HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Ordinance to Establish a Code Enforcement Complaint USINGT�� 2000 Main Street,
of �L�', Huntington Beach,CA
92648
City of Huntington Beach APpgDr/ED y_3
e m oti��°4' LIB w1e7� 1'10SEL,
8aL7vN—,VD)
File #: 22-1092 MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Proposed Ordinance to Establish a Code Enforcement
Complaint Process Regarding Alleged Business Violations and Prohibits the Submission of
Anonymous Complaints
Request the City Attorney to return to City Council with a proposed ordinance that bans anonymous
complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business violations.
The Ordinance should provide that Code Enforcement is welcome to continue to take in complaints
from the public about businesses, but that in order to do so, strict new reporting requirements must
be adhered to. Any and all complaints by individuals must occur in person at City Hall, which will
include a new and updated intake form to be completed with all identifying information of the
complaining party. The intake of the complaint shall include a copy of the individual's driver's license
or other form of ID with a full name, address, and photo of the individual. If a City worker, including a
member of Code Enforcement is lodging the complaint, then he/she identifies him/herself likewise.
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12/14/2022
powered by LegistarT'
J
ti
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING—COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TONY STRICKLAND, MAYOR
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT
PROCESS REGARDING ALLEGED BUSINESS VIOLATIONS AND PROHIBITS THE
SUBMISSION OF ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS
In the last year, Huntington Beach businesses have seen increasingly aggressive measures by
"anonymous" individuals who have reported complaints to Code Enforcement against
businesses. Some of the complaints, after investigation and review, were
unfounded. Nevertheless, the business owners were placed under unnecessary stress and
pressure to make corrections and/or face fines because of the basis of the anonymous
complaints. In addition, recently, small business owners received calls from Code Enforcement
regarding potential violations right after hosting political events at their restaurants. This was
perceived by the business owners as harassment,a violation of their exercise of free speech,and
a punishment for their participation in the political process.
Huntington Beach business owners are our community's treasures. Our business owners
represent the best of Huntington Beach - those individuals who have taken their own personal
risk to invest in the City, and then who employ members of our Huntington Beach
community. Our government should never be perceived as punitive or actively taking steps to
frustrate, discourage, or hinder business. Government should get out of the way of business to
allow business to flourish, and only when businesses are in actual, substantial violation of law,
should the government take corrective steps with the business to rectify the problem.
In the spirit of the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where individuals have a right to face
their accuser, Huntington Beach should have a policy banning anonymous complaints by
individuals or businesses to our local government to take action against other businesses. While
the 6th Amendment involves individuals in a criminal context, here I am concerned about
ensuring that only legitimate concerns involving a business are addressed through a proper
process.
To that end,the City should have an ordinance or regulatory scheme that bans anonymous Code
Enforcement complaints against businesses and requires that any individual who wishes to file a
complaint disclose his/her identity and other identifying information, even if that reporting
individual is another City worker. If a Code Enforcement officer comes across a violation on
his/her fieldwork,that individual would be the one identifying him/herself in the report. No Code
Enforcement reporting of any complaint could proceed without identifying the original observer
or eyewitness of the violation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Request the City Attorney to return to City Council with a proposed ordinance that bans
anonymous complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business violations.
The Ordinance should provide that Code Enforcement is welcome to continue to take in
complaints from the public about businesses, but that in order to do so, strict new reporting
requirements must be adhered to. Any and all complaints by individuals must occur in person at
City Hall, which will include a new and updated intake form to be completed with all identifying
information of the complaining party. The intake of the complaint shall include a copy of the
individual's driver's license or other form of ID with a full name, address, and photo of the
individual. If a City worker, including a member of Code Enforcement is lodging the complaint,
then he/she identifies him/herself likewise.
Moore, Tania
From: jjreed85 <jjreed85@protonmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 3:58 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Code 'Enforcement' - Self Admittedly NOT Enforcing (& keep anonymous option)
Hello City Council, welcome new council members, excited to have you!
I had this e-mail halfway drafted prior to seeing code enforcement on the agenda, so my message is now two-fold....
to ask you to PROTECT our anonymity, and secondly to look into the department itself. Citizens shouldn't have to
choose between their own safety and asking the city to enforce its own rules and laws.
I am all about government leaving us alone, and I am not talking about one-time situations that come up like a tree
falling over. I am speaking specifically of the people who are long-time repeat offenders who WILLFULLY break
codes. But shouldn't we still 'nip it in the bud' before it gets to that point? Even a quick warning letter sent? If
smaller laws and rules of our great city are not enforced, no one has any reason to follow the larger ones. It is a big
factor in the uptick of crimes in this city.... there are no consequences for anything.
I BEG you to re-consider the anonymous option. Sadly we live in a world where people are aggressive and snap for
no reason. By forcing this, it will make things WORSE - people won't report and properties will decline and become
unsafe, neighbors will get into fights, etc. People who willfully break the code are not the kind of people you want
knowing who you are, and where you live. There HAS to be an option to remain anonymous for our own safety. The
3 known problem houses just in my neighborhood are not nice people- 2 are known drug houses. The anonymous
submissions are the only recourse our neighbors have around here... and code enforcement STILL does nothing to
stop their actions, even with tons of photographic proof. One of those houses has been turned in a dozen times just
this year(by many people) for repeatedly breaking the SAME codes every month for YEARS. And yet nothing has
changed since at least 2019.
Code Enforcement's own employees have literally stated that they 'do not actually fine or do anything official about
violations' - even ones they physically witnessed with their own eyes. What exactly are we paying the department to
'enforce' then? Does our city not generate revenue from fines? Or at least cover its own department costs? If
having enough funds to 'check' on anonymous code complaints is an issue.... that would easily be remedied if we
actually FINED people for continuing to break the laws.
Again I can understand a sliding scale... 1st violation - a warning letter(hell they don't even have to go out if there is
photo proof... which I CAN understand requiring if the complaint is anonymous- although not always possible). 2nd
violation - small fine, and so on and so on on a sliding scale of severity of the fine, as they continue to repeat or
willfully ignore the code.
Please keep an anonymous option, even if we create other parameters like requiring photos. I am quite sure there
are 'problem complainers' - I did hear about the shed situation... but everyone else should not be punished or have
to risk their safety.
Thanks for listening.
SUPPLEMENTAL
-JJ COMMUNICATION
Sent with Proton Mail secure email. meeting Detc. .2020/2.�
A 11 ►i oZ l� (�2 -- /4�Z�
1
Switzer, Donna
From: HB Resident <lifetimehbresident@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 5:54 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Keep Code Enforcement Anonymous - Safety Risk
It is dangerous to require people to identify themselves these days. Would anyone 'see something, say
something'to prevent crimes or danger if it put us at risk? Houses, business, wherever. So the options are - risk
my own safety, or shut up and let people do whatever to the detriment of everyone else? I would never report in
that case.
If you make changes, find a balance to still allow anonymous submission for valid issues. But for the record,
our code enforcement department is a joke - another issue to address. They do nothing about homes with long
continuous histories of violations.
Aren't there consequences anymore for people who intentionally ignore rules and laws?
Best wishes to our new council. Cannot wait to see what you do.
Thanks.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Wag Deb: /-21.2O/-2 2/
Agenda Item No.; °7't° l lT 2)
i
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 1:27 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Letter in Opposition to Agenda Item Number 26 (December 20, 2022)
Attachments: 22.12.19 Huntington Beach Anonymous Complaint Letter (2).pdf
From: Peter Eliasberg<PEliasberg@aclusocal.org>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 12:28 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Letter in Opposition to Agenda Item Number 26 (December 20, 2022)
Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please see the attached letter from the ACLU of Southern California and the First
Amendment Coalition opposing Agenda Item Number 26 on tomorrow's meeting agenda.
Sincerely,
Peter Eliasberg
Peter Eliasberg
Chief Counsel/
Manheim Family Attorney
For First Amendment Rights
ACLU of Southern California
1313 W 8th St, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(o) 213.977.9500 x228 I (f) 213.417.2228
aclusocal.orq II facebook II twitter II blog
The ACLU: Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself
This message may contain information that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply email that
this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 16/ aoaa-
Amu F A C
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
ON
Southern California FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
South
December 19, 2022
Via E-Mail
Mayor Tony Strickland
Mayor Pro Tem Gracey Van Der Mark
Council Member Pat Burns
Council Member Casey McKeon
Council Member Dan Kalmick
Council Member Natalie Moser
Council Member Rhonda Bolton
Re: Opposition to Agenda Item Number 25 (December 20, 2022)
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The ACLU of Southern California and First Amendment Coalition strongly
oppose agenda item number 26, which calls for a city ordinance barring anyone
from making anonymous complaints about businesses to Code Enforcement. An
ordinance barring anonymous complaints would raise serious constitutional
concerns about the right to petition and the right to anonymous speech, both of
which are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, the
ostensible justification for the ordinance — that it is consistent with the Sixth
Amendment's right for defendants to be able to face their accusers — betrays a
fundamental misunderstanding of the protections of the Sixth Amendment and
the rights of the accused.
ANALYSIS
The Council Members Items Report requests that the City Attorney draft a
proposed ordinance to bar anonymous complaints to Code Enforcement on the
ground that it is supported by the Sixth Amendment's right of a defendant to face
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hector 0.Villagra
CHAIR Michele Goodwin VICE CHAIRS Rob Hennig and Stacy Horth-Neubert
CHAIRS EMERITI Maria Stone Shari Leinwand Stephen Rohde Danny Goldberg Allan K.Jonas* Burt Lancaster* Irving Lichtenstein,MD'
Jan Mohn Laurie Ostrow' Stanley K.Sheinbaum*
'deceased
1313 WEST EIGHTH STREET • SUITE 200 • LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 • T 213.977.9500 • F 213.915.0220 • ACLUSOCAL.ORG
Page 2
their accuser. This association misunderstands the protections of the Sixth
Amendment.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment gives "the accused. . . the
right to be confronted with the witnesses against him" in their criminal trial. U.S.
Const. amend. VI. But the neither the Sixth Amendment or any other provision
of the Constitution prohibits a law enforcement agency or any governmental
actor from initiating an investigation based on a complaint of wrongdoing from
someone who submits an anonymous complaint. Indeed, the Constitution
permits law enforcement agents to execute an investigatory stop of a person
based on an anonymous tip so long as the tip has sufficient indicia of reliability.
See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014) (quoting Alabama v. White, 496
U.S. 325, 330 (1990)) ("But under appropriate circumstances, an anonymous tip
can demonstrate `sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to
make [an] investigatory stop.")
Law enforcement and other government agencies routinely rely on anonymous
tips as the basis to initiate investigations of potential crimes and other legal
violations. The need to rely on anonymous complaints as a basis to initiate
investigations is particularly great where an agency is leanly staffed and relies on
complaints to perform its enforcement obligations.
If an anonymous tip leads to an enforcement officer to conclude a business has
violated a code provision and the initiation of a proceeding against that business,
then due process requires that the business be provided with the evidence
supporting the code officer's conclusions. But the fact that the code officer may
have initiated his or her investigation in response to an anonymous complaint
raises no due process or other constitutional concerns.
By contrast, barring citizens from making anonymous complaints to a government
agency raises significant constitutional concerns. The right of the people to
petition government "is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights."
E.R.R. Presidents Con f. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. 365 U.S. 127, 138 (1961). Indeed,
it is "among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights."
United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217, 222 (I 967). "The right to
petition traces its origins to Magna Carta, which confirmed the right of barons to
petition the King." Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 395 (2011).
The right applies to all levels of government, including the right to file a complaint
with a municipality's code enforcement agencies. See California Motor Transp. Co. v.
Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). Therefore, "[p]rivate citizens have
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Page 3
the fundamental right to present concerns to government agencies." Evans v.
Evans, 162 Cal. App. 4th I I57, I I72 (2008).
The First Amendment also protect the right of anonymous speech. Courts have
repeatedly invalidated provisions that burden the ability to express themselves
anonymously. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995)
(invalidating law requiring election literature to include name and address of
person issuing the literature); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1962) (holding that
ordinance that bars distribution of handbills that do not contain the name and
address of the person who printed, wrote, or compiled the material violates the
First Amendment right to anonymous speech).
There are myriad reasons why the courts have held that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech. For example, the right to speak anonymously
protects people who fear that they will be retaliated against for protesting about
the actions of others. Cf. Talley, 362 U.S. at 64. These concerns apply equally to
"the rights of speech and petition," which are "cognate rights" under the First
Amendment that "share substantial common ground." Borough of Duryea, 564
U.S. at 388.
There are obvious reasons why business owners might be afraid of identifying
themselves when complaining to a code enforcement agency that a neighboring
business is illegally selling cannabis or complaining to city officials that a local bar is
illegally operating after hours. Similarly, an employee may well refrain from filing a
valid complaint that his employer is violating federal or state laws requiring
accommodation of people with disabilities if they cannot do so anonymously for
fear or losing their job. In sum, barring anonymous complaints will almost
certainly chill many people from filing complaints even when those complaints of
illegal activity are well-founded. Talley, 362 U.S. at 64 ("Persecuted groups and
sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive
practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."). Thus, refusing to allow
people to submit anonymous complaints to code enforcement when they believe
a business may be violating the law substantially burdens the right to petition and
anonymous speech.'
' This problem would be compounded by requiring submission of complaints in person at City
Hall, which would further impede the exercise of constitutional rights and present substantial
questions whether it violates the right of persons with disabilities or others unable to appear at
City Hall.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Page 4
In an analogous circumstance, the California Attorney General concluded that the
interpreting a law to forbid police agencies from investigating citizen complaints
when the complaint is unsigned raised significant constitutional concerns. 79
Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 163 at 4-5 (1996).
To the extent the Council is concerned that some complaints are unfounded or
politically motivated, the appropriate response is instruct code officers to evaluate
whether complaints have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify initiating an
investigation, not to burden the constitutional rights of anyone to make an
anonymous complaint.2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Council to pull the agenda item and not
draft an ordinance that will raise significant constitutional concerns and may
subject the city to legal action.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Eliasberg
Chief Counsel
ACLU Foundation
of Southern California
David Loy
Legal Director
First Amendment Coalition
2 The statement in the Items Report that some business that were subject to unfounded
complaints were pressured "to make corrections and/or face fines because of the basis of
anonymous complaints" is unpersuasive. If the businesses were not violating code provisions,
they had no corrections to make and should not have been subject to any fines, which would
only be triggered by code violations.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Page 5
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Moore, Tania
From: Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2022 9:55 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: opposed to code enforcement changes on the 12/20/2022 CC agenda
Tony Strickland's councilmember item to forbid anonymous and remote code enforcement complaints against
businesses will end general public code enforcement complaints against businesses.
The incidents of alleged code enforcement abuse that Tony refers to involved some very vocal and agitated business
owners and campaign supporters who railed against the complaints during city council public comments. Few members
of the public would be willing to file legitimate complaints against such business for very real fear of retaliation in verbal,
legal, or perhaps even physical form in these hyper-polarized times.
Consider a scenario of a business employee who is aware of significant health and safety code violations in their
workplace.They may have raised their concerns with management only to have those concerns be ignored because the
business doesn't want to spend the money to do the right thing. If the employee were to file a complaint under Tony's
proposed system,the business owner would know the identity of the employee and may likely fire the employee. No
employee will take that risk in a tough economy, and so the health and safety violations will persist unaddressed until
somebody is seriously injured.
Or consider a scenario of a customer with mobility challenges requiring use of a wheelchair or other mobility device who
encounters ADA-related code violations at a business. Because complaints against businesses must now be filed in
person at city hall,the customer must transport to city hall and navigate the long distance between parking lots and the
city hall entrances. Many elderly people won't bother with that kind of effort to accomplish a task that is currently trivial
when done online from home via the Internet. My father spent the final three years of his life in a wheelchair, and I
personally know how challenging transport can be sometimes. Requiring in-person filing of complaints at city hall may
constitute disability discrimination which will invite lawsuits against the city.
It is important to remember that there is already a process in place to weed out unfounded code violation complaints.
All complaints must be vetted by code enforcement staff as being legitimate before any citations are issued. If code
enforcement staff gets it wrong and issues a citation for something that is not truly a violation,then the business
owner's dispute should be with code enforcement staff rather than the complainant.
Mark Bixby
17451 Hillgate Ln
Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4707
714-401-4526
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting tale: I,2ignie90��-
Agenda item No.;,4f,,Wao (9,-9 - /DV)
1
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Please vote NO on Item#26, 12-20-22 mtg.
From: Dan Jamieson <danjamieson4@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, December 17, 2022 2:51 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Please vote NO on Item#26, 12-20-22 mtg.
Dear HB City Councilmembers:
I urge a NO vote on Councilmember Item#26 of the 12-20-22 Council meeting.
The item proposes that city code complaints regarding businesses could not be made anonymously. The
proposal appears to be based on alleged harassment(via code complaints) of businesses that may have
supported the current Council majority.
The proposed ordinance is unnecessary and smacks of political retaliation.
Some percentage of code complaints are always inaccurate or frivolous, and enforcement officers are able to
make this determination when necessary. (This is also true of police complaints, but no one would seriously
suggest that the police not accept anonymous complaints.)
Code complaints may come from neighbors of offending properties who wish to maintain friendly relations
with the alleged violator. Forcing public disclosure of the complainant will force many residents and businesses
to remain silent and suffer from ongoing code violations of a nearby business.
SUPPLEMENTAL
Please vote NO on Item#26.
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:
Agenda lismNd: -/D�I�J
Sincerely,
Dan Jamieson
Huntington Beach
2
Moore, Tania
From: Linda Moon <Isapiro048@gmail.com> SUPPLEMENTAL
Monday, December 19, 2022 3:54 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Subject: 12-20-23 City Council Agenda
Meeting Dote; 0/ova aoa9--
Dear Mayor Strickland and City Council Members:
�� /ate _� a )
Agenda Item No.; /
I have been a resident and homeowner in Huntington Beach for 48 years and maintained a law office in
Huntington Beach for 40 years until my retirement. I have followed the work of the City Council for many
years. I understand that the new City Council majority is anxious to make changes and put its mark on the
city's future. I fear,however, that several of the Councilmember Items on the December 20, 2022 agenda were
hastily thought out and could have negative impacts on the city. I urge your careful consideration and measured
approach in moving forward with these proposals. Of greatest concern to me are the following:
Item 11 would raise the salary of the current City Attorney, who had no training or experience in Municipal
Law prior to coming into office,beyond that of all but one other City Attorney in the state, many of whom are
far more experienced, and from wealthier communities. While the City Attorney should be fairly compensated,
the current proposal is concerning.
Item 26,prohibiting anonymous complaints against businesses and requiring in-person filing will be
intimidating to the public and have a chilling effect on legitimate complaints regarding potentially dangerous
Code violations. The public should not be made to fear retaliation or retribution for reporting dangerous
conditions or be required to appear in person during business hours, something impossible for many
residents. The City Code Enforcement employees can quickly determine whether reports are valid or
frivolous. The proposal makes an upfront assumption that all reports are wrongful. The opposite should be
true. Code enforcement practices should best serve the residents, employees and customers, not make them
targets and endanger the safety of reporters and their families.
Item 27 seeking to raise political campaign contribution limits beyond the inflation standards previously
established will result in an unfortunate scenario in which only candidates with wealthy and corporate
supporters can possibly be elected. This is a recipe for council corruption and the elimination of diversity on
the city's governing body.
Item 28 appears to be an inappropriate gift of public funds for the cost of a CEQA Environmental Impact
Review, which would ordinarily be paid by the event sponsor. The benefit to the city in hosting that event does
not warrant the cost proposed.
Item 29 smacks of a full-on attack on services to the homeless. I suggest that the Council avail itself of the
knowledge of your competent staff to become educated regarding state laws protecting the homeless and the
benefits of the services now provided, before seeking to dismantle them.
Item 30 regarding the Orange County Power Authority may be better considered after full reporting on the
status of the Community Choice Power Aggregate and its potential for reducing dangerous greenhouse gasses
and saving money for consumers. As noted by the County Audit serious concerns exist regarding the current
operation of the OCPA. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater may not be the best strategy.
1
Item 33 will most certainly result in the city incurring significant fines for "challenging" and defying state
laws. Huntington Beach does not exist in a vacuum. Like it or not,we are part of the State of California and
subject to its housing laws. Most of the council members have had little education,to date,regarding how and
why housing mandates exist. We have already paid millions of dollars to fines that could have gone to good
use in our city for defying housing statutes. Continued defiance will not be productive or in the best interests of
the residents of Huntington Beach.
Item 34 regarding the RWG report appears to be political payback at its worst. I sincerely doubt the legality of
this city council "waiving" the Attorney Client privileges of the prior council. The report,previously made
public, explains to Huntington Beach residents why over 1.5 Million dollars had to be paid to former employees
and litigants who were the subject of age discriminatory tactics by the City Attorney. A desire to cleanse Mr.
Gates'record to facilitate his future political aspirations is entirely inappropriate. Mr. Steele, unlike Mr. Gates,
has many decades of Municipal Law experience and training. The point of the report was to educate the council
and serious issues came to light. Sweeping problems under the rug is not in the best interests of the City and its
residents.
I hope the City Council will fully deliberate and consider the need for, effects and ramifications of the above
proposals,with the focus on serving the best interests of the City and its residents.
Sincerely,
Linda Sapiro Moon
2
Moore, Tania
From: Shereen Hawkins <shercat@cephira.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:32 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Proposed Ban on Anonymous Code Enforcement Complaints
I found out the City Council is considering a ban on anonymous code enforcement complaints. I read the memo and
have concerns about the proposed change.
The memo states "some of the complaints, after investigation and review, were unfounded".The memo doesn't say
most or all,just some.
The memo goes on to say" Our government should never be perceived as punitive or actively taking steps to frustrate,
discourage,or hinder business. Government should get out of the way of business to allow business to flourish, and only
when businesses are in actual, substantial violation of law, should the government take corrective steps with the
business to rectify the problem." Without complaints and investigations I don't know how you plan to find "actual,
substantial violations of law". Requiring people to go to City Hall to complete the form which includes their name,
address, copy of their Drivers License (or other ID) and photo will have a chilling effect on complaints.
Some of the complaints may come from people visiting the city who can't/won't go to city hall to file a complaint but
also won't come back if their complaint is not heard. Others may be from people who fear retaliation if the give their
name and address.
Because "some" complaints were unfounded Mayor Strickland proposes doing away with anonymous complaints.That is
an overreaction.Vote against this proposal.
Sheri
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Dace: Wi0/90?.
Agenda Item No.; *?,o (?; -
1
Moore, Tania
From: vanessa martinez <rockonbaileybailey@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 11:05 AM
To: Pat Burns for HB City Council; CITY COUNCIL; Gates, Michael; William Hennerty Jr.;
Vigliotta, Mike
Subject: Fw: Hennerty-Martinez Residence, 605 Main Street—Original Garage/ADU
Good Morning Mayor Strickland and city council members, I hope this reaches all council members.
We support Mayor Tony Strickland's item to forbid anonymous and remote code enforcement complaints
against businesses and residents.
We have been victims of this abuse. I wrote at length on the facebook forums regarding our personal
experience.
We are asking for a full investigation, and that it brought to the attention of the DA office. We hope all council
members will support this. Weaponizing code enforcement against residents and businesses is a crime. You
cannot be retaliated against for questioning government officials. A full investigation is needed.
In addition, below is a former email describing our detached unit. We would like the harassment to stop.
This email was not sent to Jimmy Hoang, as we asked that he be removed from our case, after filing a criminal
case against me.
The timeline of abuse begins after publicly opposing Dan Kalmick's mural and Kim Kramer's brick project. It
then continued when I posted the CPRAS detailing Kim Kramer's involvement with the removal of the memorial
bench.
A neighborhood " Next door app" was created specifically to harrass our property. Mr Bixby himself ( who lives
nowhere near us) also made specific complaints.
Mr. Bixby's forum has become poltical fodder for social media where actively shares code enfocement
complaints at the expense of others. He is open to how he uses code enforcement to his advantage.
They also did this to the corner Market on 11th street. Mr. Rice, allegedly enlisted the help of a councilman,
who actively stalked the market for violations using his personal cellphone and then showing it proudly to
businessman Moe Kanoudi who became the whistle blower. Jimmy Hoang harassed Suzanne and the
Schrimps endlessly (Corner Market owner and land owners). Suzanne still has the written notice from Mr.
Hoang telling her she needed to leave and wrote down possible other places she could move to.
When I posted this to Facebook, a swift motion to permit the market was made; knowing that what had
happened was an abuse of power. Dan Kalmick called Suzanne at 9:30 that evening telling her he could help
her, a message she still has.
The 40 sheds that have been reported using google maps is another example of abuse.
What happened to Dino Farraro is unexceptable.
Furthermore, we are asking that our structure is grandfathered in and that this typeaURRLEMENTAL
continues. COMMUNICATION
1Meeting Date: 6didlyide)2-9--
Respectfully,
Martinez/ Hennerty
Forwarded Message
From:joseph santiago<graphicviolencedesn@yahoo.com>
To: "kenneth.waldecker@surfcity-hb.gov"<kenneth.waldecker@surfcity-hb.gov>
Cc:vanessa martinez<rockonbaileybailey@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday,August 28,2020 at 06:59:18 PM PDT
Subject: Re:Hennerty-Martinez Residence,605 Main Street—Original Garage/ADU
Huntington Beach Community Development Department
Attn:Kenneth Waldecker
Hello Mr.Waldecker
My name is Joseph D. Santiago.I am writing you about the Hennerty-Martinez Residence at 605 Main Street as a qualified historic
preservation professional.I have served on the Historic Resources Board of Huntington Beach for nearlyl5 years and I am the primary
author of Ebb&Flow- 100 Years of Huntington Beach,the centennial history of our city.I have 40 years of construction,demolition,
historic restoration and refurbishment experience including 15 years of historic house moving experience.Restoration projects include
The Buffums House in Long Beach,The Mayor Manning House and The Judge Warner House in Huntington Beach and several
others.I also have a BFA in Graphic Design/Advertising from The California State University,Long Beach.I have successfully
consulted independently with Community Development on behalf of several historical property owners,including The Mayor Shipley
House at 831 Main Street and The Corner Market at 601 1 lth Street,on the application of the State Historic Building Code and SB
1069,the 2017 California ADU law.
It is my qualified opinion that Mrs.Hennerty-Martinez'historic Spanish Revival home,built in 1936,was likely constructed with a
guest quarters in the garage structure or one was added during the primary period of historicity—a period of development for which
the city has no permits on record.The original lath and plaster ceiling and walls of the rear guest quarters would be a highly unlikely
fmish for a simple garage laundry,indicating that the bathroom and other similarly fmished portions of the detached rear structure
were original.Plumbing work,pre-WWII galvanized steel supply pipes and cast iron waste pipes,also support this.
The materials and techniques of construction in this once-isolated community are a time capsule that helps to pinpoint when houses
and later additions were made.Changes in lumber finishes and dimensions,plaster formulations and even pipe galvanizing methods
can shed light on what decade or even year a project was done.
If you would like further information please contact me at(714)206-1965 or graphicviolencedesn@,yahoo.com.
Sincerely
Joseph D Santiago
2
Moore, Tania
From: Walker, Renee
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:35 PM
To: AgendaAlerts@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: H Item Code enforcement
Mayor, City Council and Mr. Gates,
First and foremost I would like to congratulate and welcome the new members of our city council. I can not
believe what you all have accomplished here in our great city and you all should be very proud of that
achievement. That was a very big deal. Mr. Gates congratulations to you as well. Your continued support of
local small business within our city is greatly appreciated within the community.
In regards to the H item pertaining to code enforcement and anonymous reports. My family has first hand
knowledge of how this harassment works. We do support this H item. We have delt with this at our historic
home at 605 main st. for the past several years since the proposed mural on 602 main st. (Frontier building).
All documentation is saved and can be provided to help with any type of criminal investigation that may take
place. These individuals and others in their circle have
sued us, filed a criminal case against my wife to go after her teaching credentials, and other tactics to silence us
to no avail. When a individual lives in 92649 area code and is reports a home in 92648 these is a issue and
should be questioned to stop wasting city resources.
These individuals should be removed, replaced, let go, fired or their departments should be charged to be able to
get rid of people that deliberately go after people speaking publicly in opposition. If any of you have any
questions or concerns please call me at 714.686.2629. I am planning on speaking out tonight at city council and
will be supporting the Mayor's H item.
We even have received city letters addressed to Miguel Martinez, Hernandez and other Hispanic names other
than the correct name of Michael Martinez which I find to be racist and on purpose. I have addressed this issue
many times and will not accept this as mistake since it has happened several times.
Thank you,
Bill Hennerty
Thank you,
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Retie: l9-froeloaa-
Agenda Item No.;, ")(Pa - /d 9a-
Moore, Tania
From: Tim Steed <tsteed@ocea.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:58 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; City.Council@surfcity-hb.org.
Cc: Debra Jubinsky
Subject: Agenda Item 22-1092
Mayor Strickland and Honorable City Council Members,
The Huntington Beach Management Employees Organization (HBMEO) proudly represents approximately 100 public
service managers who serve the City of Huntington Beach. Our Association has a long history of working collaboratively
with all stakeholders in the City to ensure the best public policy outcomes for our community.
We are writing to communicate our concerns regarding agenda item 22-1092; "Proposed Ordinance to Establish a Code
Enforcement Complaint Process Regarding Alleged Business Violations and Prohibits the Submission of Anonymous
Complaints." HBMEO agrees wholeheartedly with Mayor Strickland that, "Huntington Beach business owners are our
community's treasures." We also completely agree with the Mayor that it is essential that Code Enforcement complaints
are not frivolous or otherwise unnecessary. However, HBMEO feels the proposed ordinance revisions will negatively
impact the ability of City staff to conduct legitimate code enforcement inquiries.
The duty of a municipal code enforcement officer is to be observant and to enforce the Municipal Code—or at the very
least to report issues that have been observed for further follow-up.The proposed ordinance would require City staff to
disclose their personal information (including their home addresses) in the performance of their City-mandated duties.
We feel this is overly burdensome and poses a serious safety threat, leaving staff vulnerable to retaliation or
intimidation.
HBMEO respectfully requests that this item be referred to staff so that the City Manager, Mayor(or designee) and
HBMEO (and any other impacted labor organizations)can work collaboratively on an ordinance or policy that will
achieve the intent of the ordinance while protecting the City's dedicated public servants from the negative impacts of
the current proposed ordinance.
Respectfully,
Debra Jubinsky, President
Huntington Beach Management Employees Organization
c/o Tim Steed
TIM STEED
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
li
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION SUPPLEMENTAL
d:714-564-3227 I o:714-835-3355 I w:www.ocea.org COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: /a/20/orb
Agenda)Item No.; oaf (?a -ingc9)
1
Moore, Tania
From: jodykyle1@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 2:17 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: City Council Meeting for December 20, 2022 - Comments by Mary Kyle
To the Huntington Beach City Council,
My name is Mary Kyle. I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for 24 years. I am writing to comment on a number of
agenda items proposed for the City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 20, 2022.
Item 11. 22-1113 Adopt Resolution No. 2022-82 Modifying Non-Associated Salary Schedule for City Attorney to Adjust
for Recent Inflation, Make Compensation More Competitive
I urge the City Council to VOTE NO on this item. A raise for the City Attorney, Michael Gates, will raise taxes for
Huntington Beach residents and place an additional burden on households already struggling to make ends meet.
Item 26. 22-1092 Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Proposed Ordinance to Establish a Code Enforcement Complaint
Process Regarding Alleged Business Violations and Prohibits the Submission of Anonymous Complaints
I urge the City Council to VOTE NO on this item. Code Enforcement is essential to maintaining a healthy and safe city.
When a complaint is made the city first investigates the validity of the complaint. If a code violation is found, then the
resident or business owner must correct the problem. Making the reporting procedure more difficult will simply discourage
people from calling out hazardous or unsafe situations. Requiring photo ID is a First Amendment violation. Something the
City Attorney, who is currently asking for a raise, should know. This agenda item will expose Huntington Beach to legal
action and public notoriety, both of which harms our city not helps it.
Item 27. 22-1093 Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to amend the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to raise
Campaign Contribution Limits
I urge the City Council to VOTE NO on this item. Raising campaign contribution limits to match those of the California
Senate/Assembly candidates opens these races to Dark Money from donors and PACs outside of Huntington Beach. This
is our city. Our voters should decide who sits on the City Council not people and groups from outside Huntington Beach.
Furthermore, the City Council races represent a much smaller voter base than Senate and Assembly candidates. To
match that level of funding is unnecessary.
1
Switzer, Donna
From: Carlos Rubio <crubio@teamsters911.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 8:10 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL
Cc: Rodriguez, Jose
Subject: Item 26
Honorable Mayor Strickland and Honorable City Councilmembers:
Teamsters Local 911 represents hundreds of workers in the City of Huntington Beach. We care about this City
and have a solid relationship with the City's stakeholders.
The purpose of this correspondence is to communicate that City workers will be put in a difficult predicament
to conduct their duties as assigned safely and efficiently if this item is approved.
The duty of our members is to observe, report and enforce code. There is a difference between the public
reporting potential code violations and City workers conducting investigations and following up on violations.
Disclosure of private information of City workers can cause safety issues and possible retaliation against City
workers and prove counterproductive.
We hereby request that the City Manager be directed to meet and confer with the Union to discuss all of the
impacts of any possible implementation that can negatively impact the terms and conditions of employment
of our membership.
This shall be conducted prior to any implementation or adoption.
We are here to cooperate and collaborate in good faith.
Thank you,
Carlos I. Rubio
President
California Teamsters Local 911
Public, Professional & Medical Employees Union
9900 Flower Street
Bellflower, CA 90706
T: (562) 595-4518 Ext: 111
F: (562) 427-7298
E: crubio@teamsters911.com
i