peaceful assembly. '. Public Nudity takes place with increasing frequency in'the U.S. with no problems. Examples of peaceful occurrences of public nudity include;the annual Bay to Breakers Run/Walk in San Francisco,the World Naked Bike Ride that takes place in cities around the world in June of each year,the Seattle Solstice Festival in Washington State, the Burning Mali Festival in Nevada, and at Clothing-Optional beaches all along the coasts of our great State. i Life in a free society requires that we have a certain level of tolerance for other people's behavior even though we may find it to be distastefiil or offensive. In this country, there is no overarching right "not-to-be-offended:" We cannot pass a new law every time someone cries that someone offended him or her. To do so will ultimately require us to tailor all of society's behavior so as not to offend even the most sensitive among us. Essentially,the government has neither duty nor right to protect everyone from being offended, as protecting one person from being offended requires restricting the rights and freedom of the other. Passing the proposed anti-nudity ordinance will only encourage the unhealthy gymnophobia of those who are so sensitive as to be afraid of the nude human body. It must be remembered as well, that City Council has a'duty to represent all citizens including those whose lifestyle choices they might personally disagree with, such as naturists. This proposed ordinance would only serve to perpetuate the myth that the human body is dirty and something to be ashamed of. On behalf of all of the residents of this city'and naturists from across North America, those who hold naturist values and abhor excessive government control, we urge you to vote against passage of this proposed ordinance. Perhaps the City Council will at least, delay any action until such time as all viable alternatives that will fit the City's needs while respecting the rights of the people have been explored. The procedure being followed does not permit a current assessment of public sensibilities and as a result, Jul 16 07 03: 20p , R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 4 permits unexamined and archaic stereotyped notions to become the basis for public policy. Thank you for your thoughtful consid tign, R.Allen Baylis Director.Naturist Action Committee j i i i i i i Jul iG 07 03: 20p R. n11en Baylis 5G25947227 p, 5 Nat ; rist Education Foundation N E F/Roper' Pol l i A new poll commissioned 1983 2000 006 QUESTION number 1 by the Naturist Education Faun- $0% Do you believe that people dation (NEF)tests the responses of gp 72o1a - -M •� 74% - who enjoy nude sunbathing Americans to questions about 70 Y i�sf. l rl s` _ _ should be able to do so nudity. The independent survey, without interference from which was conducted for NEF by 60 local officials as long as they! the prestigious polling firm Of 50gy �;{#js{ do so at a beach that is Roper Public Affairs,; updates ;sr #� r tflttf r}' :previous surveys and adds a tiew 40 � accepted for that purpose? ;question. 30 ((Il s >j,{t ail t a 2006 In 1983, The Naturist Society 20 �J/�0 No 24% l,1 l;i +#} 1 YES ( "R /t3 Refused to answer 2°k (TNS) commissioned an indepen- 10 {, } t i; dent Gallup Poll of the attitudes of p l .31T h 1 I» NEF/ROPER POLL OF 1009 ADULTS . �. .r.r,o, .,�.. SEPTEMBER.2006 Americans concerning skinny-dip- MARGIN OF ERROR IS t3 PERCENTAGE PAINTS ;ping and nude sunbathing. The !encouraging results were used;for Sustained Support for Nude ,Sunbathing years as evidence of the acceptance ' :of naturist activities in the U.S. Few American adults object to nude sunbathing that takes place on NEF, the nonprofit educational beaches in designated areas. The conditional acceptance of nude ;and informational adjunct to The sunbathing measured in 2006 verifies the results from 1983 and 2000. Naturist Society, updated the with close to three-quarters of American adults agreeing that it should be ;original poll by commissioning ;Roper Starch to ask the same three allowed without interference frorn officials. !questions in a nationwide survey- The slight dropoff from the level of the 2000 NEF/Roper Poll could Since 2005, Roper has been a unit be real, or it could be attributed to cumulative sampling error. In any case, :of GtKNOP,LLC,an international research business. those interpreting the results must not lose sight of the fact that the sus- The 2006 NEF/Roper RRoper I'o11 tained overwhelming level of support comes at a time in which American indicates continued high levels of society is far more divided on other issues. acceptance for nude sunbathing, with close to three-quarters of the survey sample expressing Support � ��ifVA7i/RtST for hassle-tree nude sunbathing at a te— IEDwAT70N www.naturistedueation.org beach that is accepted for that MUN©A170N purpose. Personal participation in skinny-dipping has remained cOn Methodology Statement from Roper Public Affairs 1GfK NOP sistent at a quarter of the popLila- This study was conducted via OmniTel,a weekly national omnibus survey of GfK NOP. Interviews were conducted among 1,009 people ages 1 B+from September Bth-10th,2006. All interviews are tion. Only adults were; surveyed, conducted by telephone from the four GfK NOP World sites.Together,the four sites have a full-time capacity and the resent adult population Of of 400 lines,and utilize an interviewing procedure known as CATI-Computer Assisted Telephone P p P Interviewing. Interviewers have been professionally trained and are continuously monitored and supervised. the U.S. l5 approximately !220 Each OmniTel study is based on a random digit dialing(RDD)probability sample of all telephone households in the continental United States. The RDD sampling system is totally computer based and provides an equal million. The proiecLed number of' pr°obability of selection for each and every telephone household. Thus,the sample represents telephone American adults who have CI'SOn- Households with both listed and unlisted phones in their proper proportions. All sample numbers selected by p this procedure!are subject to an original and at least four follow-up attempts to complete an interview. ally taken part in shinny-dipping The margin of error forthe entire sample is+4 three percentage points.The margin of error at the subgroup or nude Sunbathing; is an 0lS[OUnd- lever is higher. ing SS million! Please note that for questions that do not include a"don't know"answer choice,percentages may not add up to 100 k. i Entire contents©2066 Naturist Education Foundation,Inc.All rights reserved.Reproduction without permission is prohibited. Jul ' 16 07 03: 20p , R. Allen Baulis 5625947227 p. 6 ..w...._. l AWRI lsr FWNVAn0N NEF/Roper Po�� QUESTION number 2 Of course, naturism is a Local and state governments funih-liicndly activity that's ol►cn now set aside public land for a gray of Tile Ahhuugh ti,c tiulc. special types of recreation ,Nas limited to adults. naiurist;ac_ such as snowmobiling, tivities are not. Naulr•ist parents surfing and hunling. Do you frequentl\ inctudc their in 70 1983 2000 2006 think special and secluded wholesome and traditional aelivi- 60 rod% areas should be set aside by ties like skinny-dipping that cin,- 48% the government for people h don't require the ,Irtici ants 50 0 ? i P. I C; tt 39/o who enjoy nude sunbathing; to he clothed. 40 Perhaps the pull'~ nxlst en- 30 4t.1^17 i couratoing response etas to the YES 54% No "% P 2C) ReTused to answer 2% question that asked about desig- 10 N=r/ROPER PULL OF 1009 ADULTS n uirn public land tor nude use. 11 SEPTElABER,2006 CIC'al'y111;11111'It� oI (ht,SU Stlr�'CA'CCt. 011 MARGIN OF Elt tOf2 15 t3 PERCENTAGE POINTS 54 percent. aufrccd that ­ovccrn- menu should SpCCilicall} meet the A Clean 1'lq oriot f'U1 ors .Des�gr ation needs of iho;e who enjoy nude 1 sunbathing by setting asidc p0hlic of��t)tI1111:ti���)tl(Jllfl[ ��f'C'LCS land lire that purpose. In addition to the questions The 2006 NEF/Roper PoliIndicates that tilef idea o settin`r aside that had appeared as j,art of the areas IOr nude sunhathill" now enjoys clear mtljority support among polls in 198; and ;2000. the Americans. Public approval for the idea has clearly been building over Nraturist I•ALICation 1-ound Lill ivn the vears. but 2ovcrnmeiltal a encies have been sloxv to respond to the posed a I1CNV public opinion question in 2000. 1'he LiueS1i0I1 emel gim,demai4. Agellcies and 1)Ubllc I'nd managers must reevaluate asked \,nether people; should be their policies to\v rd the deshmiation of public land for people who able to be nude in thCil' lmll baek�ards. even il• thev might be enjoy nttdt'sllnbaChino i visible to others, Notable SUCCCSSCS already;exist where agencies have responded l•hc purpose ol• this yuctilion positivel"' to this increasin<-demand. .Mlong its positive efforts to was simph to establish l ba_%eline. - , a starting place f�lr mcauning pro- manage fr,r nude recreation,the National Park Service has recoc,nized nress_ T1,c result rya,; surprisinz• elothin_�-optional zireas at Gatc,Nay National Recreation Area in New lgr"rnt�-ibur percent of those Sur- Jersey and at Canaveral National Seashore in Florida. At the state level. \eyed believe that people should �,_ . be able to he nude in their hack- Oregon has designated a portion ol•Rooster Rock Slate I Alt k to be Nards without, interference. ever, ii clothing-optional:and Collins Beach on SatlVie Island has oflicial they nla\ be visible nl others. clothing-optional siC.na,,_c t. . The 2006 Nl:F'Roper pall is supplied b\' the State Just one of the NFF pt6jecl., made f [?epttrtmeln of}'ish & possible b} the generous�uiuruary SIIppOrt lit t1lC 11alLIrtS[;CUtllll,lllllh`, Wild Iifc. Miami-Dads'Couilty Par more inlilrmtrlion On (he 2006 r t !' in Florida 11tlS 5hl)4V11 Vlti1C)n NfT Roper Poll and' otheriNla I , and has reaped econolnic proieets. \isit the %Wc:b site ul the ( Nat.Ul•isl I:dllCatioll Foundation: 1 t S y �� )c X,1 c14"1!'tlS by setting aside a ! s �y`f a t 4' } portion ol'l-kitilover Beach for www.naturisteducatlonorg •,���, ,K, a i 1 `r' clot11111`r-UptlUtlill use. i Entire contents 0 2006 Naturist Education Foundation,Inc:All rights reserved.Reproduclivn without pLanission is prohibited. i Jul ! 16 07 03: 21p ', R. Allen , Baylis 5625947227 p. 7 I ...... .�........ NATVRtSr N E FIRO ier = =�MWEIATION Maybe You QUESTION number 3 Wondered ... Have you, personally,'ever Nude or Clothing-Optional? gone "skinny dipping"or Nudity, even at a "nude" nude sunbathing in amixed public beach, is never a require- j group of men and women at meat or an exclusionary designa- a beach' at a pool, or, tion. it's a personal option that So _ 2006 p 1983 -------- 2000many people choose when they're _ somewhere else? 40 —_. .. _ .. . .---. __._ permitted to do so. Places where 0 .._...__. 25% _...._._. Z�J%-__--. . 2006 such a choice exists are often o ---•---�" 4ry p// No 73�i called"clothing-optional." 20 "— rJ/o— :€I ii!� ;: YES G !0 Refused to answer 2%. 10 Private Resorts 1 NERROPER POLL OF 1009 ADULTS Public land r _ t 1�5,� SEPTEMBER,2006 MARGIN OF ERROR IS t3'PERCENTAGE POINTS 0 � --"""-- Private naturist parks, camps and resorts are wonderful places. More titan 55 Million Skinny-dippers?' They are businesses that cater to selected segments of the nude The level of those who sav recreation industry. Nudist facili- they have gone skinny-dipping or ties range from tiny to large, rustic to posh, and inexpensive to nude sunbathing remains at one of ricer.They typically offer amen- i,rt P )'tYp Y every four American adults. That's hies not found at a beach. But for more than 55 million. Those who many people who seek a natural may choose to call themselves experience that doesn't invoke a concrete swimming pool behind naturists or nudisis are only a ' fences, walls and gates. nothing' small portion of those who have comes close to the open freedom of a clothing-optional beach. participated. Who Chose the Questions? The original questions, First posed by The Naturist Society in Surprrsln`a ,Support for a New Question 1983, were developed by TNS Ibunder Lee Baxandall.The direr- For 2006,NEF added a new question to determine present tors of the Naturist Education sentiment and establish an additional baseline by which progress can be Foundation chose to go with measured in coming years. The results exceeded expectations! those same questions in 2006,,and 2006, adding another question in Nearly a quarter of Americans(more than 50 mullion people) the most recent poll. support backyard nudity;without interference, even if those who are Naturist Education Foundation nude may be visible to others. Board of Directors-2006-2007 i • Bob Morton,Chair-Austin,TX More Information ormation on t1te Poll I' • George Winlock,Treas-Wobumi,MA • Mark Storey,Sec'y-Seattle,WA You can find more information about the NEF/Roper Poll 2006 on - Morley Schloss-Loxahatchee,FL •Judy Williams-Vancouver,BC; the Web site of the Nattirist Education Foundation.' •Jonathan Shopiro Scotch Plains,NJ •Allen Baylis-Huntington Beach,CA www,naturisteduC4tion.org BIII Schroer•Battle Creek,MI • Kath Rooney-Kalamazoo,MI Entire contents 0 2006 Naturist Education Foundation,Inc.All rights reserved.Reproduction without permission is prohibited. Jul 16 07 03: 22p R. R 1 1 en Bay 1 i s 5625947227 P. O ...:.��...... iEDilCAiIION �fEF`Il�a>tpeir� !P011 AWNaAriGM About the 'Naturist Education Foundation Other NEF Projects 1111 Chasing the Sun Founded in 103, The Naturist Education (NEF) is the inforina- An 18-minute video by tional and educational adjunct to The Naturist Society(TNS), a award winning director membership organization that grew and developed from the Free Edin Velez. Intended for Beach movement. TNS serves tens of thousands of members audiences of civic groups, lawmakers or planners,this i throughout North America, and it is from that talented pool of is not a recruiting video or naturists that the volunteer leadership of NEF is drawn. a film for insiders. instead, it presents an informative The Naturist Education Foundation is dedicated to: view of naturists, their improving the awareness of naturism and body activities and their place in acceptance among'.both naturists and non-naturists. the community. achieving an understanding and acceptance of is Cinema au iNatUrei naturists and their.activities throughout North Author Mark Storey has put j America. together a definitive 288 page volume covering the' Because NEF is registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit treatment given to nudism charitable foundation,the organization may not engage in lobbying for by film makers from the political purposes. However, it does become involved in judicial 1930s through the 1960s. ` f From pseudodocumentary: challenges, and it produces educational material for;lawmakers,'like to outright exploitation, The Lawmaker's Guide to Skinny-dippingAsues, a booklet among Storey uncovers the truths NEF's publications. of this fascinating genre. NEF operates a Speakers Bureau, making qualified speakers ® Toni Egbert Naturist: available for informational addresses, and NEF offers scholarship Law Library awards for students who;write on naturist topics. Named for the first chair of the Naturist Education The Naturist Education Foundation complements the activities of Foundation,this online the Naturist Action Committee (NAC), the volunteer, nonprofit! library includes an ever- political adjunct toThe Naturist Society, expanding collection of legal opinions and other material essential to Choose to make a difference TODAY! Support NEF. naturists. Projects like the NEF/Roper Poll 2006 are expensive. The NI Body-Positive Theater Naturist Education Foundation relies entirely on voluntary Through financial support,; contributions from concerned and involved groups and the Naturist Education individuals. Please make a generous donation to support the Foundation assists in the important work of NEF. production.and presenta- tion of live theatrical per- Naturist Education Foundation TEL(612)282-6621 formances with messages P.O.Box 132 FAX(612)282-203 of body acceptance. a Oshkosh,WI$4903 EMAIL nef@naturisteducation.org Recent performances have been staged in Seattle, NEF is a 501(e)(3)nonprofit charitable foundation.Donations are g E tax deductible inmost instances.Consult your tax professional. WA and Topeka, KS. Entire contents©2006 Naturist Education Foundation, Inc.Ajl rights reserved.Reproduction without permission is prohibited. i Esparza, Patty From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:46 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: I Oppose Ordinace Number 3773 ----- Original Message ----- From: IntoDrgns@aol.com <IntoDrgns@aol.com> To: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Sent: Sat Jul 14 11:05:38 2007 Subject: I Oppose Ordinace Number 3773 My name is Bev Axelrad and I reside in Castro Valley, CA. I am President of Sequoians, a nudist park in Northern California. Although we call ourselves "nudists" and not "naturists", the meaning is the same. We all enjoy nature in the nude. Nudity and lewd behavior are not synonymous. To target nudists or naturists because of one person's behavior is wrong. Although you may find a lewd person among the nudist community, you can also find them among all sects of society, including government. Please do not approve this ordinance because of one man. It seems to be more of a vigilante move on the part of Police Chief Small. Do not let his opinions color your intelligence. It is bad governing to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach, as the proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. Bev Axelrad Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/? ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> . � �� z00 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:05 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Ordinance 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Bhwbpt@aol.com [mailto:Bhwbpt@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:03 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance 3773 Nudism per se is not vulgar or immoral. Public lewdness, of course, should not be tolerated. Protect the harmless. Please vote against the ordinance. thanks for your consideration. Woody Baldwin Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:11 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Proposed ordinance#3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Allen Baylis [mailto:rab@baylislaw.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:54 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed ordinance #3773 Dear Huntington Beach City Council members I am a resident of Huntington Beach, and a Director of the Naturist Action Committee. In 2000, the city considered an ordinance prohibiting public nudity in response to the opening of a"strip club" on Beach Blvd. At that time, the Naturist Action Committee opposed the ordinance. The City Council voted not to adopt the ordinance due, in part, to the negative effect it would have on naturists. Now the Police Chief Ken Small is requesting that the city adopt an ordinance directly targeting naturists. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with each of you regarding this matter, and respectfully request that the first reading of this ordinance be postponed until such time as all of the issues and ramifications can be fully understood. I can be reached any time at 562-594-7224 Thank you for your understanding and I'm looking forward to the opportunity speak with you. R. Allen Baylis Huntington Beach Director, Naturist Action Committee CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.Please do not copy or forward this email to any person or entity without the express consent of the original sender. If you are not the intended recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message.Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. �C�N� LJD Men C-I`f') 0-13 7/13/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:47 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Joseph Binotto [mailto:joebinotto@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:13 AM To: Coerper, Gil Subject: OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear Mr. Mayor, As a California citizen, I am strongly opposed to ON 3773. I feel it is too broad & infringes on our state & constitutional rights. I would support any proposals to strengthen bans on sexual predators or sexual acts in public. But to pass a ordinance to basically prohibit nudity within one's home is wrong. I respectfully request you oppose this ordinance. Thank you. Regards, Joseph Binotto Joseph Binotto JoeBinotto@gmail.com 7/16/2007 - Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:35 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Huntington Beach anti-nudity ordinance Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: CHECKS2REX@aol.com [mailto:CHECKS2REX@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:33 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Huntington Beach anti-nudity ordinance Dear Council Members: We are Rex and Judy Benson of Tustin...We have read (and also seen on the CBS news) of the proposed anti- nudity ordinance in Huntington Beach. While we know nothing of the specifics of the case that has predicated this proposed legislation, we strongly disagree with the idea that benign nudity should be disallowed. Social nudists are practicing a natural and harmless way of life, and should be permitted to continue to do so in appropriate settings. We have noticed in communities such as Palm Springs and Santa Barbara, that the nudist tourist dollar is also a huge part of their revenue...For a beach town like HB, it could be same...In our experience, nudists do spend...they are typically high-end people who enjoy their leisure time, and any community (especially one at the beach) could benefit as a result. Thanks for your consideration... Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour C-0 M"41 o - dv+ 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:50 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: Proposed Ordinance#3773 ----- Original Message ----- From: David Bostwick <mail@davidebostwick.com> To: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sat Jul 14 23:07:30 2007 Subject: Proposed Ordinance # 3773 Dear Council Member Jill Hardy, I, David Bostwick, a California native, now living in Colorado, am writing to inform you of my opposition to the proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I am opposing the attempt to target naturists in an effort that goes well beyond the state law. It appears that the California legislature and courts have given careful consideration to the existing law for many years, fine tuning and interpreting it as times and culture changes. There are existing laws that already restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. It is blatantly clear that the proposed ordinance serves to further erode the already- endangered concept of personal freedoms. Let's stop the insanity. Isn't it obvious that this proposed ordinance is not only risky at best, but purely bad government at its worst that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. It has nothing to do with protecting the public. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach and a VERY bad example to the rest of the state and country. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that. elements of that appearance be masked. The extent of this proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. Humans are mammals. The rest of the world seems to accept and embrace this fact. Simply said, the proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Sincerely, David Bostwick PO Box 1474 Westminster, CO 80036 mail@davidebostwick.com 7 - Esparza, Patty From: CHRISTINE BOWERS [keekerdee@att.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance 3773 My name is Christine Bowers, and I live in Oakland, California. I have always regarded our state as a live-and-let-live place, that is why I live here. But I just read about Ordinance 3773 to make simple nudity a crime. The irony of this attempt is: I have felt safer, been treated better and felt less preyed upon, stared at or disrespected at Naturist places and events than those events not Naturist. Because each Naturist leaves the emotional armor of their clothes behind, they make much more of an effort to be polite and un-harrassing than I commonly experience from non-naturists. We also police the behavior of our own groups better because we don't want to be ostracised by the rest of the public or the law--even to the point of making it clear to those whose behavior is disturbing that they are no longer welcome among us. I vehemently OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already- endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4 . It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. 6. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Please do not pass this ordinance! If you wish to discuss this with me at any time please call me at my home number: 510-835-1802. I actually started going to Naturist events not because I am so interested in nudity, but because I was treated so much better among them than among the "regular" populance. Thank you for your attention, Christine Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: DOUGLAS CABLE [dccable2@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: nudity ordinance Honorable Councilmembers: I will probably be working when council starts tommorrow and wanted to express my views. I have lived in Huntington Beach for 24 years. As a citizen I do not want government taking away any more liberties. A resident should be free to wear, or not wear, anything he or she wishes on their own property. As a physician, I can assure you the human body is a wonderful thing. It is not to be ashamed of; and not indecent. Passerbys can mind their own business if they feel offended. Sincerely, Douglas C Cable, M.D. III �/7' 66'wm V-`/ 200 7- 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:54 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Ordinance Number 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: T.R. Camp [mailto:courtguy@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:56 AM To: Coerper, Gil Cc: Cook, Debbie Subject: Ordinance Number 3773 I am a retired police Command Officer and presently an Adjunct Criminal Justice Instructor at a Junior College. I was a member of the International Association of Chief's of Police for several years and served on one of their policy committees. I have worked closely with the U.S. Departments of Justice, Transportation and Education on cutting edge national research projects. My wife and I have traveled through Huntington Beach in our motor coach and we warmly remember our experience. I have been informed of the questionable proposal by Police Chief Kenneth Small that the City Council adopt a new ordinance (Ordinance Number 3773) that would go beyond existing law (section 314 .1 of the State Penal Code) , and would criminalize mere nudity, even in the absence of lewd content. It would appear that your Chief is at odds with a local resident who is a nudist and he now wishes to expand the criminal code to include residents and tourists who may be observed in their natural state through a crack in the blinds. I am appalled at your Chief' s recommendation and feel that he being very unprofessional. At a time when we are facing a global warming crisis, when California is recording near record temperatures, at a time when water is in limited supply, your Chief' s proposal is at odds with many who believe home nudity may be salvation for many. I have provided the following from a naturist web site.--------- Top 10 reasons why Nude is Green. 10) During heat waves, nudity can save lives. Every year following heat waves we hear the Red Cross or other social service agencies report the number of people who have died from the heat. The human body cools itself through perspiration. Air blowing over a perspiring body provides cooling. Clothing restricts this process and inhibits the natural cooling process. In structures without air conditioning, a home nudist can save themselves from heat consumption by standing nude in front of a breeze, (window or fan) and allowing the body's natural cooling process to occur. One can also take a cool shower and then stand or sit in front of a breeze and be relatively comfortable. People who live in tenements and have no air conditioning, or cannot afford this expense can benefit from being a home nudist during a heat wave. The poor and elderly can save themselves through home nudity. 9) Fewer times wearing clothes means few wash loads in the laundry Come back again to see more reasons ewer times wearing clothes means few wash loads in the laundry Fewer times wearing clothes means few wash loads in the laundry 7) Being nude in the heat of the summer allows you to turn the air conditioning thermostat UP to 82 to 86 degrees depending on the efficiency of your air conditioner. A home nudist can be very comfortable at these temperatures. If everyone became a home nudist, less energy would be used, Brown-Outs could be avoided, and you will save money in electrical bills. -------------- Naturism is also good for business. I am sure you are well aware of the success experienced by Palm Springs with the addition of the many naturist resorts in that community. These resorts have revitalized once depressed areas of town and have resulted in increased tax revenue. Tourism has also expanded. If your city were to impose the Chief's draconian expansion of the law, I am confident your economy will suffer as will tourism. I know we will give your town a wide by-pass. We are opposed to the City of Huntington Beach passing into law Ordinance Number 3773 because the criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Please ass this communication to those others opposed to this legislation. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter Terry & Patricia Campbell http: //liveearth.msn.com 2 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:53 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: proposed ord 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: NJChaparos@aol.com [mailto:NJChaparos@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:55 AM To: Coerper, Gil Subject: Re: proposed ord 3773 Hon. mayor C Goerper: I have read the particulars of proposed ordinance 3773 and find it flawed and unnecessary. the current ordinance has successfully maintained proper beach deportment. As a long-term naturist, i have enjoyed legal naturist beaches in Florida without incident. The naturist community is grateful for the legalization of our naturist beach here in Miami-Dade county. The parking revenue in low millions of dollars has prompted the county to total renovation of restroom facilities. It is almost needless to say that the beach attracts visitors worldwide. I trust you will inform your city council to oppose ordinance. Thank youi, Nicholas J. Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour 7/16/2007 ^�� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: T C [happy.endings@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear Mayor Coerper, Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook, and City Council Members, My name is Thomas Chasm and I am a concerned friend who resides in St Petersburg, Florida and have been planning on visiting Huntington Beach. It has come to my attention that the city of Huntington Beach does not welcome visitors who might embrace the acceptance of naturism. If proposed Ordinance Number 3773 is not defeated, I will of course decline to visit Huntington Beach and will publicly encourage others to do the same. I would like to suggest that you oppose the passage of proposed Ordinance Number 3773 for the following reasons: 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. 6. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. I will await the outcome of your decision. Best regards, Tom Chasm 2450 Central Ave St Petersburg, FL 33712 Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. z��1� 7/16/2007 --� -- Page 1 of 7 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:48 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: NAC Action Alert: Huntington Beach, CA Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Bobby Clayton [mailto:bobbyclayton1964@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:35 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe Cc: Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Fwd: NAC Action Alert: Huntington Beach, CA Let me tell you one thing,you childish minded,this police chief is doing all wrong. Under existing California law, section 314 . 1 of the State Penal Code, you can not vote for this . Youse are going to have to accept this section of this state law. If you do this, I can sue you for violating our civil rights ! So use your thinking tank! Don & Peggy<pyrocoupleC&yahoo.com>wrote: To: "Don& Peggy" <pyrol> From: "Don& Peggy" <pyrocouple> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:20:16 -0700 Subject: [ ] NAC Action Alert: Huntington Beach, CA NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE ACTION ALERT ************************************************ http: //www.naturistaction.o ************************************************ ********************** 7n 6i2oo7 7 -16 - 2007- Page 2 of 7 Copyright 2007 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration. DATE: July 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Huntington Beach, California TO: All Naturists Dear Naturist, This is an Action Alert from the Naturist Action Committee concerning an important situation in the state of California. The police chief of the City of Huntington Beach has requested that the City Council adopt a new ordinance targeting "naturists, " a term the Chief has used specifically in asking for new power to cite and arrest. WHAT'S THE SPECIFIC THREAT? Under existing California law, section 314.1 of the State Penal Code is the portion of general state law used to charge indecent exposure. California courts have said that absent any lewd content, benign nudity like skinny-dipping is not prohibited under 314 .1. The proposed new Huntington Beach ordinance, if adopted, would go beyond existing law, and would criminalize mere nudity, even in the absence of lewd content. The ordinance is made necessary, Huntington Beach Police Chief Kenneth Small has told the City Council, because of "incidents involving a 'naturist' living in the downtown area. " This ordinance is not aimed at strip clubs or sex predators. As Chief Small has pointed out, it's aimed specifically and directly at naturists. BRIEF HISTORY AND DISCUSSION Former Huntington beach resident Michael Ferreira is the individual at whom Chief Small's ire is directed. Ferreira, who has told law enforcement officials that he considers himself a naturist, was arrested several months ago for being nude at his residence in Huntington Beach, where he was sometimes visible to others. Ferreira had a previous California arrest for indecent exposure from more than a decade ago. Neither the previous incident nor the more recent one involved lewd behavior, but both were charged under PC 314 . 1. The 1995 arrest was from a time in which the offense did not automatically require sex offender registration, and Ferreira simply pled guilty in 1996, as many others did 7/16/2007 Page 3 of 7 during that time. However, upon the more recent arrest, authorities improperly charged Ferreira with having failed to register as a sex offender. That charge was thrown out, and the underlying 1996 conviction was vacated. Successfully representing Ferreira in the legal matter was California attorney Allen Baylis, who is a board member of the Naturist Action Committee. Since Huntington Beach Police Chief Small has declared publicly that "the subject's behavior did not include an overt element of sexual gratification" in the recent incident, it seems likely that the more recent charge will be dropped, as well. However, the matter has left Chief Small angry at Mike Ferreira and antagonistic toward naturists. Not content to do the job of enforcing laws as they are written, Chief Small now wishes to see the creation of new laws that more closely reflect his idea of what he'd like to enforce. Meanwhile, Michael Ferreira no longer lives in Huntington Beach. WHAT IS NAC DOING? The Naturist Action Committee has let the Huntington Beach City Attorney, Mayor and City Council know that naturists are quite unhappy at being targeted for lawmaking of this sort and are vigorous opposed to the proposed new ordinance. NAC board member Allen Baylis will attend the Monday evening City Council meeting, speaking on behalf of NAC and naturists. WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO? The Naturist Action Committee is asking you to do TWO things: 1) Write immediately to the mayor and city council members of Huntington Beach, expressing your opposition to the proposed ordinance. 2) If you live in the vicinity of Huntington Beach, attend the upcoming meeting of the City Council on July 16, at which the proposed anti-naturist ordinance will be introduced. IMPORTANT: The hearing is scheduled for JULY 16, so it's necessary for you to take action quickly. WHO SHOULD WRITE NAC is asking ALL NATURISTS to write, regardless of your residence. Huntington Beach bills itself as "Surf City, " 7/16/2007 Page 4 of.7 and it considers itself to be an attractive destination for tourists from across North America, and beyond. Now, the City's police chief is singling out naturists, demanding that the City Council make them the specific target of a new law that goes beyond state law. This is a matter that affects nonresident naturists who might visit Huntington Beach, just as much as it affects those who live there. WHOM TO CONTACT In this instance, contacts by e-mail or FAX will be most effective. Please write to the Mayor and the City Council members. To send an email to ALL SEVEN City Council members at once, please email: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Or you may contact each City Council member individually: Mayor Gil Coerper GCoerper@surfcity-hb.org Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook hbdac@hotmail.com Council Member Keith Bohr kbohr@surfcity-hb.org Council Member Joe Carchio jcarchio@surfcity-hb.orq Council Member Cathy Green cgreen@surfcity-hb.orq Council Member Don Hansen dhansen@surfcity-hb.orq Council Member Jill Hardy jhardy@surfcity-hb.org To send a FAX to ALL SEVEN City Council members at once, use this FAX number: (714) 536-5233. Key points to remember when writing: 1. Identify yourself. Anonymous correspondence is generally disregarded. If you are a resident of California, or especially of Huntington Beach, please say so prominently. 2. Be brief and polite. 3. Say clearly and specifically that you OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. 4. Say clearly and specifically that you OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. WHAT ELSE TO SAY? Here are some additional points to consider: 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 7/16/2007 Page 5 of 7 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non- threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. 6. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. VERY IMPORTANT: ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Date: Monday, July 16, 2007 Time: 6 PM PDT Location: City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Please plan to meet on the lower level outside the council chambers no later than 5:30 PM for a briefing by NAC personnel. Even if you do not intend to speak at the City Council meeting, your presence is important as support for those who will be speaking on behalf of naturists. IF YOU SPEAK AT THE MEETING The public comment period is near the beginning of the meeting, which starts at 6 o'clock PM. Each speaker must fill out a pink form before the meeting begins. Your speaking time will be limited to 3 minutes. There will likely NOT be an opportunity for the public to speak on the proposed anti-naturist ordinance at the time that ordinance is actually introduced, which will be later in the City Council meeting. It's perfectly natural that you should be outraged at attempts to target naturists for criminalization that goes beyond the state law! Nevertheless, if you speak at the meeting, you must avoid making personal attacks. If you like, you may make use of the points offered above for those who will be writing. 7/16/2007 Page 6 of 7 MORE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Action Alert on the web site of the Naturist Action Committee. www.naturistaction.org Select "Alerts" and find this NAC Action Alert under Current Alerts. PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS! The Naturist Action Committee is a volunteer nonprofit organization that exists to advance and protect the rights of naturists throughout North America. Identifying and fighting bad local lawmaking is necessary, but it's expensive. To do its job, NAC relies entirely on the voluntary generosity of supporters like you. To donate to NAC, use the address below NAC PO Box 132 Oshkosh, WI 54903 Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: www.naturistaction.org/donate/ Thank you for choosing to make a difference. Naturally, Bob Morton Executive Director Naturist Action Committee ----------------------------------------------------------- Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903 Executive Dir. Bob Morton - execdir@naturistact ion.org Board Member Allen Baylis - rab@baylislaw.com Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - naturist@sunclad.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Messages in this topic(i) Reply(via web post)I Start a new topic Messages I Files I Photos 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: DennisNoreen@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 7:33 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Opposition to Ordinance#3773 Dear Mayor and City Council Members of Huntington Beach, Please allow us to impress our concerns over the City of Huntington Beach's consideration to ban nudity, ordinance # 3773. Please, do not focus your time or efforts on this issue. The last time we checked, every human being is born without clothing and the human body is not indecent. It's nature's way for all creatures to enter this world. The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and as far as we know, everyone has one. It should never be a crime to be in your body, the way it was created. This is a personal freedom. In the OC Register's article, a few people stated that they were offended by looking at a person who is nude. A simple solution would to turn away and not look. It's exactly the same thing on television, if you don't like the program, change the channel. There are numerous things in this world that we personally do not like, but we will NOT impose our beliefs of our likes or dislike on others simply because that is the way we feel. We are a very diverse country with divers beliefs from all races. You can never please everyone, and by creating another law is not the way to go about pleasing a small group of people. There are laws that exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. These laws should cover the bases. This ordinance 3773 needs to stop here and now. Thank you for allowing us to expressing our opposition to the proposed ordinance # 3773. A HB neighbor and naturists Dennis & Noreen Crane 1074 Townhouse Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-645-5669 dennisnoreen@aol.com Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. zoo 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:59 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: To the City Council of Huntington Beach, CA Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: RobMAUSA@aol.com [mailto:RobMAUSA@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:58 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: To the City Council of Huntington Beach, CA My name is Robert Dailey of 16 Atherton Road, Foxboro, Massachusetts. My fiance and I are both naturists. We belong to the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR)and The Naturist Society (TNS) Below are three hyperlinks to these organizations. Nudist-American Association for Nude Recreation AANR Nudist- FAQ about nude recreation The Naturist Society We OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 and we OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of Z-161__�_ Co m M LA-AY C47'�30 �� 7/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminal ization, because of their breasts. 6. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:21 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Proposed law against nudity Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Robert [mailto:bobdays@nethere.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:38 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Proposed law against nudity As a frequent visitor to your beautiful beaches, I was quite disturbed regarding a council hearing Monday on nudity. I believe nudity is often confused, obviously by your police chief, as lewd conduct. They are two different issues! I strongly urge the council to read a recent letter from Sheriff Baca taking a totally opposite position from your police chief BEFORE any decision is made. I'm not for public nudity on one of your beaches, however if there were a designated area of the beach for nude sunbathing, that's where I'd go. There is no need for such an anti-nudity ordinance, how long has Huntington Beach been around. ? 'If it ain't broke - don't fix it' I have no idea what prompted the chief to propose such a law wheter there is a serious problem or just a personal distaste for anyone wearing what God gave them. The chief is WRONG - WRONG - WRONG and such an ordinance will mean I will spend my tourist dollars elsewhere. Bob Days �J Jul 14 07 09:58p Joel M Levy 1570) 967 2227 p. 8 July 14, 2007 Joseph DeMichele RR 2 Box 2391 Hallstead, PA 18822 Council Member Jill Hardy City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Council Member Sill Hardy: I am a naturist and I OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I OPPOSE the adempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. Laws presently exist W restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the aims-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists.The proposed ordinance would snake bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. The criminaruation of non-violent, non-leap, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a persons individual appewance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a persorfs gender,with women having been singled out for even greater criminal'2ation, because of their breasts. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. Sincerely, J h �!Ichele Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:20 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: Nudity Ordinance Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: By926@aol.com [mailto:By926@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:02 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Hello, I live in Florida. We have an extreme amount of natives and tourists here from all over. They do come here to take advantage of our sun And beaches, as do your tourists and constituents. I have lived here for over 20 years and have seen many discontent people leave to not ever return. Why? Due to the lack of legal, public, freedom, to be naturalists. (Nudists to some). Please do not allow this ban to get become law. Whether you personally agree with it or not is not the issue. The issue is public freedom of expression and to be who we are. we are not hurting anyone and quite honestly, there are ALOT of people that do enjoy this part of their life. Lifestyle if you need to look at it that way. What harm is there, esp., if you allow us our freedom in areas that the other part of the public is informed about? Have any of you examined the success of Haulover beach in North Miami, for example. Do you wish to lose city/county/state revenues due to one or a few peoples thoughts? Does that make sense? We are not bad or immoral people, quite the contrary Please also don't forget that the amount of European dollars and native dollars that your area will loose if this ban goes into effect. In a time of all of these budget crisis components, is this the correct thing to do? This I ask you in all honesty. May I personally say that, I have often thought of and wanted and would have visited your great state of California for this reason alone. With this pending legislation, I seriously doubt, if at all, I will be visiting. Why?Why should I? Why would I spend my hard earned money, pay your taxes, to be told that I can't enjoy myself at established places that already exist? I beg of you to re-think this ban. It will cost you money in the end. Respectfully, Keith Edwards Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. -- ��--� 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: dafeinberg@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:40 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Anti-Naturist proposal My name is David Feinberg, and I write in support of the Naturist Action Committee's protest of a bill scheduled for consideration Monday. I take offense to legislation that aims at ordinary nudity in the home. If this legislation is aimed at ordinary naturists,then count me in as one more person who will identify HB as a place to avoid during my annual visits to Southern California. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. -� 117/yj U,^J/ C0��&'13 7 j �"J,6 L7; 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:16 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Naturist meeting Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: rome [mailto:rome@starlinx.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:49 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Naturist meeting I think that you must have larger more important things to spend tax layers money on. I'm shock that a goverment Agency would entertain a personal crusade like this one. I ask that as a reasonable group of people you trow this police oficial request back to the dark ages where it belongs. Rubens Feliciano Philadelphia, Pa. The city where freedom in this country started. Sent from my iPhone 7- 1=t-7L/C Esparza, Patty From: richard gonzalez[richardgonzal@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Nudist Dear Council Members, I ask you reconsider the ban on nudity (IE: Nude Neighbor) who is not comitting a crime by just being nude. In 1972 in the surpreme court ruled that simple nudity is not a crime, (see below) . We were cited under section 314.1 of the penal code: Indecent Exposure. Section 314 of the penal code requires an "overt lewd & lascivious act" for an action to qualify as a violation. * California courts have ruled that "nudity in itself is not lewd or lascivious. " * According to the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition: to be lewd, the actions have to have sexual intentions. * A legal precedence: 1972: Chad Merrill Smith on Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of California: Court ruled that nudity is not inherent-y lewd or sexual. * Indecent Exposure - Legal-Definitions.com: Indecent exposure is the offensive display of one' s body in pubic, especially the genitals. San Francisco hosts many other events where public nudity is well excepted: * Nude skate in Golden Gate Park a couple years ago. There are photos and a report. * The annual Bare To Breakers * The annual Folsom Street Fair * Naked Yoga * The annual Gay Pride Parade Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs we have come across so far: "Simple nudity, absent a sexual intent, does not fall under section 314 of the California State Penal Code regarding indecent exposure, a misdemeanor offense. Indecent exposure involves the displaying of one' s genitalia in a public place, usually with the apparent intent to shock the unsuspecting viewer and give the exposer a sexual charge. " "In Re Smith (1972) and other court cases have found that the naked human body per se is not indecent. The court interpretations are what allow the "Naked Guy" and many others to walk the streets of Berkeley "au natural". In San Francisco public nudity has long been an accepted staple at the Folsom Street Fair, Bay-to-Breakers Race, Gay Pride Day, hippy reunions, and many other public events. " Also, the following legal cases have been identified, so far, to support the dismissal of our citations: In re Smith (1972) Supreme Court of California, In Bank People vs Gilbert (1972) Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, Part 2A2 People vs Hardy (1974) New York Supreme Court Goodmakers vs State (1984) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District The courts have spoken loud and clear: simple nudity is NOT a crime. The residents of San Francisco have spoken loud and clear: simple nudity is NOT a crime. When individual members of the law enforcement community decide to take matters into their own hands, and harass, threaten, and intimidate the innocent, we, the people must act! Although defending the five of us is a concern, a much bigger concern it to make sure that the harassment stops. No one wants to constantly face the risk of being hauled off to jail, have to post bail, likely have our cars towed, and have to go to court. We would like to pursue legal action against officer Velasquez and the San Francisco police department. What they are doing is not how the residents of the city want their tax dollars spent. http://newlivehotmail.com 2 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:50 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Mike Hannon [mailto:hannonproductions@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:30 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: 3773 Just a quick note say that I oppose ordinance 3773. Although I live in the Midwest,this ordinance could effect the entire country. I believe people have the right sunbath and recreate nude as long as there is no lewd behavior involved. My wife and I just regular people, empty nesters looking forward to retirement. We are not criminals. Thank you for your time. Mike Hannon Green Bay, WI Mike Hannon Hannon Productions 1101 Valley View Rd Green Bay, WI 54304 920-562-1437 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Al Kurt[alkurt@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Opposition to proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council of Huntington Beach, I am a long-standing naturist who is terribly disappointed that Ordinance Number 3773 is even being considered. I live in Michigan and have only visited your community once (clothed) and did enjoy my time there. I was shocked to learn of this proposed ordinance which targets naturists specifically and not specific behaviors. Even though I am not a resident of your city, I urge you to not support this concept which I feel would be very bad law. I don't think it is ever good to single out an individual or group of people when writing law. Please don't let someone's prejudice sway you. Although I am not a resident of your community, I do have fond memories of my visit to Huntington Beach and would like to keep those thoughts positive. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Good luck in your future endeavors. Al Kurt Royal Oak, Michigan Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:36 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: I OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Stephen Lloyd [mailto:slloyd@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:21 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: I OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 My name is Stephen Lloyd and I live in Phoenix Arizona, but vacation quite a bit in California. I want to express my opposition to the upcoming proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already- endangered concept of personal freedoms. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. .z Lo VI) — 7/16/2007 07/16/2007 11:58 401-6834773 PAGE 07 TO: CITY COUNCILLOR KEITH BOHR VIA FAX (714)536-5233 PO Box 3742 Newport RI 02940 15 July 2007 Dear Councillor Bohr: It has came to any attention that your city council is considering an ordinance to cr itninalize non- sexual nudity. Ordiw=c 3773,as I understand it,supplants existing state lava—which already addresses lewd behavior or bramt--and makes mewJy being unclothed a criminal offense. The ordinance may go fu tbec in identifying potential offenders as"naturists." I ern_aanascd to this MqgMd 94pance. My fly and I are natuists of many years- We sometimes seek clothing-optional dung(last yew we vacationed in California)and appreciate whenjurisdictim appropriody s ct aside faanily-friodly area for innocent nude recreation. Skinny-dipping is a tiane-honored American tradition. It is unfortunate,when a new law is proposed to suit the whims of one individual and not the public vocessity. In my opinion,dais is a burdensome and discriminatory law which targets an identifiable mbaority and furry owes personal from. And it is unnecessary,because the Legislature and courts of California have carefully reviewed as d tuned the existing law Wining nudity. Let's not confuse the crimes of lewdness and sexual predeii to with innocent recreation by law- abiding citizens who live in or visit Huntington Beach. Yours sincerely, Dr. Ronald Marsh Esparza, Patty From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:45 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: Huntington Beach publicity ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed McCreight <ed@mccreight.com> To: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sat Jul 14 10:25:25 2007 Subject: Huntington Beach publicity Dear Ms. Hardy -- You're probably aware that police chief Kenneth Small's proposed local ordnance to ban naturism has attracted attention outside the city limits of Huntington Beach. Perhaps you were unaware that it is attracting attention as far away as Switzerland. It's seen as yet another confirmation of the European stereotype that Americans are prudes. (A different confirmation of that stereotype this week was this story, which also appeared as a sidebar in the daily Zurich Tages Anzeiger: http: //www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0, 1518, 493856, 00.html ) Everyone has his harmless eccentricities. My sweetie and I sleep nude, walk around the house nude, sometimes eat breakfast nude. For us, feeling a breeze all over is one of life's simple pleasures. Something I've always liked, even admired, about California is its relaxed attitude to harmless eccentricities. It's one reason we visit California fairly often while viewing many of the other 49 states from thirty thousand feet away. The state law ain't broke; it don't need local fixing. Huntington Beach doesn't really benefit from this kind of publicity, either. Respectfully yours, Ed McCreight Zurich, Switzerland - �lq- Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:41 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Anti-nudity law explicitly targeted against naturists Importance: High Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Rod McKie [mailto:rmckie@sympatico.ca] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 4:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Anti-nudity law explicitly targeted against naturists Importance: High Roderick McKie Ralph Vachon 208 rue des Melezes Gatineau Quebec Canada 191 1V5 I, Roderick McKie, am a member of the AANR (American Association of Naturist Recreation) . I clearly OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I also OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. I have considered the following points when making my decision; 1. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. 2. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. 3. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? 4. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. 7/16/2007 _�� Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:03 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Ordinance 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Pauline Moore [mailto:pmoore@communitymanagement.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance 3773 I am a California resident who has spent vacation time in Huntington Beach. I have been a naturist for over 25 years. While I am opposed to lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct, I am opposed to Ordinance 3773 which I see as an attempt to target naturists and go beyond existing state law. Pauline M. A. Moore 2489 Raleigh Drive San Jose, CA 95124 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-Secure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. Ordinance Number 3773 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: NorCalExposure [norcalexposure@comcast.net) Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Allen Baylis; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance Number 3773 I oppose Ordinance Number 3773. As a nudist, a former Southern California resident and Los Angeles born native I find this ordinance and any opposition to nude recreation as offensive to my personal philosophy. Naturists are not defacto law breakers, nudity is not lewd. Passing ordinances criminalizing simple nudity is wrong. Please do not listen to Chicken Little and instead listen to what Allen Baylis has to say about responsible nude citizen's behavior. Tim Mullins 8640 Bamarcia Dr Elk Grove, CA 95624-9445 Facilitator &Webmaster Northern California Exposure http://norcalexposure.home.comcast.net norcalexposure.com A - 2Z07 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:26 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Beach Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:20 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: Beach ----- Original Message ----- From: John Parks <jparks3@shaw.ca> To: Hardy, Jill Sent: Sun Jul 15 07:41:14 2007 Subject: Beach The news that you are considering closing a beach to nude sun bathing only fortifies my opinion of USA society as pudist and contaminated with religious evangelists. This strikes back to prohibition of alcohol in the USA. As a Canadian, the USA clearly doesn't want me as a tourist. 7/15/2007 11:44 PM FROM: (305) 754-2140 TO: 1-714-536-5233 PAGE: 002 OF 003 • i • ! • i • i • t i • i Seth Paronidt 670 NE 67 St Phone: (305)754-2140 E-mail: sethparonick@hotmail.com Miami.FL 33138-6205 Fax: Some(call first for set-up) July 15,2007 The Hon. Mayor Gil Coerper The Hon. Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook The Hon.Council Member Keith Bohr The Hon. Council Member Joe Carchio The Hon.Council Member Cathy Green The Hon.Council Member Don Hansen The Hon.Council Member Jill Hardy Subject: Opposition to Ordinance No. 3773 Dear Mayor Coerper,Mayor Pro Tern Cook,and Council Members Bohr,Carchio,Green,Hansen,and Hardy: I was disappointed to learn from an acquaintance in Southern California that you are considering an ordi- nance(No. 3773)to criminalize casual nudity. Admittedly,I am not a resident of your city,and am only an occasional visitor to Orange County,but I feel strongly compelled to write to you as an American patriot concerned with maintaining personal liberty in our free country,and urge you to reject this legislation. First off,let me state that I realize this is not about going naked on the beach. I'm well aware that the entire coastline of Orange County does not have any designated,clothing-optional beach,and I'm not challenging that. As I read the proposed ordinance on the City's website,however,I find a troubling vagueness in its reference to nudity on private property`open to public view"that goes well beyond the scope of Califor- nia's indecent exposure statute as long interpreted by state courts. As noted in the introductory discussion,public nudity is already against the law if accompanied by lewd behavior or intent,and I believe that specific prohibition is in the public's best interest. Even absent such aggravating factors,I agree that no city wants residents to step outside naked in front of their house to pick up the newspaper,prune the roses,or put out the trash But it's entirely another matter to be free to enjoy in the nude a pool or patio in the backyard with adequate fencing to ensure that the public will not accidentally see more than it may care to. In addition,although one should take care not to linger in front of windows as he or she moves naked through the home,nobody should have to fear arrest for a quick dash into the bathroom before drawing the blinds. Surely,if someone is being careless in this regard,a discreet word from a neighbor or,if necessary, a more sternly phrased letter from the homeowners'association ought to raise the awareness of the person that's inadvertently showing just a bit too much from inside the house. I must ask: Is public nudity actually an ongoing problem in Huntington Beach? If not,do you really want —i zao 7 7/15/2007 11:44 PM FROM: (305) 754-2140 TO: 1-714-536-5233 PAGE: 003 OF 003 2 to escalate a trivial and rare nuisance to the level of a criminal matter? And do you believe it would be good American governance to overreact with legislation to the injudicious but not seriously harmful behavior of one person that I understand no longer lives in your city? Before you vote on this on Monday,please consider the following: 1)Existing statute already provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to protect the public from sexual offenders,including anyone that appears nude in public with lewd behavior or intent. Government has a legiti- mate concern to protect public safety,but it's on shaky ground if it attempts to legislate personal esthetic or lifestyle preferences. 2)This ordinance,if passed,could initiate a witch hunt against backyard skinny-dippers or people that relax naked inside their homes. This may not only degrade the quality of relations between neighbors as vigilantes peek through cracks in fences or stand on stepladders to peer into a bathroom window across the way in the perverse hope of being"offended"so that they can call the police. Such calls may also result in a dangerous drain on law enforcement resources,leaving others more vulnerable to serious crime while police are drawn away from patrol to respond to those. 3)Targeting an ordinance(through the analysis included as justification in its formal presentation document) against one particular individual or a named class,whether defined by inherent trait or chosen philosophy, e.g., "naturists," sets a regressive,mean-spirited,and divisive tone. Moreover,its adoption and enforcement in that light may expose the City to the risk of expensive and embarrassing litigation on the basis of the loth Amend- ment to the U.S.Constitution,which provides for equal protection of the law. Again,as a freedom-loving American, I respectfully urge you to reject Ordinance 3773. Thank you for your kind attention. Very truly yours, �Pawl. Seth Paronick Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jeff Paulk[cwipaulk@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 7:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New nudity ordinance Dear City Council, I respectfully oppose your attempt to target naturists in a way that goes well beyond state law. I have had the pleasure to enjoy naturism in your lovely state, and it would be a shame to see that changed. There are laws in place now to guard against lewd and illegal behavior. The proposed ordinance &nbs p; serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. &nb sp; Where does this stop? Jeff Paulk cwipaulk@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:21 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Surf City ordinance Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Stephen Pompa [mailto:stephenpompa@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 4:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Surf City ordinance Dear Council, My name is Stephen Pompa, and I am writing to express my OPPOSITION to police chief Kenneth Small's proposed ordinance (#3773) against naturism as currently practiced on the beach. First, the body in its natural state could hardly be referred to as "indecent". Some people often quote religious texts such as the Bible when making this point, for in it, God declared that all he had made--including the human form--was "good". Further, great artists for thousands of years--the great Roman sculptors,the Italian Renaissance artists--all saw the body for what it was, and created important works of art based on the nude form. The body is not indecent. Our country was founded on the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While no naturists will die if prop. 3773 is passed, certainly their Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are being taken away--all because someone in power disagrees. It's a pity. While non-naturists most certainly have the right to not see non-sexual nudity on the beach, many, many beaches across the entire world function as having both naturist and non-naturist sections. Why take away the rights of others for the sake of someone else? Chief Small cannot do as he pleases; nor can you. You are bound to keep to the will of the American people whom you represent. Let them decide. After all, personal freedoms are at stake. Where does this erosion of personal freedom stop? Sincerely, Stephen Pompa 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Seth Rauscher[sethrpc@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:11 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: god created us naked nudity is nothing to fear. However, there are many people who have ill minds and are something to fear. We need to focus on people who committ crimes like rape, sexual predators, molestation, prostitution, lewd acts on public beaches not nude sun bathers. There is no harm done in this because the people who go to these beaches are obviously ok with it but what does harm us is taking away our rights! We are Americans committing no violent offence. There are so many clothed public beaches and so few clothing optional that most people don't even know of them. A naked person......00000 scary! No rights, now that really is scary! PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best web mail—award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. C-017D&-t,) 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Rod Reinhart[revrod@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Stop the Anti-Nudity Law Dear Friends, I have relatives who live in Huntington Beach. They have told me about this newly proposed and ridiculous anti-nudity law. They tell me that they see a big difference between self-gratifying, pornographic behavior and simple nudity. I have to agree with them. I think this law goes way overboard in trying to criminalize legal and inoffensive private behavior. People in California should have the right to sunbathe in their backyard with out having to worry about police or nosy neighbors trying to spy on them... and that is exactly the kind of"Peeping Tom" activity this law would encourage. Even though I would not call myself a naturist, I would feel very uncomfortable moving into, or even doing business in a town where the laws demand that the police and citizens must act as repressive, puritanical spies. If you pass a law like this, Huntington Beach will become a national joke for every late-night comedian. You will also set yourself up for possible legal problems, because lots of people will be very tempted to defy the law so they can challenge it in court. You certainly do not want to have individuals or groups doing public civil disobedience against an anti-nudity law. Best wishes in your decision-making process. Rod Reinhart Chicago IL AJ �- 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Don Reynolds [drreynolds@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:54 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance Number 3773 1151 Crespi Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94086 July 15, 2007 Dear Council Member of Huntington Beach: Though I have lived in northern California for 45 years, I enjoy visiting your city on my trips to the Los Angeles area. Your ocean water is warmer than ours, and your surfing is superior! I write with concern about Ordinance Number 3773 which I understand is to come before you on July 16, 2007. 1 oppose this ordinance. I oppose the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. This proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. It criminalizes non-threatening, non-violent, and non-lewd behavior. The California legislature and California courts have already given careful consideration to the existing law, interpreting and fine tuning it over a period of many years. The ordinance is bad law for the city of Huntington Beach. It creates an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or named group, like naturists. Naturists are a family oriented group that harms no one. Further, many naturist organizations participate in beach cleanups in California and elsewhere. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. Naturists oppose such behavior and routinely inform the authorities if and when such behavior is observed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Don Reynolds ,J6L 7/16/2007 2-/4- Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:15 AM To: Esparza, Patty; Lugar, Robin; Suraci, Linda Subject: FW: Proposed Anti-nudity ordinance Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Celeste [mailto:celestei@valornet.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:58 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: allen@friendsofsanonofre.org; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Anti-nudity ordinance Dear City Council members: I just heard about a proposed ordinance for Huntington Beach which would make simple nudity without sexual context a crime. I am adamantly opposed to any such law. As an Ordained Minister, business owner (www.celestial-creations-nm.com, www.ceremonies-in-nature.com, and Paula Rich Insurance, past president of the Cambria CA Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and much more, as well as a member of NAC, The Naturist Society, AANR, and Roadrunners Naturist group, I feel this is an antiquated action which will have detrimental effects on tourism in Huntington Beach. In an age when social nudity is becoming more common (see the video entitled "Swimming Hole"at www.exploreasheville.com, Ashville, NC's official site; see ads in many major magazines by Dove; about.com 's senior travel article about skinny dipping http://seniortravel.about.com/od/thetripofaIifetime/a/nudeswimming.Mm; CNN's inclusion of'bare-it-all-beaches' as a category in their'best beaches' list; and the list goes on and on.) We are born naked as God wishes and nudity per se is not wrong, shameful, or sinful. It should not be a crime to be naked in your own home, nor should nudity in and of itself WITHOUT sexual content be a crime. Please quash this ordinance now! Paula Celeste Rich Truth or Consequences, New Mexico; Cambria, CA; San Diego, CA (2Mtsl LacN/ C,41?6L) 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Stephen Rudolph [steve32854@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: anti-naturist Ordinance Number 3773 My name Steve Rudolph. I live in nearby Costa Mesa. I am writing to let the city council of Huntington Beach know that I OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance Number 3773.I do know for a fact that the city of Huntington Beach does not need this new law. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Rudolph See what you're getting into...before you go there AA- 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:45 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: pnss@mac.com [mailto:pnss@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: It is shameful that the Mayor and Cit Council would attempt to pass a law outlawing nudity in protected areas of Huntington Beach. Why? What harm can nudity do? Naturism is NOT a deviant sexual lifestyle, but rather a way for people to enjoy living unencumbered by clothes. What could be more natural? Please do not allow this law to come into being. Naturists are peace loving, law abiding citizens that wish no harm to anyone, but rather enjoy life the way God intended us to. Thank you. caul N. 5i6le�)-5ckreiker, M.D. 1+20 York Avenue 61 3 50utk 5K 7 Apartment 3 K Condo 1-C New YorL, NY 1002, Margate, FL 33068 21 2-98 8-8980 954-977-4448 Cell: 917-664-2420 pnss@mac.com 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:47 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Please Oppose Ordinance Number 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Captain Lisa [mailto:captlisa@att.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:09 AM To: Coerper, Gil Subject: Please Oppose Ordinance Number 3773 Dear Mayor Gil Coerper, I live very near Huntington Beach and travel through your fine city frequently. My company, Nationwide Bus Charter LLC provides service to people in your community as well. I have become aware of a very important issue that is being addressed at your City Council Meeting this evening. I am very opposed to Ordinance Number 3773. 1 think it is very wrong to target naturists and it is inappropriate to supersede state law in this action. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. This is apropos. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. You law will make it a crime to nurse a child or to be nude in the privacy of one's property. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary. I strongly oppose it and hope that you will please vote against it this evening and put a stop to eroding our personal rights and freedoms. Thank you. M on ��� 7/16/2007 2 Page 2 of 2 Lisa Siegel Account Executive Nationwide Bus Charter LLC 3155 East Patrick Lane, Suite 1 Las Vegas, NV 89120 702-317-4253 702-317-4263 FAX www.nationwidebuscharter.com charternow(onationwidebuscharter.com 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Herbert Simpson [simpsonphd@frontiernet.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: execdir@naturistaction.org; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Threatened Anti-Naturist legislation Honorable City Council Members: hope that you will not aid your small-minded police chief in twisting California laws to criminalize naturist behavior in one of the most beautiful states whose climate is so perfect for proper gatherings of that kind. California's laws are currently carefully calibrated to prohibit any lewd or promiscuous behavior while not interfering with naturist activities that do not disturb the public. At 73, 1 am only an occasional naturist, usually joining a large private nudist camp gathering in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains once a year in August, which I have found very enjoyable and healthy as long as the weather did not turn cold. My friends keep telling me that I am going to the wrong state for naturist activity because California is famed for its carefully controlled gorgeous coastline untainted by commercial development, and its very private nude beach areas and exquisite park areas where naturist activity is permitted as long as it does not interfere with or annoy the public by displaying nudity outside designated private areas. I would hate to see that beautifully controlled management of nature fall prey to interfering pseudo-moralists. Yours respectfully, Herbert M. Simpson 12 Oak Street Geneseo, NY 14454 Email simpsonphd a�frontiernet.net L --i--� cc)M&7 --�6 - 2-00 �- 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:29 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: NATURIST'S ALERT- PLEASE ACT QUICKLY! Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: jim Sims [mailto:follybeachgoat@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 5:27 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Re: NATURIST'S ALERT - PLEASE ACT QUICKLY! HB City Council, I received an email detailing the circumstances around your upcoming vote on proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I feel very strongly that you should reject this measure soundly and should consider disciplinary action against it's proposer, who appears to be using this process for a personal vendetta. Although I do not live in HB, or even California, I am a long-time surfer and naturist myself. This type of legislation add frivolous restrictions and criminalizes benign behavior, further eroding personal rights and adding to the enforcement and prosecution burden of our already overburdened legal system. To what end? Does this make any of you safer? Please reject this pathetic piece of oppressive legislation. Thanks for your time and consideration. yours truly, Jim Sims 82 Dunnemann Avenue Charleston, SC 29403 L -7 GO Mm 2-00 7Z 02 - �irn r Esparza, Patty From: Dupont for Fun [morgan.slusher@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed ordinance#3773-Opposed To the City Council of Huntington Beach, CA, I am writing to OPPOSE passage of proposed ordinance #3773. As an avid naturist for many years, and as a frequent visitor to the beautiful coastal areas of California, I find this proposed ordinance to be an intolerable affront to the already-endangered concept of personal freedom and a misguided attempt to target naturists with a policy that goes well beyond the intent of California law. Since the law already restricts lewd behavior, the proposed ordinance is unnecessary and certainly sends an unwelcoming message to the world about the community of Huntington Beach. Naturists offer no threat to the civil order of your community, and a law targeting our particular group seems mean-spirited and out-of-sync with your efforts to present "Surf City" as a tourist destination welcoming to all. Therefore, I hope that you will send this proposal to its well-deserved defeat and maintain the health and welfare of your community as a place where both residents and visitors can continue to feel welcome. Sincerely, Dr. Morgan P. Slusher Washington, DC L�4-����� m �✓�cf17Q4-k-) � _�� - 2LO3t Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:26 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Huntington Beach sunbathiing restrictions Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: greg smith [ma i Ito:rustyxcv@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Huntington Beach sunbathiing restrictions Dear Council Members-- My name is Greg R. Smith. I live in Trenton,New Jersey. I enjoy nude sunbathing at the Gunison Beach in the Sandy Hook(N.J.) U.S. Federal Recreation Area. My life partner D.J. Read lives in Vista, CA. We have planned to come to Huntington Beach to enjoy the surf and the sun there (and do some shopping and eat at one of the many fine restaurants in Huntington Beach). As committed naturists, and members of several naturist organizations, the availability of nude sunbathing and swimming at Huntington Beach is a great attraction for us as "tourists." We hope that the Council will not impose any restrictions on a perfectly safe, sane, and healthful activity. Thank you! --Greg Smith Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. L - 0MtWC4A)i C4-770,) --/6 - 2,00 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Andy & Diane [andydi7@gte.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:06 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Opposition to Ordinance 3773 City of Huntington Beach Mayor and City Council members, My wife and I are not residents of Huntington Beach but we do frequently visit and spend weekends there visiting friends and relatives. We are also "naturists", long time members of the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) , The Naturist Society (TNS) and the Naturist Action Committee (NAC). We are oppose to the proposed ordinance you are considering passing in the City of Huntington Beach that specifically targets"naturists."We are troubled and concerned that a governing body would go well beyond state law and specifically target a group such as"naturists." The California legislature and the California courts have given careful consideration to existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of years. Present laws exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. This ordinance criminalizes non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior of simple nudity by naturists and . seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. The extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. It is troubling that a governing body, such as yours, is willing to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, such as naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. It further erodes the already endangered concept of personal freedoms. When will you all, as elected officials that defend the United States Constitution, take a stand and stop this from happening. We oppose the proposed ordinance#3773. It is flawed and unnecessary. Andy and Diane Solorzano Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 0 Add Emotion Icons to Your Emails Glick Here 7/16/2007 _ Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:38 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Durand Stieger [mailto:crstieger@lanset.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:32 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Honorable Mayor and City Council members of Huntington Beach: As California residents who visit Huntington Beach, we urge you to OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. Adequate laws already exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct, so this new ordinance is not needed. More importantly, innocent nude sunbathing and hot tubbing on private property should not be criminalized. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years, and it would make bad law to now target one individual or naturist group. Besides, the target of Police Chief Small's ire, Michael Ferreira, no longer lives in Huntington Beach. Please do not needlessly erode the already-endangered concept of personal freedom. Let's spend our tax dollars on more serious issues, rather than waste limited tax dollars on criminalizing innocent nude sunbathing and hot tubbing in one's back yard. We believe in the fundamental wholesomeness of the human body and that health, rather than harm, comes from body acceptance and being in our natural condition at appropriate times and places. Please do not needlessly criminalize us. Durand and Carol Stieger 4515 Charleston Drive Carmichael, CA 95608 916-967-9558 7 cl, 00 � Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jerona Tate Uerona@bellsouth.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 Hello, My name is Jerona Tate and I am a nudist. I OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773. Passage of this ordinance will result in nudist vactioning elsewhere. thank you, Jerona Tate 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:49 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Ordinance 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Uprightsw@aol.com [mailto:U prig htsw@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:46 PM To: Coerper, Gil Subject: Ordinance 3773 Dear Mayor Coerper, Two years ago I attended, at my own expense, a convention in San Jose, CA, not far from you. One reason to visit was to experience--before and after the meetings--some of the California naturist beaches, including Huntington Beach. While in your area I bought food and lodging for four days and a few souvenirs from your local artists and artisans. I really enjoyed myself. I have to say that I OPPOSE proposed Ordinance Number 3773 and, had it been in effect at the time, I would not have made that trip to California at all. In my opinion, your proposed regulation is not well-conceived and probably unnecessary. Certainly in my limited experience on your beaches, there was no lewd or even suggestive behavior: everyone seemed orderly, even prim. One further consideration: your ordinance seems to target a named group, naturists; doesn't that appear to be an example of poor governing? Thank you for considering my opinion. We have some unnecessary laws in Virginia, too. I do what I can to improve them as well. Sincerely yours, Scott W. Upright 5505 Seminary Road, No. 704 Falls Church, VA 22041-3574 Phone: 703-931.2960 (Sorry, no fax) Email: uprightsw@aol.com Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. L,00�- 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:29 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Oppose Nudity Ordinance 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:27 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: Oppose Nudity Ordinance 3773 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Wahlert <lwahlert@hotmail.com> To: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Sent: Mon Jul 16 06:56:29 2007 Subject: Oppose Nudity Ordinance 3773 I oppose Nudity Oridnance 3773 Lee E Wahlert San Diego, CA 92103 Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! <http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick wlmailtextlink> 7z.�7- Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:28 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: In Opposition to Ordinance 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:25 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: In Opposition to Ordinance 3773 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan E. Williams <danwabc-phlx@yahoo.com> To: Hardy, Jill Sent: Mon Jul 16 07:56:35 2007 Subject: In Opposition to Ordinance 3773 Dear Ms. Hardy, Hello. I'm writing to oppose to proposed Ordinance Number 3773, which affects swimsuit- free beach vacationing at Huntington Beach. I make frequent trips to California and am likely to become a resident both before and during retirement. When I'm in California and I take a beach vacation, I always head for one of southern California's clothing-optional beaches. Taking a harmless recreation choice like naturism and turning it into a crime does not make moral or business sense, especially on a beach where naturism has existed for years without problems. State law already deals with the unrelated problem of lewd behavior, and surely you can understand that targeting innocent naturists is unnecessary and mean- spirited. The existing state law has a long history of thoughtful judicial interpretation backing it up, wherea this proposed city ordinance shows evidence of not being well thought out. For instance, at a time in history when gender equality is being promoted, it seems backward to put into writing new law in which women are singled out for greater criminalization than men because of their breasts, rather than leaving this up to fine-tuning in the courts as now happens in state law. Thank you for your attention to my deep concern about this attempt to erode personal freedom for no substantive reason other than prejudice. My name is Dan Williams, and I currently live and work in the Philadelphia area, as a Business Analyst for the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. Dan Williams -�� z�o - Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:48 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: Nudity Ordinance This one just came in Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: lovetango2@aol.com [ma i Ito:loveta ngo2@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: I am hoping that you will take the time to truly understand the naturist lifestyle. It does not include abuse of children, women, swinging or anything to do with pomorgraphic intents. As a sixty year old women and a member of Glen Eden Sun Club, I need to tell you that the naturist lifestyle does include complete protection for women and children in a safe sane and most of all free environment. I have been to many mixed recreation areas (Deep Creek and Hot Creek) where it is the clothing people that leave the beer cans, watermelon rinds,trash, used diapers, around the beautiful hot pools etc. It is the naturist who do the cleaning up of the trash, and caring for the location. You might want to talk with the state of California as to our general behavior and mind set. We are well respected at San Onofre State Beach. There is nude and then there is lewd such as the Girlie Bars, the selling of the female body for stimulation. I am always amazed at the number of strip clubs, video stores, etc. that seem to operate promoting everthing that is deterimental to society in general. We don't abuse children similar to the Catholic Church, rather we protect them to the upmost degree. Allowing them to grow up with a healthy attitude for their bodies and a appreciation for others as people. Generally we are a well educated, and diverse group of individuals. Please respect our rights to continue to conduct our lives in a healthy and loving manner and don't confuse our boundries or intent. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. 2,4- 7/16/2007 Jul 16 07 01 : 13p City Of HuntingtonrBeach 95365233 p.'1 FROM "MOON HOLLOW":ROt_LINSBBRADLbY! PHONE NO. 86E 429 5216 Jul. ib 2007 04:53PM P1 To: Mayor Gil Coerper Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook Council Member Keith Bobz Council Member Joe Cachio Council Member Cathy Green: Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill 'Hardy ' My name is Dave Bradlgy, and I am a gay naturist from` Storrs, Connecticut. I would like to go on the record as opposing proposed ordinance number 3773. Under existing California state Law, section 31.4.1 of the State Penal Code, indecent; exposure involving lewd conduct is addressed. Benign nudity like skinny-:dipping is not prohibited under 314.1. :The proposed new ordinance` in Huntington Beach would': criminaiize mere nudity, in the 'ab6ence of lewd content, and would specifically target naturists. It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, such as naturists_ ' Therefore, the proposed ordinance! is flawed, and is made unnecessary given the current California State Law. Nakedly '.YoursCT Dave ,Bradley 977 Mansfield City Road Storrs, Ct. 06268 July I16, 2007 P.S I am attending a gay naturist event in September in California and vial be' contributing to the California economy during my stay. Laws such as your proposed ordinance would prevent this type, of gathering and would take tourist dollars to other states. Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:35 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: McGrath, Jennifer Subject: FW: I OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance#3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: robmcp@adelphia.net [mailto:robmcp@adelphia.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:23 PM To: Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; Hansen, Don; Hardy, Jill Subject: I OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance # 3773 I am an evangelical Christian but I OPPOSE proposed ordinance #3773. I truly believe that we should do something about flaunting nudity or exhibiting lewd : behavior. And if this is the case it is covered under State Law PC 314.1. This law and the subtleties of its application in case law have been hammered out in the courts so it isn't necessary, in my opinion, for Huntington Beach to start doing that all over again. It's going to cost a lot of time and money to do so. According to numerous studies, more and more people are telecommuting and a significant number of these are staying nude in their own homes and fenced yards. Yes there might be an occasion passerby or peeping tom that might see a portion of a naked body from a distance. So what! Deal with it like any other neighborhood complaint--cite him/her or fine him/her, but do not arrest the person. I suggest we let it be like the kind of thing where when someones tree is too tall and blocks someone's view, he is cited or fined when there is a complaint. In this day of Patriot Act loss of privacy, when we invade someone's privacy, we need to center on threats of terrorists not that of a nude body. Let people work naked or sun naked in their yards, assuming proper precautions are taken to avoid exposing themselved to the general public. Most Europeans set aside naturist areas for people to do no tanlines sunning. No one is asking for this. I think we should simply let people be naked in their own domiciles. Thank you for your consideration. Robert McPherson PS I am a resident of Redondo Beach and often travel to Huntington Beach to shop, visit friends and go to the beach (fully clothed) . 0 7z Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:30 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: NO to Ordinance Number 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Thom Reimann [mailto:thom33139@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: NO to Ordinance Number 3773 Dear City Council Members : I am a resident of Miami Beach, FL who frequently plans vacations to naturist-friendly destinations . So when I recently heard about Huntington Beach' s proposed Ordinance Number 3773, I was saddened to think that now I may never have a reason to visit your beautiful community. I wanted to write to tell you that I OPPOSE Ordinance Number 3773 and I OPPOSE the attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. Please do not pass this ordinance. Sincerely, Thomas M. Reimann Miami Beach, FL 7 c--�mo- .,/ViA JI 7/16/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:38 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: OPPOSE Proposed Ordinance 3773 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: www-data [mailto:web@shell.izap.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wilkinson Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:22 PM To: Coerper, Gil Cc: Allen Baylis Subject: OPPOSE Proposed Ordinance 3773 Dear Mayor Coerper: I am writing to you because I am deeply concerned that the city of Huntington Beach is considering a change to its Municipal Code (proposed Ordinance 3773) which would criminalize simple nudity. I ask you to OPPOSE the introduction of this ordinance. I am among many residents of California who enjoy living clothes-free within the privacy of my own home. Many housing units lack air conditioning. Going without clothes is often a practical response, especially in triple-digit summer heat. Proposed ordinance 3773 poses the threat that many law-abiding citizens who are inadvertently seen in the all-together, through a window or a backyard fence, could end up being forced to register as sex offenders, despite the fact that their nudity was without any lewd intent. This goes well beyond state law. Huntington Beach already has a law prohibiting public nudity in demonstrations (MC 9.36) . As a member of the Southern California Naturist Association and many other established nudist groups, I can assure you that true naturists are anxious to avoid public offense. Rather than criminalizing innocent nudity, why not treat this as a land use issue? If someone complains about publicly visible nude use of a property, then require the property owner to either install window coverings or fences to screen the use from public view, or discontinue the use. This would be a less draconian answer to the issue presented by Police Chief Kenneth Small. Tony Wilkinson 8133 Hazeltine Avenue Van Nuys, CA 91402 818-785-9355 ------------------------------- -_-'^-'- C.c.�J/C'o9'77C�� This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. --16 -moo Lugar, Robin From: Fraser Felter[norsekirk1@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: aired4482@mypacks.net; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: anti-Naturist ordinance Dear Members of the City Council, We have been practicing naturists for more than 50 years and have never had a problem with our neighbors. In fact, none have ever mentioned our lifestyle. We agree that obscene conduct, whether the perpetrator is nude or not, is offensive and should not be condoned. There are adequate laws on the books to deal with such conduct. But being simply nude is not lewd. Naturism is a lifestyle enjoyed by thousands upon thousands of Americans. It should not be the subject of police criminal action. We urge you to reject the proposed ordinance as an oppression against a defined group of decent, law-abiding citizens who happen to enjoy practicing naturism. Sincerely, Fraser & Bronte Felter Richmond, CA aired4482@mypacks.net TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: NudeYorker@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Coerper, Gil; Cook, Debbie; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; Green, Cathy; CouncilMemberponHansendhansen@surfcity-hb.org; Hardy, Jill Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ordinance#3773 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Huntington Beach City Council: I am writing to you as a frequent visitor to Southern California, asking that you please defeat the proposed Ordinance # 3773. I oppose this attempt to target naturists in an effort to go well beyond state law. The California legislature and California courts have given careful consideration to the existing law, fine tuning and interpreting it over a period of many years. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. The proposed ordinance serves to erode further the already-endangered concept of personal freedoms. Where does this stop? It is risky business and bad governance to create an ordinance that is the result of having targeted an individual or a named group, like naturists. The proposed ordinance would make bad law for the City of Huntington Beach. The criminalization of non-violent, non-lewd, non-threatening behavior seems to be tied to a person's individual appearance, through proposed government insistence that elements of that appearance be masked. Extent of proposed enforcement is certainly tied to a person's gender, with women having been, singled out for even greater criminalization, because of their breasts. The proposed ordinance is flawed and unnecessary and I urge you to defeat it. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. Yours truly, ROGER GINDI 180 West 93rd Street #3D New York, NY 10025 212-749-1008 Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com. 7/16/2007 -/� Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Ralph Hall [ralph_1 @juno.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed ordinance 3773 Gentlemen/Ladies, I don't believe you need laws to further restrict our freedoms. If you want to be like Michel, David's wife in the Bible, or Noah's son and object to people being naked. Then read where both of those who objected were cursed. How is it that we have given gay people, who are condemned in the Bible, all kinds of rights, but you want to restrict nudists' rights? We are a strange society here in the US making our strange traditions into commandments and laws. Ralph The natural gardener God's original intent A 7 7/16/2007 Page I of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:50 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: 3773 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Mike Hannon [mailto:hannonproductions@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:30 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: 3773 Just a quick note say that I oppose ordinance 3773. Although I live in the Midwest,this ordinance could effect the entire country. I believe people have the right sunbath and recreate nude as long as there is no lewd behavior involved. My wife and I just regular people, empty nesters looking forward to retirement. We are not criminals. Thank you for your time. Mike Hannon Green Bay, WI Mike Hannon Hannon Productions 1101 Valley View Rd Green Bay, WI 54304 920-562-1437 161-7 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Charles Harris[charles@westwindkayaking.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:32 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 3773 The the Members of the City Council of Huntington Beach, CA: I am a naturist, and I am writing to express my opposition to proposed ordinance no. 3773. This ordinance would go well beyond state law as it has been interpreted and applied for thirty years. The California laws applicable to nudity have been developed over many years to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct, while allowing simple nudity in contexts where it is not calculated to offend or excite sexual gratification. The proposed ordinance would impose a prohibition on non-sexual nudity in public places where nudity might be acceptable and not give offense, such as a remote secdtion of beach shielded from casual viewing; more ominously, it would prohibit non-sexual nudity even within the boundaries of one's own home, infringing upon the most basic principles of personal liberty and privacy. These are unnecessary and unacceptable intrusions upon the personal liberty and personal expression of naturists and of others who are not ashamed of the bodies they were born with. The principles of personal liberty enshrined in the U.S. and California Constitutions would be better served by an ordinance prohibiting passersby from staring through the windows and over the fences of private residences and by an ordinance designating a public area, such as an appropriately remote or shielded section of beach, as clothing optional. I have been a naturist for thirty years, and I, like most naturists, make decisions on where I spend my tourist dollars in function of how naturist-friendly a potential vacation destination is. My leisure expenditures are made in those places that do not attempt to criminalize my chosen way of life. Should this ordinance be passed, I will choose to vacation in the many areas of California where wholesome, non-sexual nudity is permitted, and I will recommend to my friends, relatives and acquaintances that they do so as well. Sincerely, Charles B. Harris 531 Browning Street Mill Valley, CA 94941 C) 71161 7 7/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Paul Hogrefe [notstpaul@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:32 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: I oppose proposed ordinance 3773 Dear city council members of Huntington Beach, I am writing to let you know that I oppose proposed Ordinance Number 3773. I disagree with this attempt to target naturists, simply being naked should not be a crime. Laws presently exist to restrict lewd behavior and truly disorderly conduct. That is appropriate and those laws should be enforced. Going beyond that to make simple nudity an offense is crossing a big line, and would make for very bad policy, especially for a city that relies on tourism for part of it's economy. Thank you for time, and I sincerely hope you vote against proposed ordinance 3773. Thank you. Paul Hogrefe Minneapolis MN h / t 7/16/2007 6 i C) .... Aug 20 07 12: 48p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 P. 9 Let's just save time and pass a law that bans anything that might offend anyone. That way we can each just live inside our own private sterile vacuum-sealed world and never have to deal with the messy business of tolerating individual differences. On the other hand maybe we should"just say no"to anymore of this nanny state nonsense. Les-Jul 15.2007 08:31:51 AM Remove Comment If this is the kind of dumb thing that City Council takes up time and money for, then they need to enlighten themselves about the real issues that our city/county/state/country face. One more law that removes citizens rights and allows us to live in an even smaller bubble does not help anyone. Stupid. waverider-Jul 15,2007 08:11:51 AM Remove Comment How does it harm anyone to see a human being without clothes?Walk into any museum or art gallery in greater Los Angeles, and it's very likely you'll see images of nudity. How is seeing someone naked in the flesh any different? jochanaan-Jul 15,2007 07:43:48 AM Aug 20 07 12: 48p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 10 Is this as ridicule to anyone else as it is to me. Banning bikinis,telling women that breast- feeding has an age limit. remind me to stay as far away from orange County as I possibly can,as I thought I lived in modern day America,not The USSR from 50 years ago. Oh and Councilwoman Cook just because you can't/won't wear a thong bikini. Don't take it out on others. What a fascist you are. JD-Aug 08, 2007 10:02:19 AM Remove Comment NO SMOKE, NO NUDITY,NO DRINK, COME ON THIS IS AMERICA LAST TIME ICHECKED! NONE -Aug 07,2007 03:44:32 PM Remove Comment You could be charged for exposing a friendly weapon. Friendly weapon-Aug 07,2007 09:23:51 AM Remove Comment Bear,Of course the police want to go after us instead of a domestic violence call. We NEVER carry concealed weapons. LOL Bruce from H13 -Aug 07, 2007 08:51:00 AM Remove Comment Since thong and bikinis that show butt ARE illegal under this broad ordinance,I think we should change the city name to Burqa City. And since I am a nudist,who can now be cited if seen thrugh my uncurtained window by someone with binoculars from the sidewalk,I am going to insist that Burqa City strictly enforce this law. I don't want want to see Naked Guy be cited while Naked Gal runs free. Actually, I want both to run free. Bruce from HB- Aug 07,2007 08:44:14 AM Remove Comment Bet this new law will cost millions in lost tourist income. Strike this place off of my vacation destination. 48bab-Aug 07,2007 08:00:36 AM Remove Comment Aug 20 07 12: 48p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 11 You got to wonder what the Huntington Beach City Council was smoking when the voted to ban Bikinis,breastfeeding, and nudity? Were they out of their mind? Huntington beach is already struggling with sewage washing up on their beaches now they self inflict an image wound that will drive their tourist dollars away by banning skimpy women's swimwear in Surf City. Soon they will have conservative Fashion Police patrolling the pier! 66862 -Aug 07,2007 07:58:26 AM I think this is ridiculous! This just supports negative body views! Bob -Aug 09, 2007 01:38:51 AM Remove Comment I agree maria but that goes for everyone not just the old I suppose you think your so cute that its ok for you heyMaria-Jul 19, 2007 05:17:44 PM Remove Comment I'm glad this was banned. Youngsters don't need to see old wrinkled bodies. Maria- Jul 18,2007 09:59:24 AM Remove Convnent And I will say it again, underpants ARE important for good hygine. they also keep your furnature clean Monk-Jul 17,2007 09:54:22 PM This is sad. The Council must kow-tow to those that are afraid of either their and others bodies or people feeling happy and good about themselves. I vacation in HB once a year for a week. Next year I'm trying Mexico. HB Vacationer-Aug 11,2007 08:30:42 PM Remove Comment Aug 20 07 12: 49p R. Allen Baylis 5625947227 p. 12 The Huntington Beach City Council is reacting in a rediculous manner. I am a nudist and do not condone and will not do so for anyone clothed or unclothed to display sexual provication in public. The mear state of nudity on a beach should not be removed.There are people who conduct themselves unlawfully whether clothed or not. In the event someone is offended by human nudity they have a problem larger than the ones who do not. We are Human animals in the dignified sense. We have bodies created by God. God does not make mistakes and he does not create offensive looking creatures. People do this then outlaw it to happen. Henry Hardy -Aug 10,2007 02:26:56 PM Remove Comment To mikeyintheoc. FYI the World Health Organization you know the Unicef people recommend that children be breastfed until they are at least 2 years old. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding until at least one year of age. Did you know that there are still many immunological benefits to be gained by nursing a child after one year of age?And by the way women don't breastfeed. They nurse their babies. Breastfeeding is the child's behavior. Mary-Jjane Sackett-Jul 21, 2007 04:33:20 PM Remove Comment The Naked Man was being deliberately provocative -and he's gone now. But the the city council's action is equally disturbing. Where do you draw the line? If I'm in my high- walled enclosed back yard and a neighbor four houses away with a second story can see me, is my back yard now considered a public place?And wouldn't someone peering through gaps in a fence be considered a Peeping Tom?Again, where do you draw the line between individual rights and Big Brother government? lbguy-Jul 20,2007 06:17:44 AM Remove Comment its only ok if you have the body. im not particular, man or woman, doesnt matter. and in hb we all know thats easy to obtain, menage a trois-Jul 17,2007 04:49:00 PM