The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRequest that Staff Engage a Process to Facilitate City Counc 2000 Main Street, Hun4ngton Beach,CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach 7-DCowntvUE A(ZUTsieN !A! C"SE73 SEss&vAI Al Ih� P0VA/0It jQ NtXr R.Ebv[�y2 "P- 7 A/6 dYU /I/8/22 File 0: 21-1008 MEETING DATE: 12/21/2021 Submitted by Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tern Posey and Councilmember Kalmick - Request that Staff engage a process to facilitate City Council selection of an Outside Legal Firm that would directly report to and support the City Council It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to engage a process to facilitate the City Council's selection of an outside legal firm that would directly report to and support the City Council. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 12/17/2021 Dower4gr*Leq star- City Council/Public Financing Authority ACTION AGENDA December 21, 2021 36. 21-991 Approved for Introduction Ordinance No. 4248 amending Chapter 5.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regulating Taxicabs to comply with California Government Code Section 53075.5 and Adopted Resolution No. 2021-78 to establish fees for the City of Huntington's Taxicab Program Recommended Action: A) Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4248, -An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 5.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Taxicab-Vehicles for Hire" and. B) Adopt Resolution No 2021-78, 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing Taxicab Permit Fees By Amending Resolution 2016-59. As Amended By Resolution Nos 2017-28, 2017-44. 2017-46. 2018-01, 2018-29 2018-48 2018-55, 2019-07, 2019-19, 2019-87, 2020-37, 2021-17, 2021-18 And 2021-36, Which Established A Consolidated Comprehensive Citywide Master Fee and Charges Schedule (Supplemental Fee Resolution 15) Approved 7-0 COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS 37. 21-1008 Continued to January 18, 2022 Item Submitted by Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Councilmember Kalmick - Request that Staff engage a process to facilitate City Council selection of an Outside Legal Firm that would directly report to and support the City Council Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to engage a process to facilitate the City Council's selection of an outside legal firm that would directly report to and support the City Council Approved 7-0- Continue discussion in Closed Session at the Council's next regular meeting of January 18, 2022 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) - None ADJOURNMENT - 10:32 PM The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is Tuesday January 18. 2022. at 4 00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT hftp:llwww.h u ntington beachca.gov CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING —COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: BARBARA DELGLEIZE, MAYOR MIKE POSEY, MAYOR PRO TEM DAN KALMICK, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2021 SUBJECT: REQUEST THAT STAFF ENGAGE A PROCESS TO FACILITATE CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF AN OUTSIDE LEGAL FIRM THAT WOULD DIRECTLY REPORT TO AND SUPPORT THE CITY COUNCIL During the past several years, there have been multiple circumstances where the City Council has been uncomfortable with the quality and accuracy of the legal advice provided by the City Attorney. For example, in the case, Kennedy Commission, et al v. City of Huntington Beach, the City is currently appealing a Superior Court decision that mandates the City pay attorney's fees to the Kennedy Commission in the amount of$3,531,201.10. See the attached judgement issued on July 8, 2021. Also, after the City Council made the appropriate decision to limit future City liability by agreeing to settle a $2.5 million age discrimination case against the City Attorney in June 2021, the Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline, "Huntington Beach City Attorney Criticizes City Council After Age Bias Case Is Settled." See the link below. https://www.latimes.com/ca lifornia/story/2021-06-02/hu ntington-beach-city-attorney-clashes-with- city-council-after-age-discrimination-case-settled Further, after the City sued the State over SB54 in 2018, on January 10, 2020, the 4`h District Court of Appeals ruled that the legal theory advanced by the City Attorney was incorrect, and Huntington Beach lost that law suit. Given these and multiple other factors, we are requesting that the City Council direct staff to engage a process that would allow the City Council to select and procure the services of an outside legal firm that would report to and support the City Council. Of particular note, we are not asking for any changes to be made in the City Attorney's Office. We are simply asking that the City Council assert our rights under the City Charter to obtain professional legal support for the City Council when we collectively believe that the City needs another legal opinion, in addition to the advice being provided by the City Attorney. For reference, Section 304 (b) of the Huntington Beach Charter provides the City Council the authority to procure outside legal counsel as stated below: "... The City Council shall have control of all legal business and proceedings and all property of the legal department, and may employ other attorneys to take charge of or may contract for any prosecution, litigation or other legal matter or business." 1857 Given the complexity and importance of the decisions facing the City Council,coupled with our discomfort with the quality and accuracy of the legal advice being provided by the City Attorney, it is recommended that staff be directed to engage a process to facilitate the City Council's selection of an outside legal firm to report to and provide legal support for the City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to engage a process to facilitate the City Council's selection of an outside legal firm that would directly report to and support the City Council. O 1858 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHI Division Central District, Stanley Musk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 TIlE KENNEDV COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH Judge: I-lonorable Michael L. S.ern CSR: None Judicial Assistant: M. .11aniz ERM: Nore COLIIIIY)oltl Assistant P. Fi ueroa Deputy Sh=riff. None APPEARANCES: For I'laintifl(s): No Appearance; For Dcfcndant(s): No App--amnces NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Mazer I he Court. havino taken the master under Submission on 0i/03/2021, now rules as follows: I. Plaintill-s Motion for Attorneys' Fees: General Background. Plaintiff The Kennedy Commission ("Kennedy Conunission-) moves for attorneys' fees pursuant ut Code of Civil Procedure section -021.5. The Court has reviewed the motion, opposition by defendant City of Huntington Beach ("City"), -eply, Supplemental briefing by die parties. and now rules LS follow;: '['his case concerns ,in t.ctio.i by the Kennedy Commission against the City for violation of California's Housing Element Law, Government Code section 65580 et seq. for passage of a general plan and Subsequent amendment then to that plaintifT alleged to failed to comply with the .states requirement ofallordable housing by .-lot meeting and by reducing the ntnn-xi-ot'housing units that Could be developed in the City. =-i Plaintiff filed a writ of-ltandatc f'or an order ceasing cnRucenent, administration and implementation of the t.nur',dment to the City's specific plan. The trial court granted the writ. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal reversed file trial court's order, agreeing with the City that it could amend its houSin-I element to comply with the governing Government Code sections, leaving the specific Plan in dace while allowing the City more time to amend its hxrsing clement. l'hc Kennedy Con:. V. City of I-Itmti rgton Beach, H. Cal.App-5th 841 (2017). The case was remanded to the trial court for resolution of the rcmainin., causes of action alleged in the complaint. A main contention in the Citv's appeal was whether, as a cha-ter city. it was exempt from a consistency requirement pursuaDr to Government Code section 65700. The Court cf Appeal --- - — Minutc Order --- Page 1 ot'9 1859 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 THE KENNEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH. Judge: Honorable Michael L. Stern CSR: Nome Judicial Assistant: M. Alaniz ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Figueroa Deputy Sheriff: None found that, as a charter city, the City was exempted from recuirements of Government Code section 65454 that specific plans be consistent with a general plan and it was entitled, "at this point in time, the leeway granted [by the Legislature to charter cities]," to have time in which "to have the housing element comply with state law." Id. at 859. II. Plaintiffs Catalyst Thecry for Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiff relies on the ".atalysL' theory" for the recovery of acomeys' fees by a prevailing party set forth by the Califor tia Supreme Court in Graham v. DaimlerChryler Corp., 34 CalAth 553 (2004), as the basis for its motion for attorneys' fees. In Graham, the Supreme Court held that to recover attorneys' fees under a catalyst theory, the trial court must find, based on an abbreviated review, that the lawsuit uncerconsideration has sufficient merit to demonstrate that it was not a nuisance action (i.e., that it was not "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless"), either legally or factually. 34 Cal. 4th az 575. The Supreme Court stated that ;his "showing may generally be established during the attor.-iev fee proceeding by declarations, or. at the discretion of the trial. court, by an abbreviated evidentiary showing." 34 Cal.4th at 576. The object of the review is not to determine if the fee-.lairlant would have won the case, bit to "screen out nuisance suits." Id.; See also, Tipton-W hittingham v. City of Los Angeles, 34 CMAth 604, 609 (2004) (in catalyst lawsuits against goverrmer.tat entities, the plaintiff must prove both that the lawsuit was the catalyst for the governmenutl entity's course of action and was not "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless") . I. Prevailing Party Requirement for Attorneys' Fees. Graham and its progeny cazcs discuss various issues for a trial court to take into account in r; determining whether the ca alnst approach is appropriate in awarding attorneys' fees to a prevailing patty. i r� A primary consideratio-1 in determining a prevailing party is the requirement that attorneys' fees be awarded to the "successful" or"prevailing" party. Concluding that the catalyst theory is sound in concept, the Supreme Court in Graham found that "[t]hc principle upon which the theory is based . . . we look to the impact of the action; not its manner of resolution [and that the lawsuit] is fully consistent with the purpose of section 1921.5 to financially reward attorneys who successfully prosecute cases ir. the public interest." Graham,supra, 34 CalAth at 568 (citations omitted). A plaintiff can be the prevailing party even when nojudicial relief is obtained and no formal settlement is made with the opposing party if the plaintiffs action was a catalyst for Voluntary corrective action taken by the defendant. Id. at 560. Minute Order Page 2 of 1860 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Musk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 TIIE KENNEDY CONUMISSION, ET AL V CITV OF I2:01) PM HUN'TINGTON BEACH Judgc: honorable Mic wel L. Stern CSR: Non-. Judicial Assistant: M. Alar.iz ERM: Nor.c Courtroom Assistant: P. Fia,ueroa Deputy Shcrif.- None In rulin-, on a motion for anomeys' fees and-_r the catalyst theory, the courts use the ternis successful party„ and -prevailing party" syn nw onvusly. Id. at 570: Tipton-Whitinghm a , supra, 34 Cal.4th at 610: see, Code of Civil PrOCCdere section 1021.5. Thus, in applying fi)r attorneys' fees under a catalyst theory, the moving party must show that: I ) that the lawsuit was a catalyst motivating :he defendant to provide the primary relief sought: 2) the lawsuit had merit and achieved its cat:lytic effect by threat of succeeding, not by dint of nuisance and threat ofcxpense: and 3) the moving- party reasonably attempted to settle the litigation prior to tiling the lawsuit. Skinner y Ken's Foods, Inc., 53 Cal.App.3d 938. 946 (2020). The party claiming attorneys' fees must have achieved its -primary objective' to be considered the successful party. California Pub. Records Research, Inc. :. County of Yolo, 4 1--al.App.5th 150, 191 (2016). In addition, in applying for attorneys' fees, is necessary to demonstrate that the "primary" relict'sought is attained rather than "some relief" Graham, supra, 53 CaLApp.3d at 947. If the primary relief is attained, nonprofit plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees under the private attorney gcncral doctrine and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 even if their clients have incurred no obligation to pay attorneys' fees to t.ring an action. Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 "acts as an incentive for the pursuit of public interest-related litigation that might otherwise hive teen too costly to gyring. Center tit. Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino. I Cal.AppAth 603. 611-612 (;-Oi ft Rog-el v. Lynwood Redev. Agency, 194 Cal.AppAth 1319, 1332 (tit 1 1 ) (public interest law firms are entitled to the fair market value of the legal work that they perform). 2. Lawsuit Must Be Meritorious. In order to to obtain an a to-neys' fees award in a catalyst situation, the trial court must find t:gat the lawsuit had sufficient merit to show that it had legal and lacteal merit and was not `frivolous, unreasonable or groundless." Graham. supra. 34 CalAth at 575. Whether a lawsuit is the cata.vst that changed behavior or causes the result achieved is a factual issue determined by the trial court. Wallace v. Consumers Cooperative of 3crkeley, Inc.. 170 Cal.App.3d 836, 843-844 (1985). — --- ,Minute Order - ---- Pace 3 of 9 1861 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk COtlrlhou::e, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 THE KENNEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH Judgc: Honorable Michael L. Stem CSR: Non? Judicial Assistant: M. Alaniz ERiIM: Nore Courtroom Assistant: P. Fi-,ucroa Deputy Sheriff. None 3. Moving Party .Must I lav_ Made A Reasonable Effort to Settle. In order to recover attorncys' fees tinder au catalyst theory, the moving party must snake a reasonable effort to settle the matter before litigation is initiated. Graham, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 577. ("Lenatlly prelitigatioa negotiations are not required, nor is it necessary that the settlement demand be made by counsel, but a plaintifTmust at (cast notify the defendant of the grievances and proposed remedies and give the defendant the opportunity to meet its demands within a reasonable time."). Sec. Cates v. Chang, 213 Cal.AppAth 791, 817 (2013) (settlement demand requirement may be excused where such a demand would have been futile and moving party so demonstrates): Vasquez v. State. 45 Cal.4th 243. 259 (2008) (a claim that settlement efforts would have been futile is "logically relevant" to the issue of tecessity for the lawsuit). The consideration whc.her there has been an adequate attempt to resolve a case depends upon whether a court can conclude• from the chronology of events, that the litigation "substantially contributed to" or was "demonstrably influential" in setting the litigation in "motion the process" that ultimately resulted in the relief sought. 170 Cal.App.3d Lt 844-845; see also, Bjornestad v. Hulse 229 Cal.App. 3d 1568 ( 1991) (plaintiff entitled to attorneys' fee if the la\t'Slal caused the legislature to change challenged statute); Cf.. Westside Community for Indep. Liv ng, Inc. v. Obledo. 33 Cal. id 348. 353 (1983) (an award ofattorncys' fees is improper if lawsuit is "completely sit periluot.s" in changing the defendant's behavior). Ill. Kennedy Commission is Entitled to Reasonable Attorneys' Fees under Code o'Civil PrOCednre Scction IO2' .5. A. Kennedy Commission Was the Prevailing Party. Pursuant to Code ol'Civil Procedure section 1021.5, attorney;' tics may be awarded to a prevailing party when: I) the plaintift-s action has resulted in the enforcement ofan important right affecting the public in.crest; 2) a significant benefit significant benefit, whether pecuniary :1 or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public; of large class of persons; and 3) the necessary and financial burden of private enforcement arc such as to make the award appropriate. Woodland I lilt; Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Co:mcil, 23 Cal.3d 917, 935 (19791. In deciding a motion for a-t award of'such attorneys' fees, the court must consider whether private cntorccruent was necessary and if the financial burden of pi-Mitc enforcement wanants subsidizing the success ul party's attorneys. Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn., 136 Cal.App.4111 1331, 1348 (2006). Minute Order — — ' Page 4 of9 1862 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANCELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8. 2021 THE KENNEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON 13EACII Judge: Honorable :Michael L. Stern CSR: None Judicial Assistant: M. Alaniz ERNI: Nor.c Courtroom Assistant: P. Fi--gueroa Deputy Sheriff`. None l-he objective and prinauy relief sought by the nonprofit Kennedy Commission efforts, both informally and througL litigation, were to increase the number ofavailable low-income housin<a units in the City. The attempts by its representatives to secure affordable low-income housing within the City. Kennedy Commission Was unsuccessful in persuading the City to revised its elforls in revising housing plans to comply with State law. Kennedy Commission, Supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at 846-84'7. Faiiing to obtain the requested changes to the City's revised housing clement. Kennedy Commission filed its petition for a writ of mandate. The lawsuit was consicered meritorious by the trial court, which carefully analyzed both the Procedural and substantive merits of the action. In .;ranting the writ requested by Kennedy Commission, the trial court `.sued a writ of mandate commanding the City to cease enloreing, administering or implc men-ing the housing plan enacted by the City. including the amendment objected by Kennedy Commission that significantly reduced the number of available low-cost housing units in the City. Id. at 850-851. Thus. at the trial coup cvc1. Kennedy Commission initially txhicvecl its primary objective of voiding the City's actions. r n appeal. this was reversed. The Court of Appeal found that. as a charter city, the City wars exempted i'ran the requirement of Government section 65454 that specific plans be ccnsittcnt with the general plan and the City had discretion to amend its general housin,, plan. Id. at 859. The Court of Appcal remanded the case for determinations by the trial court resardiru, resolution ofthe remaining causes ofaction. Id. at 859-860. In direct response to the rexersal ol'of the trial court's issuance of a writ of mandate against uc City primarily based or its status as a charter city. the California Legislature passed Iegislaticn specifically referencing and -evcrsim, the Court of Appeal decision regarding the application of Government Code section (5700 et seq. to charter cities. Spe--ifically referencing the present I.nvsuit and the decision of-he Court of Appeal based on the City as an exempted charter city not subject to Government Codu section 65700 ct seq., the Legislature passed SB 1333. This Ie,islation directly reversed the main contention relied upon by the City in Huntington Beach, supra. 16 Cal.App.5th flt 85). In enacting this legislation changing the applicable provisions of the Government Code principally relied upon by the Court of Appeal in this case. The Kennedy Commission, supra. 166 Cal.App.5th at 841 Legislature's analyst summarized the intent of the legislation: "This bill requires charter cities to follow the same laws on local planning and zoning as general law cities . . . from complying wifh state development statutes." -thus, in passing and implementing this bill. tile Legislature's p:usage SB 1333 responded to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Kennedy Minute Order Pagc 5 of'9 1863 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District. Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 THE KEN'NEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH Judgc: Honorable Mic iael L. Stern CSR: Non: Judicial Assistant: M. Alaniz ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Figueroa Deputy Sheriff: None Commission, supra, th:n "While one may question the legislative wisdom in cont-inuing, at this point, the leeway granted in 1965 to charter cities, we belim: that the trial judge was correct in saying that he could not 5416stitule his will 1cr that of the Legislature." Citing Verdugo Woodlands Homeowners "kssn. v. City of Glendale, 179 Cal.App.3d 696, 703-704 ( 1986). In ovCrturning the primary legal basis for the Court of Appua decision in this case, the Legislature's main grounds on which the City had relied I"or its contention that it was exempt from designing sufficient s.tcs to accommodate its share of the regional housing needs and intPlcmenting a housing, program consistent .vith the City's housing clement. The Kennedy lawsuit vas the catalyst that changed longstanding Calilbrttia law. -he statutory revision also mooted the City's central defense to the lawsuit and enabled the Kennedy Commission to achieve objectives and become the prevailing party in this action. This was acknowledged in remarks t'y City officials when the City Council voted to amend the Housing Flement in 2020 in wh ch it was remarked the lawsuit was responsible for the Cily changing its low-income housing policies. Those comments underscore that Kennedy Commission was the "tiuccessfitl" and "prevailing party' in achieving its primary objective since its pe:sistence in this lawsuit caused the City to Change "it behavicr substantially EeCanSC of, and in the manner sought by, the litigation." Graham. supra, 34 Cal.4th at 560. Therefore, The Kennedy Commission accomplished its primary objective. California Public Records, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at 191 (under a catalyst the for attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 10: 1.5. it is not necessary for a plaintiff to achieve a favo_able final judgment to obtain to quality for attorney ices so long as the plaintiffs actions \vcrc the catalyst for the defendant's actions and there is some :clicfto which t`e plaintiff's actions arc casually : Connected.). B. The Kennedy Commission Lawsuit \1'as Meritorious. The lawsuit was not "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless," either legally or factually. Graham. supra. 34 CalAth at 57J. Tl;e Kcnncdy Commission lawsuit was the causation that was -demonstrably influental" -o "set in motion the process" that eventually resulted in the relief sought. Godinez v. Sehwar ,enegger, 132 Cal.App.4th 73. 91 (2005). Viewed overall, the primary litigation objectives of the Kennedy Commission litigation expand 1Uw_InC0111C housing and minimized discrimination in housing against minority and Minute Order Page 6 of9 1864 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 THE KENNEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH Judge: Honorable Michael .L. Stern CSR: None Judicial Assistant: M. Alaniz ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Figueroa Deputy Sher-.ff. None disadvantaged persons and will benefit many low-income City residents who live in or other-.vise might not been able to afford to live in the City. C. Kennedy Commission Made Reasonable Attempts to Settle TEis Matter. As stated, a plaintiff seeking attorneys' fees under a catalyst theory must "have engaged in a reasonable attempt to samle its dispute with the defendant prior to litigation." Graham, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 561, 577. The record is replete with instances in which Kennedy Commission made repeated attempts to convince the City authorities to take actions in the amendment of its housing element that recognized the need to expand housing for low-income residents and not to discriminate against such persons in the Cir✓. The response by the City was to delay access to low-income housing and passage of policies antithetical to recognizing the need to accommodate low-income housing, protracted litigation and other procrastinations to taking action to deal with the severe demand for low-incom- ho'asing in the City. IV. Kennedy Commission's Entitlement to Reasonable Attomeys' Fees. A. Kennedy Commission Enforced An Important Right and Conferred A Significant Benefit on the General Public. In order to obtain an award of attorneys' fees under Code of Civil. Procedure section 1021.5, a plaintiffs action must: 1) result in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; 2) confer a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary; and 3) bear the necessity and financial bur(fen of private enforcement such as (:) make the award of attorneys' fees appropriate. Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. Maldanad•), 23 Cal.3d 917, 935 (1979). .y In the present instance, the Kennedy Commission lawsuit resjl:ed in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest. Contrary to the assertions by the City Iltal the "lawsuit changed nothing," the City was prodded to and eventfully enacted its general housing- element in a manner that caused it to recognize how its prelitgation actions significantly impacted the availability of low-income housing, caused low-income persons to move out of the City and had discriminatory effects against residents and potential residents. Contending that the Keinecy Commission lawsuit and other ac.Yion by it had no effect or benefit, ignores the profound affect that legislation sparked by the Kennedy Commission had on the Minute Order Page 7 of less SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANCELES Civil Division Central Dis-rict, Stanley Aosk Courthoww, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 July 8, 2021 TIIE KENNEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITN' OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON 13EACH. Judge: Honorable ,MichaelL. Sterr C'SR: None Judicial Assistant: M. Alaniz ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Figueroa Deputy Sheriff: None State-wide law applying to cha-ter cities like Huntington Belch. Without the private enforcement action by Kennedy Commissions, the future availability for low-income housing in the City and beyond would have been greatly different. The efforts by the Kennedy Commission and its attorneys cannot be viewed as "a mere nuisance.- as characterized by the City. On tsr contrary, the Kennedy Commission lawsuit pushed the City to eventually take responsible action to address homelessness and low-cost housing availability. 13. Lodestar Method of Calculating Attorneys' Fees. The lodestar method of calculatinu, reasonable attorneys' tees to be awarded to a prevailing party is the applicable nnethodolcgy for Cetenmining such fce awards. Serrano v. Priest :Serrano 1111. 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 ( 1977). The lodestar determination requires the court to consider the reasonable hourly rate ofeach attorney claims fees. Graham, supra, 34 Cal.41h 579 ("a court assessing attorney tees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the 'careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable L'ourly compensation of each attorney . . . involved in the presentation of the arse."), quoting Ketchun- v. doses, 24 Cal.4th 1 122. : 131 (2002). To determine the reasonable market value ofan attorney's services, the court must decide whether the requested rates are "within the ranee of ralso:lable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable attorneys ofcomparable work." C'hildren's Hosp. R Med. Ctrs v. Bonta, 97 Cal.A_pAth 740, 783 (2003). 13. The Kennedy Commission Attorneys' Fee,, Request is Reasonable. Under the lodestar approach commonly used by courts in calculating attorneys' f(tis, the Kennedy Commission request is S2.522,286.30. The court has reviewed, lim_-bv-line, the declarations by Kennedy Commission at:orcys in support Of this attorneys' lies request. The Icaal work set forth in these lengthy declarations and attached hourly time record-, arc- reasonable and not outside Dose often expended in such protracted litigation. Moreover, given the strenuous opposition by City authorities towards solving the (lire homeless siulat on 'n and around the City and the defiant stance ta<en by the City in this litigation, the Icual work by the Kennedy Commission took virtually every ounce of energy expanded by its pro boll,) attorneys over a number of years to attain the result of finally forcing the City to take app opr ate action to deal with the lncllnele3SneSS issue. ---- Minute Order — - —Page 8 ot'9 1866 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central.District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 62 30-2015-00801675 Julv 8, 2021 THE KENNEDY COMMISSION, ET AL V CITY OF 12:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH! Judge: Honorable Mi6ael L. Stern CSR: None Judicial Assistant: M. Alariz ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: P. Figueroa Deputy SLeriff: None C. A Multiplier is Proper. A lodestar may be adjusted based on the "novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in p-esenting them. Serrano, supra, 20 Ca1.3d at 49. Other considerations in adjusting a lodestar include the quality of representation, the contingent nature of the representation and the difficulty of a case thet may require more hours than the routine case. Ketchum, supra, 24 CalAtf at 1138. A multiplier isjustified in some cases because the success achieved is "exceptional." Graham, supra, 3L CalAth at 582. These factors may be interrelated in determining whether and to what extent a multiplier may be applied in determining an award of attorneys' fees. See, e.g., Edgerton v. State Personnel Bd., 83 Cal.App.41h 1350, 1363 (20001 (multiplier of 1.5 afTirned 'aased on novelty and difficulty of issues and skill displayed in overcoming tenacity and intransient opposition). In the instant case, the legal struggle to prevail upon the Cir} to enact measures to deal with the homelessness in and arDund its community required exceptional work by dedicated volunteer attorneys who employed their capabilities in the public interest over many years to finally attain a desired outcome. Therefore, an enhanceme-it multiplier of 1.4 is fullyjustified. See, Kern Fiver Pacific Access Com. v. City of Bakersfield, 170 Cal.App.3d 1205, 1228-1229 (1985) (lodestar amount increased where success uncertain and defendant fought the case on point). For these reasons, the COnre awards attorneys' fees of$3,531,201.10. Any further requests for attorneys' fees or applicable costs are to be c•:insidered by motion or a timely-filed memorandum Of costs. a Michael L. Stern Judge of the Superior Court Clerk is to give notice. Certificate of Mailing is attached. Minute Order Page 9 of 9 1867 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Mike Vigliotta Chief Assistant Cit) Attorney OFFICE Steven F.Pomeroy of the Community Prosecutor Nadia S.Said CITY ATTORNEY Sr.Deputy City Attomey Ryan L Lumm P.O. Sol 190 Sr.Deputy City Attomey Michael E. Gates 2000 Main Street Ian Shah City Attorney Huntington Bearb,California 92618 Sr. Deputy City Attorney Tekpha )714)536-5555 Lauren L Row Famimile: (714)374-1590 Deputy City Attorney December 16, 2021 SUPPLEMENTAL Mayor, Barbara Delgleize COMMUNICATION Mayor Pro Tem, Mike Posey l Council Member, Dan Kalmick Mw*V Date:_ / I �2Q Re: Your Proposed"H Item"—a City Charter Violation At38r1da hem No.: •j 7" .,l 10!) Ms. Delgleize, Mr. Posey, and Mr. Kalmick, Allow this open letter to serve as a notice of your proposed violation of law as reflected in your "H Item" initiative you have prepared for this Tuesday's (Dec. 21u) City Council Meeting. This is an open letter and it is not intended by me to be an attomey-client communication as this conflict may require judicial intervention for Declaratory Relief, Preliminary Injunction, and/or possibly Writ of Mandamus obtaining a Court Order in order to prevent this violation of law. As the City Attorney, and the one charged by the people of Huntington Beach to uphold and defend the law, 1 have a duty to the City (my client) to bring this important matter to light and press my opposition. The City Charter is our highest (local) legal authority and it embodies the voice of the people—it provides for my power and duties as the Elected City Attorney. This may have gotten lost, but this is the form of government the people of lluntington Beach have chosen. By our Charter, the people elected to choose the City's legal counsel. By the same vote, the people of Huntington Beach have elected to not allow City Council its own choice of legal counsel. If you do not like it, locate to a city that has a form of government more to your liking, or, propose such a vote to the people of Huntington Beach for a change — but do not abuse this form of government. Your attempts to circumvent the Charter is not only offensive to your fiduciary duties to the City, it undermines the will of the people of Huntington Beach who adopted the Charter, who ratified the Elected City Attorney multiple times, and who elected us; in reality, it is a flagrant attack on our democracy. To respond to some of your misrepresentations in your "H Item"... Under my leadership, we have ushered in an era of an exceedingly high quality of legal representation for the City, which includes overwhelming success in defending our police officers in lawsuits, achieving an over 90n/o win rate on cases, winning improbable lawsuits and trials, providing high quality legal advice, Page 1 of 4 Re: Your Proposed I I Item'—a City Charter Violation December 16, 2021 dramatically increasing levels of professionalism among our attomevs, increasing our hard and efficient work ethic, increasing responsiveness, and so much more. Through our legal work, we have saved/spared the taxpayers well over S150,000,000just since I took office in 2014. We have fought relentlessly for the City and the taxpayer; and have a win rate that any City Attomey, or frankly any attorney, would be envious of. Yet, you pretend now in your 1-1 Item," for political purposes clearly, this is not good enough for you. The lawsuit examples in the "Fl Item," which you cite for your poor opinion of our legal work, are inexplicable. We have prevailed in every single legal battle in the five-year long Kennedy Commission v. City of Huntington Beach case — and the only reason there is an attorney's fees award looming is because the court erroneously awarded fees to a party in the lawsuit who did not prevail. That is why we are appealing that fees award — you know this. All of Judge Stern's decisions have been overturned in this case — you know this too — yet you use his words against me? For the SB 54 City of Huntington Beach v. .State lawsuit, we won that case in State Court too until a Court of Appeal misapplied the City of Vista 4-Part test analysis and arrived at a different conclusion. The Califomia Supreme Court has not endorsed the City o/ Vista 4-Part for "Subdivision B" cases, or a case like S13 54. Indeed, the Court of Appeal got it wrong — and you all know this too. Having said this, we remain optimistic the California Supreme Court will intervene in cases like this and restore local control. Posey and Delgleize not only championed the legal fights on these lawsuits, Posey and Delgleize voted in favor of continuing the legal fights every step of the way. And, you had always received briefs of applicable case law and full legal analysis from my attorneys, and you knew the odds/chances of prevailing — yet you repeatedly voted to pursue those legal challenges. Against many odds, my attorneys and I have won in court over and over again, in spite of the language of the "H Item." Notably, none of the authors of this "I-I Item" have ever shared any complaints with me about the quality of legal representation the City was getting. 1 have been serving here now almost eight years, and, not one complaint from you. That fact alone speaks volumes regarding the merits behind your proposed "I-1 Item." Your "I-I Item" also contains misrepresentations, it is demoralizing to my staff, and it is disruptive to my working relationship with other City Departments. Regardless of the fact that your pretexts for your "H Item" are false, your attempt to retain outside legal counsel to report directly to you is illegal. To be abundantly clear, I have shared the following authorities and this analysis with you before. But, as in many other instances, apparently you refuse to follow my sound legal advice. To be clear, according the Charter Section 309 and its subsections, the Elected City Attomey has the power and authority to, among other things. 'represent and appear for the City in any or all actions or proceedings in which the City is concerned..." and "prepare any and all proposed ordinances and City Council resolutions and amendments thereto" and "perform such legal Page 2 of 4 Re: Your Proposed"H Item"—a City Charter Violation December 16. 2021 functions and duties incident to the execution of the foregoing powers as may be necessary" and "provide advice related to compliance with the City Charter to all elected and appointed officials of the City." Most relevant at this juncture is the City Attorney has the power to "provide advice related to compliance with the City Charter to all elected and appointed officials of the City." According to the Charter, only I am charged by the people of the City to interpret the meaning of the City Charter and provide advice related to compliance — not you. and not the City Manager. So, where there is a dispute or disagreement about what the Charter means. I alone am charged by the people of the community to interpret the Charter and provide counsel. Obviously, because City governance is necessarily political. the question about the powers and authority of the City Attorney have been questioned by other political voices for decades — now yours. You cite one small section of the Charter that states the City Council "may" hire legal counsel, yet you take it entirely out of contest. On this very question, the California Court of Appeal analyzed the City Charter and provided this response: ..the City Council has the power to hire other attomevs, but this power is limited by the city attorneys powers over City legal affairs and the City's legal department under City Charter section 309..." and "The City Council may hire other attorneys to help the city attorney discharge her official duties, but may not relieve her of such duties. Any such attorneys hired by the City Council are under the city attorneys supervision and have no authorin, to give opinions or act independent/, of the city attorney." (Emphasis added, both cites at pg. 5 of' the 1981 decision by the Court of Appeal, 41h. Div. 1; 24536). 1 have again attached a copy of that Court of'Appeal opinion for your reference. My predecessor City Attomeys have interpreted the Charter as well and have stated that the Elected City Attorney is the City's "Chief Legal Officer' and "the City Attorney's powers are plenary. The City Council cannot usurp the powers or duties of the City Attorney." The courts of' this State have expressly recognized the rule that a public agency may not contract and pay for services which the law requires a designated public official to perform. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations section 12.52; Javnes v. Stockton 14 Cal. Rptr. 49; 111erriam v. Barnum 116 Cal. 619; .,Wontgomery v. Superior Court 17 Cal.App.3d. 876)" and "any [Charter] grant of power to the Council... may not be interpreted as abrogating the authority and responsibility vested in a public official for the language of the grant does not dictate such a conclusion." (Llerced County v. Cook, 120 Cal. 275, 52 at p. 721; Denham v. Webster (1903) 139. 452, 454, 73 at p. 1390)" and "the elected and duly constituted city attorney shall continue to provide all legal services and advice to the City, that in civil matters the Council... should decide the disposition of causes and appeals brought by the city, that the other attorneys of the city are the alter ego of the City Attorney and under her supervision and control..." I have attached a copy of that City .Attorney opinion for your reference. Page 3 of 4 Re: Your Proposed"H Item"—a City Charter Violation December 16,2021 I have repeatedly advised you and others that no one in the City has any authority to independently retain outside legal services for the City except me. Not only is this reflected in my Charter authority under Section 309, it is also clearly mandated in more detail in Administrative Regulation 201, which governs the conduct of the City. City AR 201 states: "Rule: It is the responsibility of each Department Head to obtain authorization from the City Attorney's Office prior to any discussion/contact with outside legal counsel regarding any matter. No Department may independently contract for legal services by entering into a professional services agreement or any other type of agreement without the specific written authorization form the City Attorney." (emphasis in AR 201) In essence, even thinking about using outside legal counsel requires my written authorization. As such, any unauthorized retention of outside legal services is impossible, it is void. With all of this in mind, as the City Attorney, 1 will not sit idly by and permit the City Council to proceed down the path of violating the law and abusing the City. To that end, I will consider all legal options available and will take whatever steps are necessary to defend the form of government the people have chosen (by defending the City Charter) from the political opportunism clearly on display by your "H Item." I have explained my clear Charter authority to all of you before,even ad nauseam, yet you continue this fruitless pursuit in spite of my counsel. While we may have our personal differences, we also have a job to do as charged to us by the Charter. I am requesting once and for all that you cease this absurd endeavor. Your pursuits by this "H Item" will only lead to violations of law, an undermining of the public trust, increased dysfunction among the Departments in City Hall, and ultimately, perhaps a Court Order mandating you to comply with the strictures of the City Charter. For these reasons, 1 am requesting that you abide by the City Charter, follow the law, and withdraw the "H Item." Most Sincerely, I E. Gates Th ity Attorney of Huntington Beach Cc: All City Electeds and All City Staff, and Entire Huntington Beach Community Page 4 of 4 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:01 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GATES VS.OUTSIDE LEGAL FIRM From: Lori Oravetz<Iori.lyn1077@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 16, 2021 1:33 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GATES VS.OUTSIDE LEGAL FIRM Dear Council Members: I understand that in the upcoming Council meeting there is an item on the agenda to discuss the potential selection of an outside legal firm that will report directly to the City Council. As a long time resident of Huntington Beach, 1 strongly oppose hiring an outside legal firm for Huntington Beach. This position, currently held by Michael Gates, should continue to be elected by the citizens of Huntington Beach, Mr. Gates has worked tirelessly for the City throughout his tenure with positive results in protecting the City's interests. Once again, I strongly oppose hiring an outside legal firm to represent Huntington Beach as this position should continue to be voted upon by the citizens. Regards, Lori Oravetz Huntington Beach Resident SUPPLEMENIAL COMMUNICATION Meetkq Date:_ /•21-1/1. Agenda roam No.: r Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:01 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney Gates -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Anderson <kpanderson@socal.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney Gates Mr. Gates(and Erik Peterson) is the only elected official that works for the citizens of HB. Like the hypocrites you are, you idiots work only for your donors and Yasha the gay basher. We the citizens elected Mr. Gates. You all want a special council that works solely for you. If you change the city charter, you will only strengthen our resolve to recall all of you. As a result of your failed leadership, trash is now piling up to go with all of the criminal homeless you are bringing in. We are looking more like San Francisco every day. Well done Carr. Happy Holidays and Looking forward to all of you being recalled. Regards KP Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENI AL COMMUNICATION titee ng Date: /Z 1Z 112/ Agenda Item No:3 7 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:02 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Council Agenda Item #37 . . . From: Gino J. Bruno <gbruno@socal.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 3:04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Sea n.Joyce@surfcity-hb.org; Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org>; Hopkins, Travis<thopkins@surfcity-hb.org>; Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Council Agenda Item #37 . . . Council members Carr, Moser. Bolton and Peterson The majority of the City Council should NOT be permitted to end-run (and violate) Sections 300 and 309 of our City Charter (requiring the City Attorney to be duly elected, and his or her powers and duties). especially Charter §309(a), which reads, in pertinent part The City Attorney shall have the power to "jr]epresent and advise the City Council in ALL matters of law pertaining to their offices " [Emphasis supplied] Abide by the mandatory provisions of our City Charter, and VOTE NO on Agenda Item # 37 on Tuesday's City Council Agenda Thankyou Gino J Bruno Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: lZ f z2Z/ 4oenda Item No. 3 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:04 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Support for our City Attorney From:jjreed85<jjreed85@protonmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 16, 20214:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Support for our City Attorney Michael Gates and his staff are the ONLY department in the city I have any faith in. To put it in a number you can understand, 1 believe in his abilities 10,000%... while my trust and belief in the city council doing their jobs (you know, working for the CITIZENS and representing what WE WANT, not what YOU want) is negative 10,000% (aside from Erik of course). 1 really don't know how most of you sleep at night with how far you are constantly going to destroy this city. The only thing that has ever held back the city attorney's department is YOU and your horrible votes and policies. We WANT them to fight the state and their insane mandates. STOP BUILDING our city to the ground!!! Perhaps another number you can relate to. The citizens of this city elected Mr. Gates at a rate of nearly 2x any of the city council members. At minimum he received 20,000+ more votes than any of you. And believe me, those of you at the top of those previous votes have fallen hard and fast amongst us who SADLY voted for you in the past. Leave the City Anomey AND the charter alone. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: /a-/.I// .2 / Agenda mqm No.,• �3:? c,2/— /d c J 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:05 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Um, Doesn't HB Have a City Attorney? From: Dan McDonald <djmcdonald@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 7:17 PM To: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org>; Frakes, Sandie<Sandie.Frakes@surfcity-hb.org>; Bolton, Rhonda <Rhonda.Bolton @surfcity-hb.org>; Carr, Kim<Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Kalmick, Dan<Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org>; Moser, Natalie <Natalie.Moser@surfcity-hb.org>; Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson @surfcity-h b.o rg>; Posey, Mike<Mike.Posey@surfcity- hb.org>;Jun, Catherine<catherine.jun@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Um, Doesn't HB Have a City Attorney? Hello again council, I noticed an odd item on the agenda for next meeting, 21-1008. You'll have to scroll to the bottom; it's the very last one, which I'm sure was totally coincidental. Turning to substance, am I dreaming or are you trying to put an end run around our elected City Attorney, and on our dime to boot? Cuz it sure looks like it. Is there something outside counsel can do that our elected City Attorney cannot, or is it just that you only want advice consistent with your worldview and accountable to no one? Extra classy that you do this a few days from Christmas, too. Would love to get an explanation on this from you (and not from the PR firm you're bilking us for, either). Thank you, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. 121-2 !1a/ Agenda "em No.: 3- ,; 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:47 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: "H Item" initiative for this Tuesday's (Dec. 21st) City Council Meeting From: Ted Ross<tedross_0077@msn.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: "H Item" initiative for this Tuesday's (Dec. 21st) City Council Meeting HBCC Members: Delgleize, Posey, and Kalmick: Your attempts to circumvent the Charter are not only egregious, but it circumvents the will of the electorate of Huntington Beach who adopted the Charter. It is a blatant attack on our State & City democratic principles. In essence, even thinking about using outside legal counsel requires written authorization of the HB City Attorney . As such, any unauthorized retention of outside legal services is impossible. It is dead on arrival! I am requesting respectfully that you cease this legally dangerous endeavor. Your efforts by this "H Item" will only lead to violations of law. I further request that you follow the existing City Charter, follow the law, and withdraw the "H Item." Sent from my Whone.........Ted Ross HB resident .a'PLEMENTAL C)MMI)NICATION .teea:v -)ate. /Z1211-21 4Qenoe*An No.: `3 � '�l - l(J C g t Switzer, Donna From: Tim Kunze <vinviaplar@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:39 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 37: 21-1008 - City Council Meeting 12/21/21 We, the majority of citizens of Huntington Beach, are more than happy with the job our elected attorney is doing and see no purpose or reason for this action by the city council. It is a waste of OUR tax dollars, a duplication of effort and expense, and is an obvious attempt by certain members of the city council to move ever closer to removing Mr. Gates or whomever we elect and making this an appointed position. There can be only one reason this city council (certain members) wish to accomplish this and that is so that they can install a puppet attorney whom they can control. We, the people, wish for our city's attorney to remain an independent position whose occupant will protect the citizens from all threats to our city. I'll be signing the recall! Thank you, ram,Ka*i j.t✓ 714-552-2335 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION MeehK Date:_ 1.2 L/f -2/ p Agenda Item No.� u3� �I - /dQ b Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:28 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Item No. 37 / File x 21-1008 From: Kathy O'Connor-Phelps<kathy92648@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:14 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Kalmick, Dan<Dan.Kai mick@surfcity-hb.org>; Moser, Natalie <Natalie.Moser@surfcity-hb.org>; Carr, Kim<Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Posey, Mike<Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>; Peterson, Erik <Erik.Peterson @surfcity-hb.org>; Gates, Michael<Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Bolton, Rhonda <Rhonda.Bolton @su rfcity-hb.org> Subject: Item No. 37/File#21-1008 Dear Council Members: Are you TRYING to get recalled? Absolutely disgusted at the underhanded shenanigans that have been going on since this new council started. How do you sleep at night knowing that you are all in this for yourselves and advancing your socialist agenda and not for the residents you swore to represent? Mr. Gates has been the City's best attomey since I moved here 25 years ago. Do you not remember we were once called "Sue City"????? Not only has he saved the city MILLIONS of dollars, but he truly has the City's best interest at heart and more importantly he was VOTED in by the residents of HB. We don't want some "woke" city council members deciding on behalf of the residents of HB who should be legally representing the City. In my 25 years in HB 1 have NEVER seen this much controversy, upset residents LINING UP to come to speak publicly at council meetings, or felt that I had to watch every minute of a council meeting until now. I now feel the need to know what you guys are up to next because here you go again slipping Item 37 at the end of the agenda hoping that no one will be watching or caring by the end of the meeting. Guess what? We ARE watching. We DO care. I hope every single member(minus Mr. Peterson) gets removed from this recall. Your political aspirations will then be crushed & we not only will our City back, but maybe save a little piece of our state as well. Kathy O'Connor-Phelps Downtown HB Resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dew. / 21.21121 Agenda Ibm No.: `3 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 8:28 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: I support Michael Gates our city attorney! From:Cheryl Horeczko<Jeremiah033@live.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 20217:47 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I support Michael Gates our city attorney! Dear City Council, I signed the petition to recall all S liberal council members and 1 hope you will be gone soon! Cheryl Horeczko SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meetlng Date: /.2/.,)i/ )/ Agenda Item No.: .33- r7 8 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 8:51 PM To: Agenda Alerts SUPPLEMENTAL Subject: FW: Council Agenda Item #37 . . . COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. 141.. //-)J From: Gino J. Bruno <gbruno@socal-rr.com> agenda Item No.: 3 5" X Q Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 8:49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org>; Sean.Joyce@surfcity- hb.org; Hopkins, Travis <thopkins@surfcity-hb.org>; Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Council Agenda Item #37 . . . To: Mayor Delgleize and Council members Posey and Kalmick: Please WITHDRAW your illegal (and unwarranted) "H" Item on Tuesday's City Council Agenda (Item #37). The issue you raise in your "H' Item has already been litigated and adjudicated numerous times in California, and these long-standing precedents are contra to your position The 1981 case of O'Connor vs. Hutton [Court of Appeal. Fourth District, Div 1, 4 Civ. No 245336) arose here in Huntington Beach and involved our former City Attorney Gail Hutton The unanimous District Court in O'Connor considered the Huntington Beach City Charter, and specifically Section 304(b) (which you cite in your 'H" Item request), and Section 309 (dealing with the powers and responsibilities of the City Attorney) The Court held The City Council may hire other attorneys to help the city attorney discharge her official duties, but may not relieve her of such duties Any such attorneys hired by the City Council are under the city attorneys supervlslon and have no authority to give opinions or act independently of the City attomev" [Emphasis supplied] "In exercising client control over the City s legal business, the city council has power to hire other attorneys [under Section 304(b)] but this power is limited by the city attorneys powers over City legal affairs, and the City s legal department under City Charter Section 309 and City Personnel rule 4 4 " [Emphasis supplied] there is only one legal voice in the city. the city attorney.' said the Court In regard to the conduct of legal affairs of Huntington Beach. the City Attorneys powers are plenary. The City Council cannot usurp the powers or duties of the City Attorney The courts of this state have expressly recognized the rule that a public agency such as the City through its City Council. may not contract and pay for services which the law requires a designated public official. such as our City Attorney. to perform Jaynes vs. Stockton. 14 Cal Rptr 49, Merriam vs Barnum, 116 Cal 619 In the early 1897 decision in Merriam v Barnum [116 Cal 619 (48 P 727)] the California Supreme Court held that a board of supervisors could not hire special counsel to advise it in matters specifically delegated to the district attorney. The Court said. i "The legislature having designated that the board of supervisors has power to employ assistant counsel in the prosecution and defense of suits to which the county is a party, the power cannot be exercised in any other instance. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. ... It is the duty of the county auditor to refuse to draw warrants on the county treasurer in favor of any person not entitled thereto, or in payment of any claim or demand which is not a valid one against the county." "The contract [to hire outside counsel], then, was merely an attempt on the part of the board of supervisors to pay special counsel by the month for performing a duty which the law imposed upon the district attorney. ... However valuable the services of the [outside counsel] may have been to the county in this instance, to permit compensation for them would be to override the law, and to destroy one of the strongest safeguards cast about the expenditure of county funds." In other words, it would be against the law for the City of Huntington Beach to pay any outside legal bills not authorized by our City Attorney. To the same effect was the 1961 District Court of Appeal case of Jaynes v. Stockton [193 Cal.App.2d 47], which held that a school district was not authorized to employ outside counsel to obtain advice when the services of county counsel were available. Thus, with the duties of our City Attorney spelled out in our City Charter in Section 309, although the City Council may employ outside counsel, such outside counsel may only help our City Attorney, and be subject and subordinate to the City Attorney. And not otherwise. The Law on this is clear. Thus, I urge Mayor Delgleize and Council members Posey and Kalmick to gracefully withdraw their "H" Item. TO: Council members Carr, Moser, Bolton and Peterson: The majority of the City Council should NOT be permitted to end-run (and violate) Sections 300 and 309 of our City Charter, or attempt to violate long-standing precedent in The Law. If the "H" Item is not withdrawn, I urge you to VOTE NO on Agenda Item #37 on Tuesday's City Council Agenda for the reasons stated above. Thank you. Gino J Bruno Huntington Beach 2 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 8:S9 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Council Agenda Tuesday, December 21st to hire outside Legal Counsel From: Richard Hart <rwkkhart@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 11:47 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Richard Hart<rwkkhart@aol.com> Subject: Council Agenda Tuesday, December 21st to hire outside Legal Counsel Dear Council Members. I am opposed to you hiring outside counsel. The voters of Huntington Beach have said via the City Charter that the only person to provide legal advice to the Council is the elected City Attorney The voters have wisely said that they want independent legal advice being provided and not an attorney who serves at the pleasure of the Council Unfortunately, a majority of the current Council cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of its citizens and therefore the people must be protected from your self serving actions by having an independent attorney If you proceed to hiring outside counsel you will only encourage and embolden the recall effort SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 121-Z l J �l Agenda Item No.; 34 l c,)/ 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 8:59 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Upcoming Item H From:Van Zwick<vanzwick@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:00 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Upcoming Item H Dear ELECTED Officials, Your upcoming agenda item H is an affront to the City and its oft voted on Charter. Your attempt to circumvent the decision of the people to to push your own, personal, money driven agenda is frankly, criminal. It is shocking that in the face of a recall push, you would choose to throw away the Charter that the people have confirmed on numerous occasions. The City Attorney has on numerous instances proven to be a valuable asset to the City and his last election proves his standing with the citizens. Your feeble attempt at smearing him is frankly quite childish and very transparent. If you at all value your representation of the voters, you will drop this item and apologize to the citizens for your blatant power grab. Sincerely, Sylvan Zwick SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: /-2-1Z//a/ Agenda tbm No. t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 9:00 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: ATTENTION! From: Anthony D'Asaro <Anthony.Dasaro@epicbrokers.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:57 AM To: Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Kalmick, Dan <Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org>; Posey, Mike <M ike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy <CFikes@surfcity-hb.org>; Jun, Catherine <catherine.jun@surfcity-hb.org>; Moser, Natalie <Natalie.Moser@surfcity-hb.org>; Peterson, Erik <Erik,Peterson @surfcity-hb.org>; Mike.gates@surfcity-hb.org; Miichael.gates@surfcity-hb.org Subject:ATTENTION! RE: H item I attended my first City council Meeting in years. The last one was actually in 1977. Shame on me! Since that time I have watched several HB mayors and officials violate the law and get convicted. I back Michael Gates 100% on this issue. You are no different than the radical left who violate the Law every day and the flip us all off and say, " F - you, do something about it.". Well we are and will continue to do so until your evil ways are completely extinguished. I thank you for helping me decide what to do as I retire. I will spend as much time as it takes to expose and depose all of you criminals. What I saw at the city council meeting I attended were a bunch of self-serving egotistical people patting themselves on the back and praising each other on how wonderful you all are. That's fine and I am not about to say that some things you have accomplished are not good things. Who could possibly argue that a new fence along the bike path at the Beach is not a good thing. But those good deeds do not cover up the evil you disperse with your clandestine agenda and actions. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing . Anthony J . D'Asaro Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION %ieeting Date:. Agenda Item No.; 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes. Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 9:02 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 37 for 12/21/21 -----Original Message----- From: Cathey Ryder<the4ryders@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 3:23 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda Item 37 for 12/21/21 We commend the City Council for recognizing that there are oftentimes it is necessary to seek a second opinion from an outside law firm on legal issues facing the city. It does not reflect a lack of confidence in our current City Attorney or his staff. This is a common practice to seek a second or even a third set of eyes or legal counsel. That is what professionals do. Every effort should be made to ensure that our City Council is given the best possible legal counsel. The mere fact that our City Attorney is objecting so strongly to this practice, that ultimately may benefit the city, makes us question the reasons behind his objection. We support Agenda Item 37. Cathey and Bob Ryder Voters and Homeowners in HB since 1985. Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMIIMUNICATION Meebng Date. 142-U--U -- Agenda Item No.: 3 2- i/ ' I U O 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 8:58 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Item 37 on tonight's agenda From: Linda Law<Ilaw2449@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 8:51 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Item 37 on tonight's agenda My husband and I support item 37 on tonight's agenda. The City Council should be able to seek the assistance of outside legal help when needed. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: ial a-; Agenda Hem No., Switzer, Donna From: Steven C Shepherd Architect <steve@shepherdarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 9A8 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Agenda IteM #37 Hello City Councilmembers — It is with great sadness that I must strongly support Agenda Item #37 Once you've lost confidence in a legal advisor, it is always best to seek different or additional representation. Regardless as to whether this agenda item pasts or fails. I find it extremely disappointing that a portion of the Huntington Beach City Council believes they can no longer rely solely on the city attorney for soundly-reasoned and accurate legal advice. In my mind this is essentially a vote of 'no confidence" in Mr. Gates, and given what we've seen during his tenure as city attorney, this hardly comes as a surprise. I've often felt that Mr. Gates forgets or simply ignores the appropriate exercise of his position in our local government. Rather than serving as a trusted legal advisor working to empower and protect our city from needless legal exposure, more often than not he appears to simply be seeking to advance his own personal agenda regardless of the financial or reputational cost to our city As a resident, my vote for city attorney comes with the assumption that this official will work with our elected councilmembers and city staff not against them and always prioritize city goals ahead of personal ones. I support any future expenditure used to obtain a highly qualified third party legal opinion. I feel it is both justified and a sound investment. Looking out for the best interests of our community should always be bigger than any single person. Thank you. Steve Shepherd Huntington Beach 92646 SUPPLEMENT. COMMUNlill Meeting Date:--/ 2 / 2-1 Agenda Itw n No.: t 111--- Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 2:02 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney ----Original Message----- From: Quinn <quinnstahl@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 12:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney I'm writing in opposition to your agenda item regarding hiring outside legal counsel. I am strongly opposed to any legal counsel appointed by the city council as this is against our charter, appears to be an unethical way to circumvent a city attorney that you appear not to like, and seems like quite a sneaky way to manipulate a situation behind the backs of the residents. We elected Michael Gates and I am against anything the city council does to try and undermine our election of him. Michael Gates is the best city attorney we've ever had and one of the few individuals within city hall right now that I would deem trustworthy. Initially I wasn't necessarily supportive of a recall as it was the conservative candidates own faults for all wanting to be on the ballot and split the vote, but that more I tune into the behavior, voting and shadiness of the current council, the more I understand why people are pushing for a recall. I certainly won't vote to re-elect most of the current council and want you to stop going rogue to implement your own agenda. Please remove the outside counsel agenda item from your Tuesday meeting and stop ignoring our city charter. Regards, Quinn Stahl HB resident SUPPLEMENIAL COMMUNICATION Meeling Date: Agrr6a Item t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 4:20 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: I STAND WITH GATES From:terryagriffin<terryagriffin@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 2:58 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I STAND WITH GATES You are not above the law! We elected him for a reason! Back off- you are wrong. Terry griffin 7861 Happy Dr Hb. 92748 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee,rt�gate. !2/-�ill I Agenda Item No.: `3 7L 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 4:50 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Item #37/Hiring of an outside legal firm From:Steve Farnsworth <hazmn54@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 20214:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc:Steve Farnsworth<hazmnS4@gmail.com> Subject: Item#37/ Hiring of an outside legal firm Huntington Beach City Council Members Delgleize, Posey, Kalmick, Carr, Moser and Bolton, As a resident of Huntington Beach for almost 40 years I have NEVER seen such a dysfunctional, power hungry City Council as I have seen this past year. You are City Council Members, elected to that position to serve in the best interest of the City of Huntington Beach and it's residents, not to become the almighty OZ and do what pleases you regardless of what the citizens think or what is in the best interest of the City. I fully support Michael Gates and what he has done for Huntington Beach and it's citizens. If you want a City Attorney to work directly for you, then change the City Charter. Don't just hire an outside legal firm at your whim to do as you please. I am asking you to vote against the Delgleize, Posey, Kalmick trio of hiring a legal fine to agree with whatever you come up with next. I could go on, but I'll keep it civil and hope you take into account the many entails and speakers that you will no doubt hear from on this issue. Thank you, Steve Farnsworth SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION MeeftDate: Z Z/ .Z G` 4yende Item No.: t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes,Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:36 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:City Council Meeting 12/21/21 Agenda From: donnadillon214@aol.com<donnadillon214@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:City Council Meeting 12/21/21 Agenda Honorable Mayor Delgleize and Council Members, Please pull these items from the consent agenda at the 12/21/21 Council meeting. The citizens of Huntington Beach need to hear your discussion as to why these actions are necessary: 19. 21-1002 Approve and authorize approval of two on-call Professional Services Contracts for Citywide Leadership Development Training with All American Leadership, LLC, and the Southern California Center for Nonprofit Management 24. 21-909 Adopt Ordinance Nos. 4239, 4240, 4241, 4242, 4243, 4244 updating the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to reform, consolidate, and dissolve a select number of the City's Boards, Commissions, and Committees Approved for introduction November 16, 2021 - Vote 7-0(#4239, #4243, #4242, #4243, #4244) and 6-1 (Peterson-No) on #424 Please take action: H Item 21-1008- Pull this item or vote against it if Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tern Posey, and Councilman Kalmick proceed. It is unclear to the residents of Huntington Beach, who voted unanimously for City Attorney Michael Gates, why this action is necessary. Does the Cites Attorneys Office need extra help? If you are proposing to hire legal council independent of Michael Gates' office, this action will usurp his authority and will end up in protracted litigation. Is this your intention? I am interested to hear their justification of this proposal and why they (Delgleize, Posey, Kalmick)think the City Charter allows this. Michael Gates is stellar attorney, and his office represents our city and wins the most challenging cases. Please vote against this item. Respectfully, from a 49 year property owner and resident of Huntington Beach, SUPPLEMENTAL Donna Dillon COMMUNICATION 22102 Jonesport Ln /z/ �� Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Meeting Date. Z/ donnadillon214@aol.com p Agenda Nam No.' Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 6:12 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 37 on the 12/21/21 calendar From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 6:07 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item 37 on the 12/21/21 calendar I would like to Thank Barbara Delgleize, Dan Kalmick, and Michael Posey, and the other council members who will support Agenda Item 37. This item will be viewed as an insight into things yet to come from this council who have proved to have no bounds in their quest for authority and power. The Timing Could Have Not Have Been Better, this blantent disregard of our City Charter has caused a Spike in the Recall Signatures that has now put this effort over the hill of required signatures. Nice Job !!!!! Thanks for all your help to get yourselves removed from our city council. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. I2 121.1 Z I Agenda Item No., t rvir. nluury nausun 8102 Ellis Avenue Apartment 121 Huntington Beach CA 92646 December 21, 2021 The Mayoress of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 My Dear Madam Mayoress, I would like to express my opposition to Item XXXVII. CC: The Honorable Michael Posey CC: The Honorable Rhonda Bolton CC: The Honorable Kimberly Buck Cart CC: The Honorable Daniel Kalmick CC: The Honorable Natalie Tomich Moser CC: The Honorable Erik H. Peterson SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Data. 4Z42 Agenda Wn NO.. 3 7- o2 -IL Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 9:45 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Council Agenda item #37 - ---Original Message----- From: Robert Daniel <bdaniel5@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 7:32 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Joyce, Sean <Sean.Joyce@surfcity-hb.org>; oliver-chi@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Council Agenda item #37 Hon. City Council members, I feel compelled to voice my concern that the city council is not acting in the cities best interest by considering the hiring of an outside attorney. Huntington Beach has a competent City Attorney and we the citizens elected him intentionally. Making an end run around our elected official is going to get the city involved in an expensive lawsuit. And the council members who voted in favor would clearly be guilty of malfeasense and breech of fiduciary duty. Charges such as these are often hard to prove in court but in this case where there is clear precedent I suspect such charges would be easy for a competent prosecutor to prove. I urge you all to vote NO if the question of hiring an outside attorney is called to a vote. Please keep the city out of the courts and save the taxpayers money on needless legal fees when the city council members invariable get sued. DO NOT VOTE TO HIRE an OUTSIDE ATTORNEY! Thank you. Respectfully, Robert Daniel Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION M"bnq Date._�'2-12 1 Z wends Item No. 3 N/ GG t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 9:03 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Council Meeting 12/21/21 Agenda From: Greg Dillon <gndillon@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:19 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 12/21/21 Agenda city councallasurfcdv-hb orq Greg Dillon SUPPLEMENTAL nOIII MUNICATION From: Greg Dillon Meeting Date..,- / I Z/ .z / Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:29 PM To: 'city council@surfcity-hb org' <city councdCcDsurfcity-hb orq> > Subject: City Council Meeting 12/21t21 Agenda Apenaa Item No.: 0 -�L . - /U c1 Honorable Mayor Delgleize and Council Members, Please pull these items from the consent agenda at the 12/21/21 Council meeting. The citizens of Huntington Beach need to hear your discussion as to why these actions are necessary: 19. 21-1002 Approve and authorize approval of two on-call Professional Services Contracts for Citywide Leadership Development Training with All American Leadership. LLC. and the Southern California Center for Nonprofit Management 24. 21-909 Adopt Ordinance Nos. 4239, 4240, 4241, 4242, 4243, 4244 updating the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to reform. consolidate, and dissolve a select number of the City's Boards. Commissions. and Committees Approved for introduction November 16, 2021 - Vote 7-0 (#4239. #4241 , #4242. #4243. #4244) and 6-1 (Peterson-No) on #424 Please take action: H Item 21-1008 - Pull this item or vote against it if Mayor Delgleize. Mayor Pro Tern Posey. and Councilman Kalmick proceed. It is unclear to the residents of Huntington Beach, who voted unanimously for City Attorney Michael Gates, why this action is necessary. Does the City's Attorneys Office need extra help? If you are proposing to hire legal council independent of Michael Gates' office, this action will usurp his authority and will end up in protracted litigation. Is this your i intention? I am interested to hear their justification of this proposal and why they (Delgleize. Posey, Kalmick) think the City Charter allows this. Michael Gates is stellar attorney, and his office represents our city and wins the most challenging cases. Please vote against this item. Respectfully, from a 49 year property owner and resident of Huntington Beach. Greg Dillon 22102 Jonesport Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 donnadillon214(a)aol.com 2 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:31 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW: City Attorney and City Charter From: Dawn Crowley<older.than.dirt@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 20219:50 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:City Attorney and City Charter Our city charter allows us to VOTE for City Clerk, City Treasurer, and City Attorney. Do NOT REMOVE the VOICE of CITIZENS by canceling our RIGHT to VOTE or by doing an end run by hiring additional counsel!!! Leave our city charter alone and rely upon Michael Gates for legal advice. Dawn Crowley Huntington Beach resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION rego�e: Agenda nam No. Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:31 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney Michael Gates -----Original Message----- From:Jeanne Paris<jeannemarieparis@yahoo.corn> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 20219:49 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney Michael Gates As a long time resident of Huntington Beach I am taken back by your continued overreach and disregard for the people whom you supposedly represent. You work for us and we are not a social experiment. We voted for the City Charter for a reason.We voted for Michael Gates as our City Attorney for a reason-to stop this exact kind of behavior of this CC. I strongly support Michael Gates. Please stop this underhanded attempt to eliminate his position. Jeanne Paris Sent from myiPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee&V Date: 12 f 2//Z // �} Agenda Item No. t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:32 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM #37 From: Cari Swan <cswanie@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 9:44 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM #37 Dear Council Members. I waited until now, the morning of tonight's council meeting, to send this email, thinking that certainly the authors of Agenda Item #37 would come to their senses As of this writing, that is not the case. I do not expect my input to fall on receptive ears but feel it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to go on the record of opposition. This item is not only ILLEGAL and putting our City and the Charter at risk, but also a blatant "slap in the face" to the voters of Huntington Beach who voted OVERWHELMINGLY for City Attorney Michael E Gates. I believe that Mr. Gates "open letter" does a thorough job of explaining the risks and, unlike some elected council members. I am not a lawyer or legal adviser. therefore I will allow Mr. Gate letter to stand on its own merits I urge you to OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM #37 Respectfully, Can Swan SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION ti ee& Date: l 2 J,t 1 /.21 Agende IiI t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:30 AM To: Agenda Aierts Subject: FW: City Attorney Gates, Item 21-008 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From: Kathy Carrick<carrick92647@hotmail.com> MBWV Dale: Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:21 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Apende Item No., Subject: FW: City Attorney Gates, Item 21-008 This may be incorrectly identified. 1 believe it is item #37. Please contact me if you are unable to identify or plan to disregard my email for any reason. Sorry for the error. Thank you. Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message From: Kathy Carrick <carrick92647 ahotmail.com> Date: 12/21/21 12:15 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Citv.Councili4surfcity-hb.ore Subject: City Attorney Gates, Item 21-008 I am writing to express my strong objection to item 21-008 to hire an outside attorney to answer to the city council. This is absurd on so many levels. And, as you are aware, it is illegal and in violation of our city charter. Mr. Gates was elected by the voters of Huntington Beach and has done, and continues to do, an exemplary job for our city. He is the person you should be getting any legal advice you need from. I can not imagine any reason that you would be trying to hire outside counsel to go around Mr. Gates other than the fact that you dislike him vehemently and disagree with the desires of your constituents. This action is shameful, but, sadly, not surprising given the history of this council. The residents of HB want Mr. Gates to take care of HB's legal issues and want you to immediately remove this item from the agenda. Respectfully, Kathy Carrick HB resident Switzer, Donna From: Bob Banzett <bob4change@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:16 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 37 Dear Council Members, I write in support of agenda item 37 (AKA Item H), procurement of an attorney who can provide legal advice to the council. As I understand the city charter, it is the responsibility of City Council to set policy and goals for the City, and it is the responsibility of the City Attorney to provide legal advice to guide Council in that pursuit. It seems to me that when our City Attorney has chosen to pursue his own policy and goals rather than those of City Council, the system is not working as intended. As a citizen of HB, 1 would rather see the City Attorney put his own political agenda aside and act as the attorney for Council. That seems to me to be the job description stated in the Charter. l read Mr Gates's letter of 12/16 on this matter. He enumerates legal arguments against the Council Members' proposed item 37. I'm not a lawyer, but 1 can see there is are legal arguments to be made for both sides — obviously Council cannot depend on Mr Gates to provide effective legal arguments against Mr Gates's opinions. In essence, Mr Gates's own letter illustrates the need for Council to procure an unbiased attorney. 1 appreciate your work for HB, and I know that despite differences in opinion, you are all trying to make HB a better place. R Banzen HB Resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Agenda room No.; t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:29 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney SUPPLEMENTAL From: lori chairez<cichairez@gmail.com> COMMUNICATION Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:28 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Mm"Dale: 1..2/.2//. Subject:City Attorney , Agenda Item No.: 3T( a2 Dear Council Members, You are going to far in trying to undermine our city attorney. He's done a good job and just because your don't agree with several issues doesn't support your behavior. Now your inquiry in how to get rid of the treasurer and clerk. absolutely looks like a grab for power. This is completely unacceptable behavior. Regards, Lori Chairez concerned citizen. Lori Chairoz I Realtor* I 714.743.0805 SEVEN LUXURY FGABLES 1 Switzer, Donna From: Alex Dudas <alexdudas@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:02 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Recall of City Council Members of Huntington Beach I as a legal resident of Huntington Beach, CA stand stron that all five council memebers on the Board be removed in a time efficient way and new voted in memeber be put in place. As fairness to all what is being spoken, an new election would be wise to be called. This letter/memo stands as alternate testament to my wishes for I can not personally be there today to partake in the in person voting at Huntington Beach Administrative offices. Please respond with acceptance of this written vote herein. Thank you. Alex Dudas 17602 Delong Circle HB, CA 92649 Get Outlook for Android SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION M80V Dare. Agenda nam No. t Switzer, Donna From: Bob Irvin <bobbirvin@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:03 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 21-1008 Attachments: Agenda Item 21.pdf Please forward my comments on today's agenda item 21-1008 to the members of council for their review before the meeting. thank you bob irvin SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mae" DW. l2/Z/ 1-2 - Agenda lbm No: 3 ,11- h,1I$ t Agenda Item 21-1008 December 21, 2021 1 want to express my disagreement with the need for agenda item 21-1008. 1 believe the City Attorney is very competent and doing an excellent job. I've been a Huntington Beach resident for almost 40 years and I strongly believe the Council should not approve this Agenda item. Thank you for your consideration, Bob Irvin Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:04 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Opposition to agenda item number 37 From: Ray Raines<rayraines@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:55 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Opposition to agenda item number 37 Deer council members. I urge you to oppose item number 37 on tonight's city council agenda. Myself and most of the citizens that 1 know of Huntington Beach want an elected city attorney as a protection against overreach by the city council. Respectfully, Raymond Raines President Raines Consulting Services SUPPLEMENTAL r, CkI NIUNICATION rlw Agenoe"am N0.7 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:04 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Hedberg <shawnhedberg@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:01 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney The City Attorney in Huntington Beach is an elected official and must be per our city charter. Any attempt to undo the will of the people is a crime. Stop trying to get rid of Mr. Gates. I am now going to have to get involved in the recall efforts. It is obvious to me that you are attempting to take over our city. Shawn Hedberg Huntington Beach resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: /2 Z.2/ Z-Z / r Ayende Item No. J� -2 /— / C C 6 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:37 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: Fw: Engaging an outside legal counsel reporting to city council. Importance: High From: Nabila Yousef<yes@yesenergies.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:20 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: 'Casey McKeon' <casey4hbcc@gmail.com> Subject: Engaging an outside legal counsel reporting to city council. Importance: High Dear members of Huntington Beach City Council, I am a resident, Tax payer, Mother, Grand Mother and a retired senior executive of one of the largest Electrical utilities in the world. I have managed large number of professionals, as well as multi AMEM of assets (8 units Nuclear power plant of 4,800 MW output). I am telling you this to let you know that I know legal contractual, and fiduciary responsibilities of governing bodies. Your recent attempt to circumvent public monitoring of your decisions and actions that we HB resident have the right to approve in advance and your outrageous aggressive moves to GRAB POWER, is alarming to say the least in addition to being: I- against the city Charter, Rules and Regulations 2- against the very well established principle of checks and balances to avoid corruption and ill-advised and poorly researched policies, and 3- against the will of the people who elected you and elected the present legal counsel. As a Voting resident of HB and a tax payer,LIll instruct you to cease any activity or initiative to commission/hire/contract/etc. any outside legal counsel/firm. %+ithout the explicit approval of the elected Legal Counsel Mr. Gates and the proper request for proposal if he deems it necessary with input from the council, but the final decision is his and his alone. After all you are working for me and my fellow voters. Any other action on your part may (and probably will)expose you to legal actions against you and anyone that will enable you in this matter. Do the right and legal thing, and stop this grab of power that is not awarded to you. Nabila Yousef (B.Sc., M.A.Sc.) SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Tel: 714.290.3934 Email: yes@yeseneraies.com IvlilI Date. /z 12/Av Web:www.vesenerrties.com Agenda Item NO.: 3 J�L N 1 Switzer, Donna From: Frank Daniels <frdanie@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:28 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Frank Daniels Subject: 21-1008 I've been a resident of Huntington Beach for over 50 years. I'm against 21-1008 since Huntington Beach doesn't need an outside legal firm to report and support the City Council. I endorse and support the Huntington Beach City Attorney, Michael Gates. Please vote 21-1008 down! Thank you, Frank V. Daniels SUPPLEMEN I AL COMMUNICATION ►aeMtin t Date: 121.21 /.2/ p Agenda Item No.: 3 4-f �2 1- ! C d 1 Switzer, Donna From: Mark Tonkovich <marktonko@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:01 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: H My wife and I are against item 37 with item H. Please do not pass. Mark and Valerie Tonkovich Sent from my Whone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: i�121 /Z/ Agenaa Item No.: f 'Z 1 Switzer, Donna From: Deby Pierce <deby.pierce@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:07 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Tonight's council meeting This is a plea to find a way to stop the division in Huntington Beach. Go about things you would like to get done without the possibility of reproach. Figure a way to bring us all together. Praying for us all. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee&V Date: Agenda Item No.. t Switzer, Donna From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:24 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Michael Gates To the dishonorable city council members, It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving(Erik excluded) or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community, all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first, he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But, as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Bean SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Nate. Jz/zi I zl p Aoenda Item No.' 3 7-(021— I L b I Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:45 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Outside Legal Opinion From: Maria Sugranes<mrsugranes@socal.rr.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:57 AM To: Bolton, Rhonda <Rhonda.Bolton@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes,Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Outside Legal Opinion Seek outside legal opinion. Sent from Mail for Windows SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. Agenda hem No: Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:46 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item#37 From: libbyvince@socal.rr.com <libbyvince@socal.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:52 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item#37 Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of Agenda Item(#37 and urge all members of this council to vote in favor of the item. Notwithstanding the City Attorney's interpretation of the city charter, no single person should have the authority to continually put the city at such huge financial risk as has been happening under the sole authority of City Attorney Michael Gates. The city charter calls for a 7-member city council to oversee the functions of the city and not allowing the council to seek legal advice in pursuit of those duties is derelict at best. I firmly support the Mayor Delgleize's and Councilmembers Posey's and Kalmick's agenda item to pursue separate legal council to advise the elected City Council. Thank you, Libby Frolichman SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee*V Date: I ,2 I LZ G Agenda Item No.: 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:47 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: No on item numbers 19, 24, 37 -----Original Message----- From: Betty <bettyinhb@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:43 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No on item numbers 19, 24, 37 Mayor and council I strongly urge you to vote NO on the following item numbers. "No on; Item# 19. 21-1002 Approve and authorize approval of two on-call Professional Services Contracts for Citywide Leadership Development Training with All American Leadership, LLC, and the Southern California Center for Nonprofit Management Recommended Action: A) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and All American Leadership, LLC, for Leadership Development Training;" and, B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute, "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Southern California Center for Nonprofit Management for Leadership Development Training. "No on; Item#24. 21-909 Adopt Ordinance Nos. 4239, 4240, 4241,4242, 4243, 4244 updating the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to reform, consolidate, and dissolve a select number of the City's Boards, Commissions, and Committees Approved for introduction November 16, 2021 -Vote 7-0 (#4239, #4241, #4242, #4243, #4244) and 6-1 (Peterson-No) on #4240 "No on the most ridiculous H-item have seen to date; Item#37. 21-1008 Submitted by Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tern Posey and Councilmember Kalmick - Request that Staff engage a process to facilitate City Council selection of an Outside Legal Firm that would directly report to and support the City Council Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to engage a process to facilitate the City Council's selection of an outside legal firm that would directly report to and support the City Council. Betty Flynn Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. 1 Q 1-2//� / Agenda Item No.: 3 41 6 8 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:51 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Measure H - Oppose From: Maureen Sigafoos<maureensigafoos@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 20217:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Measure H-Oppose City Council Members of Huntington Beach, 1 am writing to inform you of my strong opposition to your proposed Measure H. I would appreciate you explaining your action and reasoning as to why you would even propose such an item when, We The People, have elected who we want as our City Attorney. These types of actions, which you suggest.cause citizens to lose faith in your ability to represent us. I encourage you to remove Measure H and work for what is in the best interest of our City. Regards, Maureen Sigafoos SUPPLEMENTAL GOMMUNIGATION /a -2i a i Agenda Item No: 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:52 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: H Item From: c t<icek8s@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 7:41 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: H Item Expressing my displeasure with your H item for this evening's meeting. It appears to be illegal and unwarranted. As residents hear of the outrageous actions of the current city council, the recall continues to gain more and more momentum. Cynthia Terhune SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION 1,4ntq De1e: l a/a a 1 Agenda Item No: `3} 2l- IlJ08 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:53 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: OPPOSE outside firm to legal representation for HB City From: Dave and Pat Henry<daveandpathenry@yahoo.com> SUPPLEMENTAL Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 6:46 AM COMMUNICATION To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> /z �� Subject: OPPOSE outside firm to legal representation for HB City Mill From: Dave and Pat Henry<daveandoathenry�dNahoo.com> Agenda Item No. d Z7(.Zl_1dd 9 To: Citv.CouncilCsurtcity-hb.org<citv.council,,asurtcin-hb.ore> Sent: Monday, December 20.2021,06:35:24 PM PST Subject: OPPOSE outside firm to legal representation for HB Cit} The City Council is wrong in their attempt to hire an outside firm unless the City Attorney is kept intact as the sole legal representative for the City. It is illegal and unwarranted! Michael Gates has done an outstanding job for our city. The Law is clear . . . The 1981 case of O'Connor vs. Hutton [Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Div. 1,4 Civ.No. 2453361 arose here in Huntington Beach,and involved our former City Attorney Gail Hutton. The unanimous District Court in O'Connor considered the Huntington Beach City Charter,and specifically Section 304(b)(which Posey, Delgleize and Kalmick cite as their authority in their"H" Item request),and Section 309 (dealing with the powers and responsibilities of the City Attorney). The Court held: •"The City Council may hire other attorneys to HELP the city attorney discharge her official duties, but may not relieve her of such duties. Any such attorneys hired by the City Council are UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S SUPERVISION and HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE OPINIONS OR ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY." [Emphasis supplied] •"In exercising client control over the City's legal business,the city council has power to hire other attorneys [under Section 304(b)], but this power is LIMITED by the city attorney's powers over City legal affairs, and the City's legal department under City Charter Section 309 and City Personnel rule 4.4" [Emphasis supplied] • ... there is 'only one legal voice in the city,' the city attorney" To the same effect is the 1961 case of Jaynes v. Stockton [193 Cal.App.2d 47].which held that a school district was not authorized to employ outside counsel to obtain advice when the services of county counsel were available. And, in the early 1897 decision in Merriam v. Barnum [116 Cal. 619(48 P. 727)]the California SUPREME COURT held that a board of supervisors could not hire special counsel to advise it in matters specifically delegated to the district attorney. This Council needs to stop undermining our City's Charter. The numerous closed session decisions,at a cost to the HB residents, who are not given a chance to voice or vote has got to stop! I have had enough of this Council's outrageous and inconsiderate behavior! I Pat Henry z Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:54 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 37 From: Linda Wentzel<lindamarieofhb@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 10:22 PM To: Delgleize, Barbara<Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Posey, Mike <Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>; Kalmick, Dan <Da n.Kalm ick@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda Item 37 Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tent Posey and Councilmember Kalmick: I'm very disappointed that you brought Agenda Item 37 to the City Council meeting this week. 1 have seen that Councilmember Posey has had differences with our City Attorney, Michael Gates, but I've not sensed issues from the other Councilmembers. I have read the detailed, lengthy letter that City Attomey, Michael Gates sent to many Huntington Beach residents and that was posted in the Facebook forums. I don't know what is legal and what is not. That would be something that a City Attorney should determine. I do know that I like that Huntington Beach has an 'elected' City Attorney. We the people get to choose who is in that position,just like we get to choose those that are on our City Council. That is democracy. Mayor Pro Tern Posey, you are the one Councilmember that has stressed 'local control'. Why wouldn't you want the residents of Huntington Beach to be able to have the control to elect a City Attorney as stated in our City Charter! The City Attorney should serve at the pleasure of the residents of Huntington Beach, not a City Council that may have different views than he does. Please withdraw Agenda Item 37 and do not bring this up ever again! You may not always agree with Mr. Gates, but we, the residents of Huntington Beach elected Mr. Gates as our City Attorney. Do not waste money on trying to hire a law firm that just agrees with your views! Let him do his job! A concerned Huntington Beach resident, Linda Wentzel I indamarieofhbA¢mai I.com (c) 714.951.7463 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee"Dot ; /�/ Agenda Iwn No. t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:56 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Council Agenda item #37 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Daniel <bdaniel5@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 7:32 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Joyce, Sean <Sean.Joyce@surfcity-hb.org>; oliver-chi@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Council Agenda item #37 Hon. City Council members, I feel compelled to voice my concern that the city council is not acting in the cities best interest by considering the hiring of an outside attorney. Huntington Beach has a competent City Attorney and we the citizens elected him intentionally. Making an end run around our elected official is going to get the city involved in an expensive lawsuit. And the council members who voted in favor would clearly be guilty of malfeasense and breech of fiduciary duty. Charges such as these are often hard to prove in court but in this case where there is clear precedent I suspect such charges would be easy for a competent prosecutor to prove. I urge you all to vote NO if the question of hiring an outside attorney is called to a vote. Please keep the city out of the courts and save the taxpayers money on needless legal fees when the city council members invariable get sued. DO NOT VOTE TO HIRE an OUTSIDE ATTORNEY! Thank you. Respectfully, Robert Daniel Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meebrig Data: 14111 b i ! G Agenda Ilam No. t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:56 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: We Support our City Attorney Michael Gates ----Original Message-.... From: Pat and Gina Gleason <gleasonfamily@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:25 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: We Support our City Attorney Michael Gates This letter is IN SUPPORT of our elected City Attorney, Michael Gates. Please know that the residents who elected him and who support his good and legal representation of our city, would appreciate seeing our Council honor the charter under which you are governed. Mr. Gates' upright character and winning legal record speak for themselves. As very long term residents, we still have hope that you, the Council for our City, will act in accordance with the task you've been called to - to represent our city fairly and in the best interest of your constituents. Please do the RIGHT thing in regards to this latest issue. Too many things appear to point in a direction AWAY from what the actual residents of this great city actually desire - please listen to the people and support your City Attorney. The residents need a Council we can have faith and confidence in - honesty and integrity are everything. Thank you - Pat and Gina Gleason Main Street residents since 1994 us God Bless America us Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mwting Date. d/ 1'2/ Agenda Item No., l - I(1 G fi L 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:09 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: No on H & training -----Original Message----- From: Claudette Brunelli <cbrunellihb@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 3:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No on H &training > I am completely against spending more of the taxpayer's dollars on hiring outside attorneys- The City of Huntington Beach has a charter that dictates (or should) policy and the council trying to circumvent the charter is outrageous. When will you start listening to the people of Huntington Beach?You are supposed to represent the people. > In addition, I am opposed to spending $450,000 on leadership training. Again, that is the taxpayers money that surely could go to better things in our city. Fixing roads, feeding the homeless, getting our trash picked up in a timely fashion and so on. That amount of money sounds like a boondoggle! You are once again spending the taxpayers money - it's not your money! > Please start to pay attention to the voice of the citizens! SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Data:` -2 / 2 ........ �.. AgendaIMmW- t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:10 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Michael Gates -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wall <wwa112@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 2:20 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Michael Gates I agree that the attempt by the Huntington Beach City Council to hire it's own attorney is illegal and unwarranted. I will stand with Michael Gates and help him in any way that I am able. Mary E Wall - S4 year resident Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meetirtg Date. b2L2/ ./ ,2 J Agenaa Item No.: 3, — b 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:11 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: H Item - Council Meeting 12/21/21 -----Original Message----- From: Lynda Muir<lynda.f.muir@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 8 12 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: H Item - Council Meeting 12/21/21 1 am a 58 year resident of Huntington Beach. How does it feel to be known as the most corrupt, immoral Huntington Beach City Council that ever 'served' our City? Excluding Eric Peterson, I for one, can not wait for the rest of you to be removed from office. Michael Gates, OUR ELECTED, city attorney, is the best thing that ever happened to HB, unlike the five of you. It is amazing your arrogance and stupidity has fueled the Recall. Reminds me of that "you have awakened a sleeping giant" mentality. Thank you for that because the Residents are pissed! Shame on all of you! What an embarrassment and you are all quite disgusting! Lynda Muir Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mille" Date: Agenda Itf11'1 140.1 '37- i/— me t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:12 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Stop it!!!! From: Taylor Haug <taylorhaug@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 7:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Stop it!!!! 1 stand with Michael Gates. Stop the BS. Listen to who we voted for, Michael Gates. -- Taylor Haug SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mw" Date: lalil Lu Agenda Clem No. •j � J r, 16L t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:12 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney From: Lynn Unger<lynnungerhb@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 11:00 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney City Council Members, I find your behavior to disregard the City Charter and the vote of the residents to try and remove or undermine our City Attorney, Michael Gates ,disgusting and underhanded. Michael Gates along with Eric Peterson are the only two Representatives that the people of HB respect, trust and admire. This city council will rue the day they attempted this illegal action as it will empower and unite the citizens to sign the recall petition. SAVE SURF CITY. Lynn Unger 7871 Shell Circle Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meetirg Date. Agenda Item No.: t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:13 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney From: Diane Snider<dsinhb@me.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 10:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney Why are you trying to hire outside legal counsel to represent the City Council, at my expense, when you already have an EXCELLENT City attorney. I'm very discouraged! Sincerely, Diane Snider SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mae"Deco: /O �/ /—)/ - Agenda item No: •3 �- 02/- /00 0 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:13 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City attorney -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Strople <stroplept@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 10:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City attorney To whom it may concern, I am a loyal tax paying HB resident and I am appalled after reading the recent letter from our city attorney that illustrates how some city counsel members have tried to hire outside counsel to circumvent the decision and advise of our own city attorney. It is clearly wrong, corrupt, and illegal. I find it ridiculous that this counsel would attempt to hire outside legal counsel to represent the City Council, at our expense, when they already have our excellent City attorney and I am voicing my opposition to this action and them. It seems Eric Peterson is the only voice of reason left and I hope the remaining counsel members will reconsider their position. I support Mr. Gates position in this matter. Respectfully, Bryan J Strople SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION ee Mting Date._612 1 /E dl Agenda roam No. t Switzer, Donna From: Y Mauro <eventexpos@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:32 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item u37 December 21, 2021 City Council Meeting 2021 City Council Members, It is with heavy heart I write this, as I know it will fall on deaf ears, however, I feel compelled to have a public record of my stand on agenda Item 37 included in the December 21 City Council meeting. I strongly oppose your request to direct staff in any manner regarding contracting any legal council for Huntington Beach not elected or under the supervision of the current City Attorney Michael E. Gates... You do not get to decide"confidence" in our City's legal representation. WE THE PEOPLE DO.. and our confidence in Michael Gates far surpasses any confidence we may have ever had in you. Since the City Attorney is the person who interprets our City Charter. It would be interesting to know who among you has taken it upon yourself to interpret Section 304 (b) of the Huntington Beach Charter without Michael Gates Council? I strongly urge you to pull item 37 from tonight's agenda. Sincerely Yvonne Mauro SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION la a� ai c Agenda Item NO-'- t Switzer, Donna From: Sue Jervik <suejervik@pm.me> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:33 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Opposition to 12.21.21 City Council meeting Agenda Item H Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, I am writing in opposition to Item H on the city council meeting agenda for 12.21.21. Per our city charter,the City Attorney is elected to uphold and defend the law and represent our city in legal matters. The city council does not have the authority to choose their own legal counsel. Michael Gates was elected and then reelected by the citizens of Huntington Beach. I am in fiil1 support of Michael Gates as our City Attorney. Regards, Susan Jervik Resident of Huntington Beach NOTICE: This electronic mail (email) message, including any attachments, is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential,the disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender by reply and immediately destroy this email and any attachments. Sent from ProtonMail mobile SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION MeedN Date: Agenda Item No. •3� ( ��— r Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:56 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Item x37 From: deborah austin<dewyaustin@outlook.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:49 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Item#37 To : City council HB, As a long time resident of Huntington Beach 1 oppose item # 37 . I support Michael Gates and he is doing an excellent job as our city attorney. Thank you , Deborah Austin Dewy Austin Q Dewva'd outlook.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mae1Nq Date:/ / / "nda Ham No.-, t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:58 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: MyHB-#877321 City Council [512631 From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 10:56 AM To: Jun, Catherine<catherine.jun@surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy <CFikes@surfcity-hb.org>; Frakes, Sandie <Sandie.Frakes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: MyHB-#877321 City Council [51263] MyHB New Report Submitted - #877321 Status new Work Order #877321 Issue Type City Council Subtype All Council Members Notes Support the approval of construction for the park at the Rogers Site. Agenda 18tem21-879 Open Dashboard Reporter Name Karen Thorns Email SUPPLEMENTAL thomskl(o)venzon.net COMMUNICATION Phone mililDw; IZ Z 1 f 21 714.625.7114 Report Submitted Auld! 119tT1 -- �� DEC 20, 2021 -10:56 AM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please do not change subject line when responding. I Switzer, Donna From: Anone Mouse <a_non e_mouse3@yahoo.com> COMMUNICATION Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:56 PM Mes To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org &V Subject: Please Read during Public Comments - regarding Item 37 Agenda ttwn No.: Dec 21, 2021 - A letter to our City from an Employee: As an employee of one of the greatest cities around, I thought it was important that you had one employee's take on the current issues that seem to be the focus of some social media posts as of late. This letter has not been written by any union, has not had any input from any attorney, it is simply what I see as an employee of Huntington Beach. In the past two years, things on this planet have been crazy. But, one thing that has remained is the dedication of Oliver Chi, our Executive Team,and our City Council Members. I have seen more done within the walls of City Hall than we have seen in decades. I have seen the focus on the Citizens of this City finely honed in regards to spending and policy changes. We have seen teamwork skyrocket. Since notice of Oliver's departure, I have thought often that we have been witness to what can only be described as the"golden era"of Huntington Beach, meaning we were in the confluence of a great City Manager, amazing Department Heads, and an outstanding City Council. It's sad to see Oliver and Chief Harvey go, but I'm glad to have been witness to the greatness we are all capable of. Over the last several years, it has also been painfully obvious that politics has become the focus of some of our elected officials. Most notably Michael Gates. Mr. Gates came to the city on the back of a smear campaign against our previous City Attorney, who had literal decades of municipal law background, with his meager 5- year law experience. People argue about the management style of the past City Attorney, but no one can argue that she worked well with the City Council,and gave sound legal advice. She was excellent in applying her knowledge to the best outcome for the City as a whole, and wasn't focused on partisanship or political gain. As a side note, Gates has tried to reach out to the previous City Attorney to ask her to speak on his behalf at tonight's Council Meeting. Can you imagine that? When Gates won the election, he immediately began pursuing the good graces of the defamed prior Orange County District Attorney. Tony Rackauckas for the sole purpose of being named "heir to the throne" as the next in line for OCDA. We all know how that turned out for Rackauckas, and subsequently to Gates. In the past few years, it appears the Council members' trust of the City Attorney has been strained. It seems as though he has worked behind their backs to manipulate the direction of the City towards his own political leanings. Because of this, the Council members, understandably, would like to seek outside legal advice when they believe they are being led astray. They are NOT trying to get rid of the position of Elected City Attorney, nor are they trying to get rid of the City Attorney's Office, even though this is what Gates has been claiming. Now, he is spending YOUR CITY's tax payer dollars to fund hiring an attorney to threaten legal action AGAINST YOUR CITY! Where is the sense in this? The City Attorney's duty is to represent the City as a bipartisan official, and to present all legal options to the City Council, with no political agenda The City Council is tasked with voting on what legal option they would like to take from what is presented. Gates has historically NOT done this. It's no wonder they would like an option for another opinion. t I urge you to talk to your neighbors about what is important to you as the citizens of your communities and neighborhoods, and not to make decisions based on what you think your party would do. Party politics should play NO roll in local governance. What should be the driving force of local governance is what is best for the whole of the community, not one side of the isle or another. Signed, Anonymous City of Huntington Beach Employee 2 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:58 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Item 37 - City Attorney SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From: Lorelei Lachman<lachmom@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21,2021 1:58 PM Mw&W Date:—To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Item 37-City Attorney Acenda Itorn No.: 3 4 (a _ Dear Mayor Delgleize and members of the City Council, I would like to weigh-in on Item 37 regarding the position of having an elected City Attorney position vs hiring a law firm to represent our city. It is time to review why we have a City Attorney, who is partisan and flames the fire of division in our city when he posts on social media to groups he knows support him and his views. A law firm would be more professional and would not hold a partisan view. We are the only city in Orange County to elect an attorney, and for a population as large as Huntington Beach, a law firm would seem the preferred business action to take. We should not feel like we have to choose personalities to align with every two weeks in the CC meetings or on social media. We need the security of adults in charge and respect and trust of each other for our city work. This City Attorney position is a very important professional designation. As an elected position, the city attorney never wins 100% of the votes, so there will always be people who distrust this position just based on personality. A law firm would be faceless and represent the best interest of the city without having to run for office. I say all this with consideration for what is at stake for Michael Gates. This is his livelihood and he is obviously going to come out with everything he has to save his job. But this job is not public relations and goodwill to like-minded friends. It is financial decisions, health and safety decisions, commerce, tourism, entertainment, the parade and all other crowd gathering events. But this position is really working WITH the council, the staff and all of the residents of Huntington Beach. Yes, there have been many positions Mr Gates has taken that garnered support from the council, but that does not mean that council members cannot explore reviewing the Charter and hiring an outside law firm. We are always evolving and should always look to be our very best. 1 If it turns out that we do not change the current Charter and keep the City Attorney position as an elected position, then I hope that Mr Gates and even Council Member Petersen will reflect on their lack of respect for residents as we watch the uncomfortable interactions in the council chamber when they show such disrespect for the Mayor and council members. Thank you for your consideration regarding my input. Sincerely, Lorelei Lachman 2 Switzer, Donna From: Estanislau, Robin Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:30 AM To: Derek Cole Cc: Switzer, Donna, Moore, Tania; Esparza, Patty Subject: Re: Correspondence re City Council Agenda Item 2021-1008 Received ... thank you. Sent from my iPad On Dec 21, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Derek Cole <dcole@colehuber.com>wrote: Dear Ms. Estanislau: On behalf of City Attorney Michael Gates, our office submits the attached letter concerning Item 2021- 1008 on tonight's City Council agenda. We ask that this letter be made part of the record for that item. Please confirm this letter will be added to the record as requested. Please also let us know if you have any questions or if there is anything else we need to do to have this item made part of the record. Thank you, Derek P. Cole, Partner <image001.jpg> 2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 780-9009 Website: www.colehuber.com Email: dcole@colehuber.com This email and any transmission with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. lfyou are not the intended recipient,or believe that you have received this communication in error,please advise the sender via reply email and delete the email you received. <Letter to City Council 1221-21.pdf> SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meeting [late. /-2 �� / 1 .3 Agenda Item No.: t COLE HUBERLLP V E A k A T T O R N E Y S Derek P.Cole Reny m. dcok<Wcolehubencom aRoscvnrs Dorn, to December 21, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY C1TY.00UNC1L4*SURFCITY-HB.0RG Mayor Barbara Delgleize and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Regular Meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council December 21, 2021 Agenda, Item 21-1008 Comments of City Attorney Michael Gates Dear Mayor Delgleize and Members of the City Council: This Office represents Michael Gates, the elected Huntington Beach City Attorney, regarding Item 21-1008 on the City Council's December 21, 2021 meeting agenda. For reasons we explain within, we write to advise the Council that this proposed item would be unlawful if approved, and we demand that the Council refrain from taking the proposed action. Agenda Item 21-1008 is a proposal by Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tent Posey, and Councilmember Kalmick. It calls for City staff to"engage in a process to facilitate City Council selection of an outside legal firm that would directly report to and support the City Council" If the item is approved,the Council would direct the City Manager to take the actions necessary to retain a law firm to provide legal advice and representation outside the City Attorney's supervision. Under both the City Charter and California law, the retention of any outside law firm for these purposes is beyond the Council's authority, and would be unlawful. Before outlining the reasons why the Council must refrain from taking the proposed action, we note we are well positioned to opine on Item 21-1008. Our law firm specializes in representation of municipal clients. Like other private law firms, we serve as contract city attorney to a number of cities and as special or litigation counsel to several cities. Because of our representation of municipal clients, we are very familiar with the unique nature of the attorney-client relationship in municipal settings. In particular, we understand that any contract not made in conformance with a city charter or applicable law is void. (Domar Electric, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles (1994) 9 Cal.4th 161, 171.) Like all municipal law firms, we are scrupulous about respecting a city's contracting requirements and procedures because we know that our failure to abide by these could render our agreements unenforceable. (Katsura v. City of San Buenm,entura(2007) 155 Cal.AppAth 104, 109.) Northern California. Southern California ADVANCING YOUR AGENDA 2281 lava Rlege court.Sutte 300 3401 Centreloke Dr.,Suite 670 000829273 Rosevie,CA 95661 Ontario.CA 91761 Phone:916.780.9009 Phone:909.230.4209 Fax:916.780.9050 Fax:909.937.2034 Mayor Delgleize and Members of the City Council December 21, 2021 Page 2 Consistent with these limitations on municipal contracting, it is our opinion that no law firm could lawfully enter into any agreement with the City Council under the terms and conditions Item 21-1008 proposes. To be sure, there is no dispute the City Attorney may retain outside legal counsel for a variety of purposes, as the City Attorney has historically done. Cities of all sizes regularly retain attorneys to perform specialized services in areas such as litigation, land use, environmental law, public contracting, and employment law. Even in cities with large in-house city-attomey offices, the complexities and demands of these and other unique areas of law often require the retention of specialists that can only be found in private law firms. But while state law affirms the practice of retaining outside legal counsel when circumstances dictate(Gov. Code, § 37103), courts have made clear that such counsel may never be retained to replace or duplicate the work performed by in-house city attorneys. (Rafael v. Boyle (1916)31 Cal.App. 623, 626; Denman v. Webster(1903) 139 Cal. 452, 456.) California law makes plain that when a city charter creates and enumerates the powers of city offices, a city council may not contract with private parties to perform those officers' duties. (Hubbard v. City of San Diego (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 380, 388.) Here, the powers of your City Attorney are clearly enumerated in Section 309 of your Charter. This section vests the exclusive power in the City Attorney to do the following: "(a) Represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices. (b) Prosecute on behalf of the people any or all criminal cases arising from violation of the provisions of this Charter or of City ordinances and such state misdemeanors as the City has the power to prosecute, unless otherwise provided by the City Council. (c) Represent and appear for the City in any or al!actions or proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party, and represent and appear for any City officer or employee, or former City officer or employee, in any or all civil actions or proceedings in which such officer or employee is concerned or is a party for any act arising out of their employment or by reason of their official capacity. (d) Attend all regular meetings of the City Council, unless excused, and give their advice or opinion orally or in writing whenever requested to do so by the City Council or by any of the boards or officers of the City. (e) Approve in writing the form of all contracts made by and all bonds and insurance given to the City. Northern Coftfnio Southern ColMornio- ADVANCING YOUR AGENDA 2281 Lava Ridge Court.Suite 300 3401 Cenhelate or..suite 670 Roseville,CA 95661 Ontario,CA 91761 Phan:916.790.9009 Phone:909.230.4209 Fox:916.780.9050 1 Fox 909.937.2034 Mayor Delgleize and Members of the City Council December 21, 2021 Page 3 (f) Prepare any and all proposed ordinances and City Council resolutions and amendments thereto." (Emphasis added.) Charter Section 309 is unambiguous in assigning the responsibility for all essential municipal legal services to your City Attorney.' Critically, the section uses mandatory language—"The City Attorney shale'—in describing the duties to"represent and advise"the Council in "all" matters; prosecute "any and all"code-enforcement cases; "represent and appear" in all "actions or proceedings;" attend "all" regular Council meetings; approve the form of"all"contracts; and prepare "any and all"ordinances and resolutions. Also of note, Section 309 takes care to grant the City Attorney all necessary implied powers for carrying out these responsibilities. Subsection(h)of the section specifies the City Attorney must "[pWorm such legal functions and duties incident to the execution of the foregoing powers as may be necessary" In short, the Charter vests authority over all legal services—express and implied— in your City Attomey. Because of its comprehensive language, Section 309's command is clear: the City Attorney must be responsible for all legal services provided to the City. Legal services can,of course, be performed by subordinates in the City Attomey's office or, when appropriate, by outside counsel. But to carry out his or her duties under the City Charter, the City Attorney must be responsible for supervising subordinates or outside counsel in whatever tasks they are assigned. Necessarily, the City Attorney cannot execute his or her ultimate responsibility over "all"City legal matters if he or she cannot supervise or direct other attorneys working on City matters. We understand that the Councilmembers proposing Item 21-1008 believe Charter Section 304(b) provides authority to retain legal counsel independent of City Attorney supervision. But this is a clear misinterpretation of the subsection, which merely authorizes retention of outside legal counsel. In this regard,the subsection states: "... The City Council shall have control of all legal business and proceedings and all property of the legal department, and may employ other attorneys to take charge of or may contract for any prosecution, litigation or other legal matter or business." The language the Councilmembers rely on, the second clause of this sentence, simply authorizes the City Council to retain outside attorneys for"prosecution;'"litigation," or"other" specialized legal matters. This language recognizes that, as the ultimate organizational decision-maker for the City,the City Council may retain attorneys in private practice when necessary or convenient for City purposes. But this language cannot be read to supplant or usurp the City Attorney's role in supervising or controlling any counsel the Council retains. 1 Your Charter is consistent with general state law in this regard. As Government Code section 41801 provides, "[tlhe city attorney shall advise the city officials in all legal matters pertaining to city business." (Emphasis added.) Northern California Southern Colxomla ADVANCING YOUR AGENDA 2281 lava Rkige Court,Suite 300 3401 Centreloke Dr..Site 670 000829273 Roseville.CA 95661 Ontario,CA 91761 Phone:916.780.9009 Phone:909.230.4209 Fax:916.780.9050 Fax:909.937.2034 Mayor Delgleize and Members of the City Council December 21, 2021 Page 4 Municipal charters are subject to the same rules that California courts have developed for interpreting statutes. (Onto v. City of Fresno(1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 460, 465; Castaneda v. Holcomb (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 939, 942.) Charters are to be interpreted according to their plain meaning. (Squire v. City and County of San Francisco (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 974,980.) They must be read as a whole, such that all charter provisions are given effect, and none is nullified or rendered meaningless. (Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) 21 Ca1.App.5th 338, 349.) Under these rules of interpretation, Charter Sections 304 and 309 must be read together such that they are harmonized. Because Section 309 states that the City Attorney shall "represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters,"and is responsible for all matters related to litigation, contracts, ordinances, resolutions, and the like, Section 309 must be read in conjunction with the Council's authority under Section 304. Although Section 304 affirms the Council's right to retain counsel, this right must be interpreted to only authorize the hiring of attorneys,who upon retention become subject to the City Attorney's direction. Section 304 cannot be read to allow the Council to retain legal counsel who act independently of the City Attorney. Such an interpretation would nullify the plain language of Section 309, which vests in the City Attorney the power to supervise all City legal matters. Put more simply, Section 304 does not allow the City Council to hire its own attorney to act entirely outside City Attorney supervision. The Council cannot create its own"shadow"city attorney simply because it disagrees with his advice or the acts he has taken. In interpreting municipal charters, courts ultimately look to the voters' intent. (International Federation of Professional& Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO v. City of San Francisco (1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 213, 224.) Surely City voters did not intend for their city's legal services to be provided by dual layers of legal counsel, each serving the same City Council, but each acting separately—and no doubt in conflict—with each other. It is inconceivable City voters intended to sow the seeds of such organizational disunity in approving their City Charter. The Charter has, moreover, already received relevant—and dispositive—court interpretation. In a 1981 decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, considered the appeal of a former deputy city attorney whose employment had been terminated. (O'Connor v. Mutton(4th Dist. Ct. App. 1981)4 Civ.No. 24536.) The then City Attorney had terminated the appellant's employment for insubordination after the deputy had met privately with a city council member and refused to disclose his communication. In upholding the appellant's dismissal, the court explained: "In exercising client control over the City's legal business, the city council has power to hire other attorneys, but this power is limited by the city attorney's power over City legal affairs and the City s legal department under City Charter section 309 and City personnel rule 4-4. ... Deputy city attorneys hired by the City work under the city attorney's supervision and have no independent authority to represent and advise the City;they may act only through the city attorney." (Op. at p. 5, emphasis added.) Northern California: Southern Coldornia: ADVANCING YOUR AGENDA 2281 Lava Ridge Court.Suite 300 3401 Centrelake Dr.,Suite 670 00082827.3 Roseville,CA 95661 Ontario,CA 91761 Phone:916.780.9009 Phone:909.230.4209 Fox:916.780.9050 Fax:909.937.2034 Mayor Delgleize and Members of the City Council December 21, 2021 Page 5 This appellate decision confines that the City Council has no authority to divest or abridge the City Attorney's authority over City legal services. Under Charter Section 309, the City Attorney must always take charge of the City "legal department." This requires that all attorneys who provide legal services to the City—whether as subordinate attorneys in the City Attorney Office or outside counsel—do so under his or her supervision. In sum, for the reasons described above, we demand that the City Council refrain from approving or otherwise acting on Item 21-1008. The retention of an outside law fine not subject to City Attomey direction would manifestly violate Charter Section 309. We trust that the Council will recognize the error in proceeding as proposed when it considers the proposed item. However, should the Council proceed as proposed, City Attorney Gates advises he will be required to seek immediate judicial relief to protect the integrity of his Office. We hope the Council will act reasonably and responsibly so that litigation is unnecessary. Sincerely, Derek P. Cole COLE HUBER LLP Northern CalAornia Southern Ca1Nornia ADVANCING YOUR AGENDA 2281 lava Rkige Court,wire 300 3401 Centrelake lk., Suite 670 _ Rosevae.CA 95661 Ontorlo.CA 91761 Phone:916.780.9009 Phone:909.230.4209 Fax 916.780.9050 Fax: 909.937.2034 Switzer, Donna From: Domnic McGee <mcgeedomnic@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 2:01 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Item 37 To whom it may concern. With regard to item 37, please don't even think about contravening the city charter. The people choose Mike Gates as their council. You don't get to decide who represents us. Regards, Dom McGee FIB Resident t Switzer, Donna From: Kathey <kathey_haas@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 37 for December 21, 2021 City Council Meeting 2021 City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose Agenda Item 37 of the City Council Meeting of December 21, 2021. Like many others, I vehemently oppose your wish to direct city staff in any way regarding contracting any legal advice or services for Huntington Beach that are not initiated from, directed by and under the supervision of our current highly competent City Attorney, Michael E. Gates. I believe such action is prohibited by the City Charter. Perhaps you should get counsel from Mr. Gates regarding Section 304 (b) of the Huntington Beach Charter. I believe it also would be an egregious misappropriation of funds to hire outside legal counsel when we have a highly skilled and trained staff already in the City Attorney's office. The people of Huntington Beach have placed their faith and confident in City Attorney Michael E. Gates. It is not your job to evaluate his performance, it is the people of Huntington Beach who do that. This agenda item is overstepping the bounds of the City Council. It is for the above reasons and many more that I strongly recommend that you pull item 37 from tonight's agenda. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathryn R. Haas t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:05 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: City Attorney From: Dorothy Boesch <dorothyone@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: City Attorney --Original Message---- From, MAILER-DAEMON(c)aol com To dorothyone(averizon net Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2021 12 32 pm Subject Failure Notice Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address <city council@surfcity-hb com --------- Forwarded message --------- Dear City Council, Some members of the city council want to hire outside legal help without the approval of Michael Gates This is not in our city charter Michael Gates has performed admirably and was voted in by the people of Huntington Beach I have been a long time resident of Huntington Beach and spent 40 + years as dedicated member of the board of the Friends of the Library As a board member and past president I have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours to donate over S200 million to the library and am appalled that the city council would consider spending money where it is not necessary You were elected to do the will of the residents This is not what we want Thank you, Dorothy Boesch i Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:06 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Michael Gates -----Original Message----- From: Heidi Robbins <heidirobbins4u@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Michael Gates I want to be clear. We voted our city attorney Michael Gates in. Do not take that away from us. He has worked really hard for our city and for our Charter. Stand down! Heidi Robbins 9181 Hyde Park Dr Huntington Beach Sent from my iPhone 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:07 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Fully Support City Attorney Michael Gates From: trisha rohn <trisha.rohn@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 20214:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fully Support City Attorney Michael Gates Do not hire any outside city council. I fully support Michael Gates and will work to recall you if you move forward with anything but 100% support. Trisha Rohn 92647 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:07 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 37 for December 21, 2021 City Council Meeting From: Kathey<kathey_haas@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 37 for December 21, 2021 City Council Meeting 2021 City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose Agenda Item 37 of the City Council Meeting of December 21, 2021. Like many others, I vehemently oppose your wish to direct city staff in any way regarding contracting any legal advice or services for Huntington Beach that are not initiated from, directed by and under the supervision of our current highly competent City Attorney, Michael E. Gates. I believe such action is prohibited by the City Charter. Perhaps you should get counsel from Mr. Gates regarding Section 304 (b) of the Huntington Beach Charter. I believe it also would be an egregious misappropriation of funds to hire outside legal counsel when we have a highly skilled and trained staff already in the City Attorney's office. The people of Huntington Beach have placed their faith and confident in City Attorney Michael E. Gates. It is not your job to evaluate his performance, it is the people of Huntington Beach who do that. This agenda item is overstepping the bounds of the City Council. It is for the above reasons and many more that I strongly recommend that you pull item 37 from tonight's agenda. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathryn R. Haas t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 2 45 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: 21-008 From: cclustka@socal.rr.com <cclustka@socal.rr.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 2:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: 'Kathy O'Connor-Phelps' <kathy92648@gmail.com> Subject: 21-008 All I can say is....WTF??? What the hell is going on w/all of you? Never in 30+years of living in this City have I seen such crazy anti-citizen out of control horse-sht. We will get a handle on all of you, you can count on that. Gates defends, how could y'all blatantly disregard the law. Unreal and unbelievable. In the same week. at Mike Posey's Charter Amendment meeting his appointment. failed city council candidate CJ Ray was spearheading a movement to remove the 3 elected offices besides city council. ..the Treasurer, the City Clerk and yes, the Cith Attorney. Again.....WTF??? Chip Clustka ON AIR W.C. 213-305-1970 Mobile 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:38 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: From: Kathy Fuller<4nanabanana@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:37 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surtcity-hb.org> Subject: It seems our City Council members are increasingly doing all they can to negatively impact the citizens of Huntington Beach, and we must do more to register our disapproval and disgust with their illegal activity in trying to bypass our legally ELECTED Attorney General. Due to COVID concerns. I ant unable to attend the Citv Council meeting tonight to voice my strong objection to your activities. This email will serve to register my strong disapproval with the mockery you have made of looking out for the best interests of we Surf City citizens. Stop trying to line your own pockets and destroying our City immediately. We citizens are informed and aware of your actions and you will not get away with it. Word is spreading fast and the recall campaign is gaining strength and ferocity. I stand with our Attorney General in demanding that you stop your illegal activities and resign immediately. Kathy Fuller 9451 Nantucket Drive Huntington Beach. CA. 92646 t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:11 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 21-879 From:John Pisani <johnvictor@socal.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 6:11 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item 21-879 Hello, my name is John Pisani and 1 live at 415 16th Street in Huntington Beach. I would like to voice my support for the approval for the construction contract for the park at the Rodgers site, Agenda Item 21-879. Sincerely, John Pisani t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:12 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 21-879 From:jjpisani<jjpisani@socal.rr.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 6:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item 21-879 Hello. My name is Rhonda Jones-Pisani and I live at 415 16th Street, Huntington Beach. I have been lived here as the home owner forjust shy of 25 years. I would like to support the approval for the construction contract for the park at the Rodgers site. Agenda Item 21-879. It is necessary for me to miss the Council meeting this evening due to a family emergency out of state. Thank you. Rhonda Jones-Pisani Sent from my Galaxy 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:12 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Michael Gates -----Original Message----- From: Ginny Bean <ginnybean1969@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 6:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Michael Gates I am in full support of Michael Gates and how he is representing the interests and the citizens of Huntington Beach. What you as a City Council are trying to go do rings with secrecy and corruption. We need checks and balances and I have my doubts about your methods and the actions your presenting. Sincerely, Virginia Bean A concerned long time citizen of Huntington Beach. Sent from my iPhone t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:13 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: meeting -----Original Message----- From: Brandi Martinez<malibubrandi@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 7:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: meeting To all of the Council Members, I am so sorry you have to sit there and listen to this sad little group of driveling morons; they do not represent the majority of voters(they just think they do Q). Please continue to carryon bringing us into a bright future, not back to the 1950's where they all want to go. I wish you all a relaxing Holiday season. Sincerely, Brandi Martinez t Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:13 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Tonight's Council meeting re: Gates -----Original Message----- From: MARILYN Boehm <beachmama7@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Tonight's Council meeting re: Gates Dear Madam Mayor and Council members, I'm a 35 year resident of HB. I listened with dread to the typically negative remarks from the community regarding tonight's motion. As usual, I chose not to speak up in person or even in a phone call. Why? It's clear my views, which are not shared by the loudest and angriest people who tend to show up to Council meetings, would be shouted down. Many of those speakers tonight were disrespectful and rude. I've shown up to previous community meetings where my views were in the minority compared to people like the ones tonight. It is both frightening and unpleasant to oppose their viewpoints. You mentioned that there was a discussion about tonight's subject on social media. I expressed my views there. Please know that there were many other HB residents who feel as I do. I don't envy you for having to listen to so many critical and nasty community opinions. I, for one, applaud each of you for your hard work and courage to stand up for what's in the best interests of our city in your thankless jobs. Hang in there! A constituent, Marilyn Boehm 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:14 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: 21-008 CC Meeting 12-21 From: cclustka@socal.rr.com <cclustka@socal.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:25 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: 'Kathy O'Connor-Phelps' <kathy92648@gmail.com> Subject: RE: 21-008 CC Meeting 12-21 You have certainly lost the people. When you've lost me, you know its real bad. Thanks goodness Gates you put you all in your place, especially Kaldick, what a weasel. Petty BS. I do not even recognize this city and this Council anymore. What a disgrace. Huge boost for recall tonight, thx! Now the Charter needs change or is unclear.-.wasn't so unclear when you used it, disgracefully to select Bolton vs letting the people decide. Also, Bolton, an unidentifiable, unelected nobody shooting her mouth off. Shes a vote for y'all, that's it. National media will get ahold of this one, for sure. Proposed illegal action to usurp an elected City Attny, so you can ruin this city even more and forward your lib agendas, ya its going National. RECALL. Utter disappointment. Chip Clustka ON AIR W.C. C From: cclustka@socal.rr.com <cclustka@socal.rr.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 2:44 PM To: 'city.council@surfcity-hb.org'<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: 'Kathy O'Connor-Phelps' <kathy92648@Rmail.com> Subject: 21-008 All I can say is....WTF??? What the hell is going on w/all of you? Never in 30+years of living in this City have I seen such crazy anti-citizen out of control horse-sht. We will get a handle on all of you, you can count on that. Gates defends, how could y'all blatantly disregard the law. Unreal and unbelievable. In the same week, at Mike Posey's Charter .Amendment meeting his appointment, tailed city council candidate CJ Ray was spearheading a movement to remove the 3 elected offices besides city council...the Treasurer, the City Clerk and ves, the City Attorney. Again.....WTF??? Chip Clustka ON AIR W.C. i Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:15 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Michael Gates From:Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:09 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Re: Michael Gates I would like to know what law school Barbara went to, she sounded really uneducated. You do not hold a candle to Michael Gates when it comes to integrity and knowledge. Kalick you could not be more biased. You sir are nothing more than a corrupt, whiney, hate filled little man. You are clearly biased, have it out for Gates and you should recuse yourself because of the hate and history you have with him. POSey, not words for you, you arejust looking for a puppet to control.. RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL!!!! Barbara, you are rude by not allowing Gates to continue...end it because he is making you look really bad. YOu all are a disgrace to our great community!!! Janet Bean 0 Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:24 PM Janet Bean <janetbeandesi¢ns'dsmail.com> wrote: To the dishonorable city council members, t It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving(Erik excluded)or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community, all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first, he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But,as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Bean 2 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 3:44 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: continuing the outside counsel discussion to closed session -----Original Message----- From: Mark Bixby<mark@bixby.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 2:59 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: continuing the outside counsel discussion to closed session Hi city council, I watched last night's CC meeting in its entirety in a combination of live and then what turned out to be the final 10 minutes on replay this morning. I am troubled that the outside counsel discussion was continued to closed session next month.This item was apparently suitable for open session discussion last night, without opening up any significant new ground. Barbara was looking for an off-ramp to bring the discussion to a close, and then Oliver suggested tabling it or continuing to closed session. Council voted 7-0 to continue to closed session without offering any justification for why this merited excluding the public from further participation. This move has generated some criticism on social media on transparency grounds, but I'll go further and suggest that you may be running afoul of the Brawn Act with this move. My take on this is that you are moving to closed session to avoid further airing of unpleasant dirty laundry in public, but no such exemption exists for that in the Brown Act. Please reconsider your action and finish this important discussion in public. - Mark B. i Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 2:51 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: I suuport city atty Gates and his legal opinion -----Original Message----- From: Reginald Chun <uhkanel3@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 2:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I suuport city atty Gates and his legal opinion Hello I am a long time resident andof HB and i support the city atty's position regarding his opposition regarding hiring outside counsel to question his legal positions; it is a waste of tax payer money and i trust his legal positions. Thank you Reginald chun Lexington Ln HB 92646 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:57 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Michael Gates From:Janet Bean<janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 22,20219:21 AM To:supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org;CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> subject: Re: Michael Gates Michael Gates is our last line of defense against the corruption and disgraceful actions of this city council....Posey, you also are a whiny little man, not just Dan. "you talked against us, waa, waa, waa" Stop being such a whiny little man. Take responsibility for your actions that brought us here today. YOU DID NOT GET t Janet 0 Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Janet Bean<janetbeandesigns(t-y¢tnail.com> wrote: No more closed sessions with something like this that affects the community in such a deep way. You, sitting council have shown us once more why we need this recall. More than ever, you have show us you will do anything to get your way regardless what laws you break. You do not have just an adverse relationship with our esteemed City Attorney, you are in an adverse relationship with every voter in this city. Break the law to get what you want. Shame Shame Shame on you!! t Janet Bean 0 , Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:08 AM Janet Bean yanetbeandesigns(a�Rmail.com> wrote: I would like to know what law school Barbara went to, she sounded really uneducated. You do not hold a candle to Michael Gates when it comes to integrity and knowledge. Kalick you could not be more biased. You sir are nothing more than a corrupt, whiney, hate filled little man. You are clearly biased,have it out for Gates and you should recuse yourself because of the hate and history you have with him. POSey, not words for you, you are just looking for a puppet to control.. RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL M Barbara, you are rude by not allowing Gates to continue...end it because he is making you look really bad. YOu all are a disgrace to our great community!!! Janet Bean P `; Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook 2 On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:24 PM Janet Bean <janetbeandesignsCdigmail.com> wrote: To the dishonorable city council members, It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving(Erik excluded)or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community,all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first, he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But, as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Bean 3 Switzer, Donna From: rab baylislaw.com <rab@baylislaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:31 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 37 Appointment of City Attorney My name is Allen Baylis. I have live in Huntington Beach for most of the many years since my family moved her in 1964. 1 support the Mayor and Councilmembers is seeking outside counsel so as not to be bound by the in competent City Attorney Michael Gates. Mr. Gates cause the City to pay out a settlement to Deputy City Attorneys in response to an age disclination lawsuit. If anyone should be able to keep the City from being sued for such malfeasance, it's the City Attorney himself. Additionally, I have had dealing with Mr. Gates on City matters and found him to be dishonest and perfectly willing to provide misinformation and flawed legal analysis to the City Council and the public. I believe the City should undertake at the earliest opportunity to put a City Charter Amendment to the Vote of the electorate changing the City Attorney from an elected position to an appointed position. R. Allen Baylis, Esq. Sent from Mail for Windows 1 Switzer, Donna From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:09 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org;CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: Michael Gates I would like to know what law school Barbara went to, she sounded really uneducated. You do not hold a candle to Michael Gates when it comes to integrity and knowledge. Kalick you could not be more biased. You sir are nothing more than a corrupt, whiney, hate filled little man. You are clearly biased, have it out for Gates and you should recuse yourself because of the hate and history you have with him. POSey, not words for you, you are just looking for a puppet to control.. RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL!!!! Barbara, you are rude by not allowing Gates to continue...end it because he is making you look really bad. YOu all are a disgrace to our great community!!! Janet Bean P Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:24 PM Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns(a)¢mail.com>wrote: To the dishonorable city council members, It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving (Erik excluded)or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community, all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could 1 never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first, he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But, as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Bean 2 Switzer, Donna From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:15 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: Michael Gates No more closed sessions with something like this that affects the community in such a deep way. You, sitting council have shown us once more why we need this recall. More than ever, you have show us you will do anything to get your way regardless what laws you break. You do not have just an adverse relationship with our esteemed City Attorney, you are in an adverse relationship with every voter in this city. Break the law to get what you want. Shame Shame Shame on you!! Janet Bean P'` Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:08 AM Janet Bean <janetbeandesi¢ns(a),email.com> wrote: I would like to know what law school Barbara went to, she sounded really uneducated. You do not hold a candle to Michael Gates when it comes to integrity and knowledge. Kalick you could not be more biased. You sir are nothing more than a corrupt, whiney, hate filled little man. You are clearly biased, have it out for Gates and you should recuse yourself because of the hate and history you have with him. POSey, not words for you, you are just looking for a puppet to control.. RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL!!!! Barbara, you are rude by not allowing Gates to continue...end it because he is making you look really bad. YOu all are a disgrace to our great community!!! Janet Bean t q Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:24 PM Janet Bean <janetbeandesiansnu Snail.com> wrote: To the dishonorable city council members, It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving(Erik excluded)or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community, all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first, he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But, as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Bean 2 Switzer, Donna From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:21 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: Michael Gates Michael Gates is our last line of defense against the corruption and disgraceful actions of this city council....Posey, you also area whiny little man, not just Dan. "you talked against us, waa, waa. waa" Stop being such a whiny little man. Take responsibility for your actions that brought us here today. YOU DID NOT GET t Janet 0 : Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Janet Bean yanetheandesigns!dkmail.com> wrote: No more closed sessions with something like this that affects the community in such a deep way. You, sitting council have shown us once more why we need this recall. More than ever, you have show us you will do anything to get your way regardless what laws you break. You do not have just an adverse relationship with our esteemed City Attorney, you are in an adverse relationship with every voter in this city. Break the law to get what you want. Shame Shame Shame on you!! Janet Bean 0 _ Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 t Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:08 AM Janet Bean <janetbeandesignsaa gmail.com> wrote: 1 would like to know what law school Barbara went to, she sounded really uneducated. You do not hold a candle to Michael Gates when it comes to integrity and knowledge. Kalick you could not be more biased. You sir are nothing more than a corrupt, whiney, hate filled little man. You are clearly biased, have it out for Gates and you should recuse yourself because of the hate and history you have with him. POSey, not words for you, you are just looking for a puppet to control.. RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL!!!! Barbara, you are rude by not allowing Gates to continue...end it because he is making you look really bad. YOu all are a disgrace to our great community!!! Janet Bean a Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:24 PM Janet Bean <ianetbeandesi ns d,gmail.com> wrote: To the dishonorable city council members, 2 It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving(Erik excluded)or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community, all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first, he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But, as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Beat 3 Switzer, Donna From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:23 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org;CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: Michael Gates Michael Gates is our last line of defense against the corruption and disgraceful actions of this city council....Posey, you also are a whiny little man, not just Dan. "you talked against us, waa, waa, waa" Stop being such a whiny little man. Take responsibility for your actions that brought us here today. YOU DID NOT GET YOUR WAY AND MR. GATES CALLED YOU OUT ON IT. HE EMBARRASSED YOU AND THAT MADE YOU ANGRY SO NOW YOU HAVE IT OUT FOR HIM!!!! Posey and Kalmick both need to recuse themselves because of the history of hate they have. AND Barbara, Michael needs to stay on social media so we the community are aware of how corrupt you all are!!! Janet Bens On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:21 AM Janet Bean <ianetbeandesigns(&,gmail.com> wrote: Michael Gates is our last line of defense against the corruption and disgraceful actions of this city council....Posey, you also are a whiny little man, not just Dan. "you talked against us, waa, waa, waa" Stop being such a whiny little man. Take responsibility for your actions that brought us here today. YOU DID NOT GET t Janet M Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook i On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns(@,,gmail.com> wrote: No more closed sessions with something like this that affects the community in such a deep way. You, sitting council have shown us once more why we need this recall. More than ever, you have show us you will do anything to get your way regardless what laws you break. You do not have just an adverse relationship with our esteemed City Attorney, you are in an adverse relationship with every voter in this city. Break the law to get what you want. Shame Shame Shame on you!! Janet Bean q Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:08 AM Janet Bean<janetbeandesiensfa).amail.com> wrote: I would like to know what law school Barbara went to, she sounded really uneducated. You do not hold a candle to Michael Gates when it comes to integrity and knowledge. Kalick you could not be more biased. You sir are nothing more than a corrupt, whiney, hate filled little man. You are clearly biased,have it out for Gates and you should recuse yourself because of the hate and history you have with him. POSey, not words for you, you are just looking for a puppet to control.. RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL RECALL!!!! Barbara, you are rude by not allowing Gates to continue...end it because he is making you look really bad. YOu all are a disgrace to our great community!!! Janet Bean 2 Q Janet Bean Designs and Services 714-362-7899 Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the watchful eyes of my guardian angels. Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:24 PM Janet Bean <ianetbeandesigns(u gniail.com> wrote: To the dishonorable city council members, It is not surprising that you are trying to get rid of Mr. Gates at all. You have shown the community that you are all self serving(Erik excluded)or serving only those who you make back door deals with. You do not think about the community, you do not care about the community,all you care about is helping those who line your campaign pockets. Mr. Gates has a proven track record as being the best this city has to offer. What he is not, is your puppet and that is the reason you want him gone. He stands for the citizens and this community in a way that you could never have the integrity to do. He does not put himself first,he puts his community first and protects this community to a very high degree. This community does not want a council who puts in place their hand picked attorney, that serves at their request and not for the community. We voted on and want to continue to vote for the person we feel will serve us best. But, as you have shown, you have no respect for the vote or the democratic way our city should be run. We do not want you changing the city charter just to support your selfish and corrupt agendas. This recall cannot happen fast enough. We need council members we can count on to work for the community not against it. Keep Michael Gates and Keep the Vote Alive!! Bring integrity back to the city council!! Shame on all of you!! Janet Bean 3