HomeMy WebLinkAboutRequest to Amend the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to Rais 2000 Main Street,
'`WA1 t!.,q Huntington Beach,CA
F .� aarF �oF' 92648
City of Huntington Beach � y� y-3
MLY1ic 111s
Y 9 v �
�CF r iaa' CFO f.
CpUNTV�Pti OM y ' -Alb)
File #: 22-1093 MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to amend the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to
raise Campaign Contribution Limits
Direct the City Attorney to return at the next City Council Meeting with an amendment to the City's
municipal code to raise the contribution limit to match or track that of the limits for California's
Senate/Assembly candidates.
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12/14/2022
powered by Legistarr"
"Iv fr0
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING—COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TONY STRICKLAND, MAYOR
DATE: 12/20/2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO RAISE
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
The City of Huntington Beach is the 4th largest City in the County of Orange and the 24th largest
City in the State of California, and has heavily restricted campaign contribution limits.
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 2.07.050, Campaign Contribution Limitations, limits
campaign contributions to any candidate or controlled committee of City candidate for City Clerk,
City Treasurer and City Attorney to $500 per election cycle. Since the adoption in 2013 the
consumer price index (CPI) of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Anaheim areas, the contribution
allowance is$620 per person or business to a candidate for local office.
In campaigning across such a large City, such restrictions place a burden on individual local
candidates to cover so much territory with restricted campaign budgets. This encourages third
party independent expenditures,which do not have contribution limits yet heavily influence local
elections. Local candidates should benefit from an increase in direct financial support from
individuals in the community. An increase in individual participation with individual candidates
is also an increase in the exercise of free speech.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to return at the next City Council Meeting with an amendment to the
City's municipal code to raise the contribution limit to match or track that of the limits for
California's Senate/Assembly candidates.
Moore, Tania
From: Dan Jamieson <danjamieson4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 2:55 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: NO vote on Councilmember Item#27, 12-20-22 Council meeting.
Dear HB City Councilmembers:
I urge a NO vote on Councilmember Item#27 of the 12-20-22 Council meeting.
The item proposes increasing campaign contribution limits to $4,900--the state default limit--from the current
$620 city limit. (Tellingly, the item fails to disclose specifically the $4,900 figure, a 700% increase from the
current limit).
This proposal would create far more influence in city elections by wealthy special interests. Currently, very few
individual contributors to city council elections max out at $620. The exceptions are wealthy special interests
who have business before the city--for example, auto dealers, developers and hotels, who (unlike most
individuals) also use family members, employees and trade groups to make multiple maximum contributions.
This proposal is specifically designed to massively increase contributions from these business interests.
The proposal claims the higher limits will reduce influence by independent expenditure groups. This is likely
false. Independent expenditures will continue, and in fact, some independent groups will increase spending with
a$4,900 individual cap if they oppose candidates funded by special interests that can afford the higher
individual limit.
Please vote NO on Councilmember Item#27. Special interests do not need more power at city hall.
Sincerely,
Dan Jamieson
Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 9/aaAaa-
Agenda Item No.;, 9?'2 -/d 9 )
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 Date: /a/aa a0 a- -
Dear Mayor Strickland and City Council Members: 41a9� ��� .�Og3)
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.
i
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: Andrew Einhorn <andreweinhornpt@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 11:33 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: 12.20.22 Meeting
Hi Council, I wanted to contact you and voice my opinion on two subjects. I am against giving the city attorney a raise
during a time period that non governmental employees are not receiving raises. Currently he makes a lot more money
than most. No raise!
I am against raising the amount of money council members can take during campaigns. Big business will supply council
big money and then expect favors. I know because I use to lobby council members! The citizens need to be people that
provide the input to the council members with small donations. Too often more money translates into ugly lust for
political power.
Andrew Einhorn
17391 Gibson Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: Igfroldo9d
Agenda Item No: la? as "1 b'13)
Moore, Tania
From: Walker, Renee
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:56 PM
To: AgendaAlerts@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Agenda Items#9, #27, and #30 on the City Council Meeting 12-20-2022
SUPPLEMENTAL
From:Joclyn Rabbitt-Sire<joclynsire@gmail.com> COMMUNICATION
Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:50 PM /
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Meeting 1�9 /a/A/W?
Subject:Agenda Items#9,#27, and #30 on the City Council Meeting 12-20-2022
Agenda Item No.; °
Dear City Councilmembers,
2?( 9 -/d 53,
I wish to welcome the new members on the council, and to thank the continuing three for their
steadfast service to Huntington Beach. The agenda for tonight's meeting is replete with
consequential decisions, and I wanted to take a moment to voice my concern on three of them. I will
do so briefly below, in the order in which they fall on the agenda.
Concerning agenda item #9, 22-1041 , I ask that you give more deliberation to some of your
assignments. Given the portfolio of experience each of you brings to your duties on city council, I
believe it would serve the citizens of Huntington Beach best to match up council members with
particular committees and citizens groups with which they have garnered years of experience. In
particular, I request that you reconsider assignments to the citizens groups: Homeless Task Force
and Oak View Community Meetings, and those to the council committee of Housing.
Concerning agenda item #27, 22-1093 , I am concerned about any policy that encourages individuals
to contribute more to our local campaigns, because it favors candidates who are well connected with
a large pool of wealthy donors, and penalizes those who are not. I agree that Huntington Beach has
prodigious geography to cover, but access to more money per donor is not the answer. We need to
do more to put candidates from diverse backgrounds and income levels on a level playing field
instead of mounting hurdles in their paths.
Finally, concerning agenda item #30, 22-1108 , I urge you to halt consideration and action
altogether. Our commitment to the Orange County Power Authority has made Huntington Beach a
leader in Orange County and California as a whole, by allowing citizens to choose the sources of their
electricity. Community Choice Aggregators, or CCA's, may be new to our town, but you probably
already know that they have gained popularity across California and the nation since 2010, precisely
because they have delivered on their promise of clean, reliable energy, returning profits back to
communities instead of to shareholders. There are now 19 CCA's in California in 160 towns, cities,
and counties, including Alhambra, Culver City, Downey and Santa Monica. I want to have a choice in
terms of how much of my electricity is derived from renewable sources, and I want my family, friends,
and neighbors in Huntington Beach to have that same choice. Please stay with the OCPA to ensure
this choice to all of Huntington Beach! Additionally, please do NOT move the default rate from 100%
Renewable Choice to the Basic Rate. Customers can easily make the shift to a cheaper rate
employing less renewable energy sources by using their website. Residents can also easily opt out
of OCPA there as well. However, I don't even see any reason why ratepayers would want to opt out
when the Basic Choice rate with OCPA has already reached parity with SCE. Even better, the Basic
Rate will become 2% lower than SCE's generation rates just a month from now! Staying with the
100% default rate produces city-wide benefits to public health and the environment for all residents,
as it is expected to reduce fossil fuel pollution by 1 million metric tons! That is the equivalent of taking
200,000 cars off the road in terms of air pollutants. For these reasons, I would enjoin you to maintain our
membership in the OCPA and to leave our default city rate at the 100% Renewable Choice.
i
Thanks very much for your consideration of all these matters, and thank you for your commitment to our city!
Sincerely,
Joclyn Rabbitt-Sire
2
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