HomeMy WebLinkAboutApprove for Introduction Ordinance No. 4277 Amending Chapter (2) 2000 Main Street,
��NTit GTo� Huntington Beach, CA
r d�F ��A �arE' 6� � 92648
� _ City of Huntington Beach
, T,1- PnDA/ Li_3
�UUNTV CA�\�o
a-MN-NO) ,
File #: 23-077 MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
VIA: Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: Michael J. Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Subject:
Adopt Ordinance No. 4277 Amending Chapter 1.18 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code
Relating to Anonymous Complaints - Approved for Introduction January 17, 2023 - Vote: 4-3
(Kalmick, Moser, Bolton - No)
Statement of Issue:
At the December 20, 2022 Council meeting, the City Attorney was directed by City Council to return
with an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1.18 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to
Anonymous Complaints.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Recommended Action:
Adopt Ordinance No. 4277, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 1.18
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Anonymous Complaints."
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt Ordinance 4277 Amending Chapter 1.18 relating to Anonymous Complaints
Analysis:
City Council directed the City Attorney to return to the next Council meeting with an amendment that
bans anonymous complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business violations.
Environmental Status:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 2 Printed on 2/1/2023
powered LegistarTM
File #: 23-077 MEETING DATE: 2/7/2023
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance No. 4277
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 2 Printed on 2/1/2023
poweregii,Legistar
ORDINANCE NO. 4277
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 1.18 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 1.18.025 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, is hereby
added to read as follows:
Section 1.18.025 Ban of Anonymous Complaints against Business for Municipal Code
Violations
The City will not receive anonymous complaints by anyone regarding alleged violations
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by businesses located within the City. This Section
only applies to complaints regarding businesses located within the City's commercial, mixed use
or industrial zones, and does not apply to residential zones.
Individuals wishing to report a complaint to the City must complete a form, which in
part, requires a detailed description of the alleged violation and must include a copy of the
reporting party's driver's license or other form of verified identification that enables the City to
identify the person making the complaint. The information provided will be a public record.
No member of the City shall accept, process, or investigate a complaint as described in
this Section submitted by any party who has not personally provided the required personal
identification.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February , 2023.
ATTEST.
I 4'7 ,,,JEND
64741'11. €6.44i2LIall'td Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS RM:
REVIEWED • D AP'ROVED:
1%) ity Attorney '
City Manager Nir TIATED ROVED:
City Attorney
299916/23-12301 1
Ord. No. 4277
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I,ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at
a Regular meeting thereof held on January 17, 2023, and was again read to said City
Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on February 7, 2023, and was passed and
adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all members of said City Council.
AYES: Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns
NOES: Kalmick, Moser, Bolton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I,Robin Estanislau,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington
Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby
certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in
the Huntington Beach Wave on February 16,2023. 6()-040L".
G�a7 •
In accordance with the City Charter of said City.
Robin Estanislau, City Clerk City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday,January 17, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Letter in Opposition to Agenda Item 21 (January 17, 2023)
Attachments: 23.01.17 Huntington Beach Anonymous Complaint Letter Final.pdf
From: Peter Eliasberg<PEliasberg@aclusocal.org>
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,2023 12:44 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Letter in Opposition to Agenda Item 21 (January 17,2023)
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 21 on the agenda for today's City Council meeting.
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)213.977.5228 I (f)213-201-7881
aclusocaLorq II facebook II twitter II bloq
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 Data: (/ / �3
��pnria MAm No: .
1
81
Acw FAC
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATIONSouthern California
FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
January 17, 2022
Via E-Mail
Mayor Tony Strickland
Mayor Pro Tern 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 21 (January 17, 2023)
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The ACLU of Southern California and First Amendment Coalition strongly
oppose agenda item number 21, the proposed city ordinance barring anyone from
making anonymous complaints about businesses to Code Enforcement.
Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance suffers from the very constitutional flaws
we anticipated when we submitted a letter last month in opposition to the agenda
item calling for the City Attorney to draft this ordinance.
The proposed ordinance barring anonymous complaints raises 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.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hector 0.Villagra
CHAIR Michele Goodwin VICE CHAIRS Rob Hennig and Stacy Horth-Neubert
CHAIRS EMERITI Marla 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
82
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The rationale the Council previously provided as a basis to ask the City Attorney
to draft a proposed ordinance to bar anonymous complaints to Code
Enforcement was that it is supported by the Sixth Amendment's right of a
defendant to face 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 Conf 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 (1967). "The right to
petition traces its origins to Magna Carta, which confirmed the right of barons to
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
83
Page 3
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
the fundamental right to present concerns to government agencies." Evans v.
Evans, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1172 (2008).
The First Amendment also protects the right of anonymous speech. Courts have
repeatedly invalidated provisions that burden the ability of persons 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 their 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.'
It is not clear from the ordinance exactly how the form must be submitted. But if it requires
submission of complaints in person at City Hall—as was called for December 20, 2022 Agenda
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
84
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 to 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 vote to reject the ordinance
because it raises 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
Item Report, it 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.
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 be
triggered only by code violations.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
85
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday,January 17, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: New code enforcement rules.
From:Craig Frampton<cframpton143@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 17,2023 11:32 AM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: New code enforcement rules.
I do think there should be protection for tenants reporting code violations on landlords. Thanks Craig Frampton
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 1 oa3
Afonds Item No4 2-1 fr3 -o/?)
1
86
Switzer, Donna
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday,January 17, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Agenda Alerts I
Subject: FW: NO vote on Councilmember Item 42frat the 1-17-23 council meeting
From: Dan Jamieson<danjamieson4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,January 16, 2023 12:07 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: NO vote on Councilmember Item#20 at the 1-17-23 council meeting
Dear HB City Councilmembers:
I urge a NO vote on Councilmember Item#)at the 1-17-23 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, discriminatory, likely illegal and smacks of political retaliation.
The ordinance would adversely impact residents who have mobility issues and elderly folks who may find it
difficult to travel to city hall in person.
It would also open up the possibility of harassment against those making complaints. This harassment could
extend to city employees. The Huntington Beach Management Employees Organization says the proposed
ordinance will harm the ability of city employees to conduct enforcement inquiries by requiring them to
disclose personal information in identifying compliance issues. (See 12-20-22 comment from Debra Jubinsky,
HBMOE president). Code complaints may come from neighbors of offending properties or employees of a
business who may need to avoid conflict with the business owner. Forcing public disclosure of the complainant
will force many residents, employees and other businesses to remain silent and suffer from ongoing code
violations of a nearby business.
Furthermore,the proposed ordinance would be unconstitutional. (See 12-19-22 letter from the ACLU of
Southern California and the First Amendment Coalition.) If approved, the ordinance would be challenged in
court, incurring unnecessary legal costs.
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.) SUPPLEMENTAL
Please vote NO on Item#20. COMMUNICATION
Mwting Date: i b 7-/23
Sincerely,
Agenda!tern Na. A - y I
Dan Jamieson
Huntington Beach
2
88
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: agenda items
From: Lynne Deakers<Icdeakers@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 8:20 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: agenda items
I am writing as a concerned resident of Huntington Beach. I would like to voice my opinion on several agenda
items to be voted on at the Feb 7th meeting.
Item 11: I urge a NO vote on this item. Many people in Huntington Beach cannot afford to make such a sizable
contribution to the candidate of their choice. What kind of influence would these sizable contributions be
purchasing?
Item 12: I urge a NO vote on this item. This will harm our community. There are reportable items like code
violations in restaurants which will be observed by staff but never reported for fear of retribution. This would
likely result in litigation, including lawsuits from the ACLU.
Item 30: I urge a NO vote. This is an unnecessary restriction. For example,the rainbow flag is a symbol of
inclusion that indicates "are all welcome in our city".
Item 32:I am FOR resuming the practice of making city council meetings (and city
boards/commissions/committees) accessible remotely via Zoom. It has helped increase civic participation for
those who cannot physically attend.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns reagrding these items.
Lynne Deakers
Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting
Agenda Item No.: o??
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Comments for 2/7 meeting
From: imthewizardofroz<imthewizardofroz@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 6:25 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Comments for 2/7 meeting
Please register my comments into the record regarding the following agenda items:
Item 11: Final vote to drastically increase campaign contribution limits, from$620 per individual to $5500 per
individual. (AGAINST)
Item 12: Final vote to ban anonymous code enforcement reports. (AGAINST)
Item 30: New flag ordinance to ban commemorative flags to be flown on city flag poles.(AGAINST)
Item 32: This item would resume the recently discontinued practice of making council meetings (and city
boards/commissions/committees) accessible remotely via Zoom. (FOR)
Rosalyn Esposito
18842 Florida Street
#21
HB 92648
All the Best!
Roz Esposito
(she/her)
323-839-7903
"She who can see the invisible can do the impossible."Frank Gaines
Roz Esposito
Singer,Playwright,Composer,Lyricist
www.RozEsposito.com
Rev Dr.Roz Esposito,Intuitive Life Coach,New Thought Minister,Licensed Spiritual Counselor www.YourSoulCode.com
Author
Laughing Your Way To Loving Yourself
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note8.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: c / 0a3
Agenda Item No.:1612- (073 -023)
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 7:07 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW:Agenda item 12 - 2/7/23 meeting - oppose
From: Bob Banzett<bob4change@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 4, 2023 12:57 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:Agenda item 12 -2/7/23 meeting-oppose
Dear Council Members,
I write again in opposition to the anonymous complaint ban(Item 12). As I pointed out, the ban essentially
prevents those who know best (employees, neighbors) from making complaints about serious violations that can
endanger our health- food safety violations, underage drinking violations or protect the access rights of those
with disabilities (among whom are many injured veterans).
What's more, this ordinance is based on anonymous complaints to council members. Who are the businesses
who complained? Were the complaints against them actually frivolous or did they indeed violate codes? Do
council members have any connection to the businesses (campaign contributions, etc). You say you want
transparency, but you have been opaque. Why are they not named? Fear of retaliation?
Please let your common sense prevail and vote no.
Thank you for your attention,
Robert Banzett
Huntington Beach resident
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: c2/3��a�
Agenda Item No.; ia(23 . OR)
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 7:07 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Feb 7 Meeting Agenda Items
Original Message
From:James Taylor<jtaylor2@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 4:11 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Feb 7 Meeting Agenda Items
Dear City Council Members:
As a 45-year resident of HB, I have comments on several of the agenda items on the February 7 agenda:
Item 11 — I don't support the idea of allowing more money in politics, particularly from out of the City. This increase
will allow special interests to have even more influence on our City affairs. A broader contribution base of relatively
small donors would be much more representative of our community. Please do not approve this increase.
Item 12 — Requiring in-person complaints will discourage people who have the most visibility into code violations from
pointing them out. For example, restaurant workers who observe dangerous health code violations may be hesitant to
report them for fear of losing their jobs. Also, neighbors who observe violation of building codes may not report them
for fear of retribution. This proposal sounds like a very bad idea.
Item 30 — I support this one. We should not be flying special interest flags, which we may not all agree with, on city flag
poles. POW/MIA flags should be OK and non-controversial, but all others should not be allowed.
Item 31 —Although I do not support the State housing regulations being challenged, spending more City money to
challenge them seems like a waste of taxpayer money and staff time. The current City Attorney has not had a record of
success with these challenges, and there is no reason to believe the same City Attorney will do any better in the future.
We should accept the fact that these regulations exist, and try to find a way to comply with them in an absolutely
minimal way. Money could be more productively spent by exploring how we could best comply with the letter(if not
the spirit)of the rules.
Item 32 — Given that the COVID threat is much reduced (especially for people who get the available boosters), I see no
reason to reverse the Mayor's decree.
James J Taylor
16851 Phelps Lane
Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:. G2/?/x3
1 Agenda item No.;, I (;3 - O?3)
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 7:44 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW:Vote NO on Consent Calendar item #12 at the 2-7-23 council meeting.
From: Dan Jamieson<danjamieson4@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 12:34 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:Vote NO on Consent Calendar item#12 at the 2-7-23 council meeting.
Dear HB city council:
Please vote NO on Consent Calendar item#12 at the 2-7-23 council meeting.
The item would prevent anonymous code complaints against HB businesses.
Taking this step is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
No justification has been offered for this drastic step other than vague reference to a business or businesses that
claimed to have suffered politically inspired harassment via code complaints. If such harassment occurred, a
single visit from a code officer would have handled it.
If approved, the item will disadvantage many residents who will be unable or unwilling to travel to city hall, file
a complaint, and show identifying information that will be made public. As such,the item will be challenged in
court, leading to unnecessary litigation.
Please vote NO on Consent Calendar item#12.
Sincerely,
Dan Jamieson
Roxanne McMillen
Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: aMa083
Agenda Item No.; pia ( 3. 62? )
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 7:47 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: City council meeting February 7
Original Message
From: Barbara Shapiro<bshap2000@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 5:54 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: City council meeting February 7
I have concerns about several of the item agendas for this Tuesday
Agenda item number 32
Refusing public comments via Zoom .
Zoom or phone is the only way many citizens can attend a city Council meeting.To not allow this will stifle the voices of
many citizens including nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers,firefighters police officers and other public
servants due to evening work hours .Other citizens are unable to attend due to health concerns since masking is no
longer required in the city Council meetings.Those who are especially vulnerable to the Covid infection such as the
elderly, immunocompromised,transplant recipients or those on chemotherapy are putting their lives at risk to attend a
meeting .As you should be aware, more than 4000 Americans are still dying every week of Covid similar to a 911 loss
every week. Vaccines are not as protective especially to the immunocompromised. With the new variants you may or
may not be aware that monoclonal antibodies no longer work.Your job as elected servants is to welcome voices of all
citizens, not stifle them you are elected as a representative not as a gatekeeper to public opinion.
Agenda item 12 anonymous complaints for code violations Free speech is protected by the first amendment . We want
citizens to be able to report particularly health and safety issues without fear of repercussion from their employer.1 see
this as a free speech issue and will likely result in the city of Huntington Beach getting involved in a very expensive legal
fight as this is unconstitutional.
Agenda item 11 changing campaign contributions from $620 to$11,000 would allow individuals and potentially
corporate donors from out of the area to contribute large amounts of money to manipulate our local issues. Illegal
campaign contributions are very likely. Local politics should remain local.
Dr Joseph and Barbara Shapiro
4231 Silliman drive
Huntington Beach
Sent from my iPad SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: a2 9/
Agenda Item No.; 74ia(2.�— o7?)
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: February 7 meeting
Original Message
From: Pam Taylor<catspjs@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 7:12 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: February 7 meeting
Dear City Council Members,
Concerning Agenda Item 11
I think it is a bad idea to increase the allowed amount of campaign contributions.This invites influence from a small
number of people who then expect votes for their special interests. Please vote no.
Concerning Item 12
Anonymous complaints protect employees from retribution from employers. Please vote no.
Concerning Item 31
A previous attempt to sue the state ended in a loss and spent a substantial amount of city money. Clearly a waste of
taxpayer dollars. Please don't do it again.
Pamela Taylor
16851 Phelps Lane
Huntington Beach
Resident and Homeowner since 1976
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: a/-9-/aoa 3
1 Agenda Item No.; /a(. . �77�/
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: City Council Agenda Items February 7, 2023
From: Linda Moon <Isapiro048@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 8:42 PM SUPPLEMENTAL
CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:City Council Agenda Items February 7, 2023 COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date. 0A0g3
L
Dear Mayor Strickland and City Council Members: Agenda Item No.; /A-(23 - 0??)
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 have serious concerns about several items on the February 7, 2023 agenda. I urge your careful
consideration and measured approach in moving forward with these proposals. Of greatest concern to me are
the following:
Item 11, An ordinance raising 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. I urge you to vote NO on enactment of this ordinance.
Item 12, An ordinance prohibiting anonymous reports against businesses and requiring identification and
public disclosure of reporters, will be intimidating to the public and have a chilling effect on legitimate reports
regarding potentially dangerous Code violations. The public should not be made to fear retaliation or
retribution for reporting dangerous conditions or be required to submit to public disclosure of their identity and
address. The City Code Enforcement employees can quickly determine whether reports are valid or
frivolous. The ordinance language 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. A member of the public providing
information for investigation by a city agency is not the official "accuser" as the term is used in criminal
prosecution. The City itself would be the complainant in a Code Enforcement action and would be charged
with making its own investigation. The reporting person is not even an official witness, only a reporter. Only if
the City itself finds a violation of a Code would any action be taken against a business. The ordinance as
written will only have the effect of discouraging legitimate reports. I urge you to vote NO on enactment of this
ordinance.
Item 30, A proposal by Councilmember Burns to allow only government and POW/MIA flags to be flown at""
City buildings is obviously targeted at the Pride flag allowed for a few weeks of the year. The council action
allowing the flying of the Pride flag was a small act, intended to show compassion and demonstrate that
Huntington Beach is a welcoming safe place for all. The flag was perceived by most residents as a minor
unthreatening symbol of acceptance. An ordinance disallowing the Pride flag, however, would have far more
i
significance than the action authorizing the flag, as it sends a clear message of rejection and
discrimination. Whatever your feelings about the Pride movement, this ordinance will result in the City being
publicly branded as discriminatory and unwelcoming. I urge you to reject this proposed ordinance.
Item 31, Authorizing the City attorney to take all actions necessary to challenge the requirements of AB9 and
SB 10, will most certainly result in unnecessary significant cost to the city. 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.
The argument that more housing in Huntington Beach is incorrect and uninformed. We have had an increase in
our city's population and there is almost no housing availability for workers needed in the city, or anyone
earning less than$100,000 per year. The existing population has also created the need for housing for
households it created. The children who grew up in your homes become adults needing their own homes,
adding to the number of household dwellings required. You want your children and grandchildren to remain
here in Huntington Beach so they will need housing. Allowing for Duplexes,Accessory Dwelling Units and
subdivision of residential lots is the least impactful way to increase available housing without drastically
changing the character of our neighborhoods. If you do not want to allow high density residential construction,
you need to at least accept the minor impacts of the new state legislation. I urge your rejection of this item.
Item 32, Restoring remote public participation in City Council meetings is essential to allow the public the
opportunity to address the council, other than in person or in writing. Many residents, including me, are unable
to address the council in person, for numerous reasons. In my case, I care for my 99 year old mother and cannot
expose myself to any viruses that may be present in the council chamber. Other residents have transportation,
employment, disability and child/elder care responsibilities that make in person appearances impossible. You
have all championed expansion of the public's right to speak at council meetings. I urge you to support
restoration of remote participation.
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: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW:Tuesday 2/7/2023 City Council Agenda
Original Message
From:Thomas Brown<tbrown@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 8:44 PM SUPPLEMENTAL
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:Tuesday 2/7/2023 City Council Agenda COMMUNICATION
To Huntington Beach City Council, Meeting Date. gfr a 7j
I would like to express my thoughts on select items on the 2/7/2023 agenda.
Agenda �?7)
A NO vote on Item 11: {
This item refers to a final vote to increase the limit of campaign contributions from an individual.The current limit of
$620 per individual would be increased to$5500 per individual, which would represent a significant increase. An
increase in campaign contribution limits can be seen as unfair to poor citizens because it gives more power and
influence to those who have more money.When individuals with financial resources can make larger campaign
contributions, they have the potential to shape election outcomes and have their voices heard more loudly than those
without similar financial resources.This can lead to a situation where the concerns and interests of the wealthy are
prioritized over those of the less fortunate, creating an imbalance of power in the political system. For this reason, an
increase in campaign contribution limits can be seen as a threat to the principle of political equality, as it gives more
weight to the opinions of the wealthy, and less weight to the opinions of the less fortunate.
A No vote on Item 12:
Banning anonymous code enforcement reports could violate the First Amendment right to free speech and discourage
individuals from reporting code violations out of fear of retaliation.The measure also carries a significant risk of
litigation, including a lawsuit from the ACLU, which would result in significant legal costs and resources for the
organization.
Instead of a ban on anonymous reporting, it may be more effective to consider alternative solutions that preserve the
benefits of anonymous reporting, such as implementing robust whistleblower protection policies.
A NO vote on Item 30:
Banning commemorative flags on city flag poles goes against the principles of diversity and inclusivity that our city prides
itself on.The Pride flag,which was the reason for the introduction of this ordinance, symbolizes the struggles and
victories of the LGBTQ+community and is a symbol of hope and acceptance. By banning it from being flown on city flag
poles,we send a message of exclusion and disregard for the rights of marginalized groups.
Instead of suppressing the display of certain flags,we should embrace the rich tapestry of identities and perspectives
represented in our city.
A YES vote on Item 32:
Item 32 is a commendable proposal that aims to make council meetings more accessible to a wider range of citizens.The
practice of remote access via Zoom,which was discontinued recently, has proven to be beneficial in increasing civic
participation during the pandemic. It has provided an opportunity for those who are unable to physically attend public
1
meetings, as well as those with busy schedules,to take part in important discussions and decision-making processes. By
resuming this practice,the city council would demonstrate its commitment to promoting transparency, inclusivity, and
participation in the democratic process.Overall, I strongly support Item 32 and believe it will have a positive impact on
the community.
Thomas Brown
Huntington Beach Resident for 20+years
2
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:55 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting Feb 7, 2023
From: aarvizu@socal.rr.com <aarvizu@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 8:58 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: City Council Meeting Feb 7, 2023
Regarding the following agenda items:
Item 11. Campaign contributions per individuals should be kept at the minimum $620. There are already way
too many signs and TV ads flooding our streets and airwaves during EVERY election cycle.
Item 12. Banning anonymous reporting of code violations is not recommended. Many citizens may be fearful of
being singled out personally for becoming a whistle blower. The council should be informed of any code
violations, anonymous or otherwise.
Item. 32. Please reinstate the remote public participation option for council meetings on Zoom. As a senior
citizen I believe that it is an excellent tool for getting personally involved in local civic matters. A recent illness
has left me immunocompromised and I'm sure there are many others with similar maladies.
I am a 48 year resident of Huntington Beach.
Al Arvizu
Ph: 714-514-1148
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: a/3/aoa3
1 Agenda Item No.; '$i (,23 'OF?)
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: regarding tonight's agenda
From: Mary Ann Celinder<macelinder@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:20 AM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: regarding tonight's agenda
Item 11: I strongly oppose increasing campaign contribution limits. It would make it harder for unconnected
candidates to run against those funded by special interests. The special interests would have more say about
how their candidates would vote. It's setting them up for corruption. I also feel the council should be divided
into parts of the city so the campaigns aren't city wide and areas could elect people to represent their part of the
city.
Item 12: Anonymous reports would lead to fake reports. A person must be identified, though their ID should be
confidential.
Item 30: Don't regress the progress we've made in accepting all. All must feel welcomed in our increasingly
diverse population and feel comfortable to be themselves.
Item 32: I appreciate the opportunity to view council meetings via zoom. It increases transparency which is
extremely important in city government. It's rare for me to have the chance to go in person. Anyone afraid of
being on zoom is trying to hide their agenda. Keep our meeting accessible to all.
Mary Ann Celinder
21341 Fleet Lane
Huntington Beach Ca 92646
cell 714 504 8361
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 07/7/�va3
Agenda Item No.; /a D��)
(23 -
U�1T�N6T�� 2000 Main Street,
c` yam' Huntington Beach,CA
648
�` ' City of Huntington Beach fPPRov�92
oe t
/N77poouc77a At y-3
vc Feg
�, *°
�ouNTv tad`. (MLnieg ND(SE ,
$O1.71)At NO)
File #: 23-017 MEETING DATE: 1/17/2023
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
VIA: Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: Michael J. Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Subject:
Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4277 Amending Chapter 1.18 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code Relating to Anonymous Complaints
Statement of Issue:
At the December 20, 2022 Council meeting, the City Attorney was directed by City Council to return
with an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 .18 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to
Anonymous Complaints.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Recommended Action:
Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4277, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 1.18 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Anonymous
Complaints."
Alternative Action(s):
Do not Approve for Introduction Ordinance 4277 Amending Chapter 1.18 relating to Anonymous
Complaints
Analysis:
City Council directed the City Attorney to return to the next Council meeting with an amendment that
bans anonymous complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business violations.
Environmental Status:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 2 Printed on 1/11/2023
powere234 Legistarr"^
File #: 23-017 MEETING DATE: 1/17/2023
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance No. 4277
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 2 Printed on 1/11/2023
powersy Legistar'"^
ORDINANCE NO. 4277
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 1.18 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 1.18.025 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, is hereby
added to read as follows:
Section 1.18.025 Ban of Anonymous Complaints against Business for Municipal Code
Violations
The City will not receive anonymous complaints by anyone regarding alleged violations
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by businesses located within the City. This Section
only applies to complaints regarding businesses located within the City's commercial, mixed use
or industrial zones,and does not apply to residential zones.
Individuals wishing to report a complaint to the City must complete a form, which in
part, requires a detailed description of the alleged violation and must include a copy of the
reporting party's driver's license or other form of verified identification that enables the City to
identify the person making the complaint. The information provided will be a public record.
No member of the City shall accept, process, or investigate a complaint as described in
this Section submitted by any party who has not personally provided the required personal
identification.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2023.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS RM:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
ity Attorney VU./
City Manager TIATED A ROVED:
City Attorney
299916/23-12301 1
80
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Letter in Opposition to Agenda Item 21 (January 17, 2023)
Attachments: 23.01.17 Huntington Beach Anonymous Complaint Letter Final.pdf
From: Peter Eliasberg<PEliasberg@aclusocal.org>
Sent:Tuesday,January 17, 2023 12:44 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Letter in Opposition to Agenda Item 21 (January 17, 2023)
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 21 on the agenda for today's City Council meeting.
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) 213.977.5228 I (f)213-201-7881
aclusocal.org facebook II twitter Il 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
pAstakg Date: 1 —
Works +No; .D 1 9
.._.... _
Acw FAC
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
Southern
California FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
January 17, 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 21 (January 17, 2023)
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The ACLU of Southern California and First Amendment Coalition strongly
oppose agenda item number 21 , the proposed city ordinance barring anyone from
making anonymous complaints about businesses to Code Enforcement.
Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance suffers from the very constitutional flaws
we anticipated when we submitted a letter last month in opposition to the agenda
item calling for the City Attorney to draft this ordinance.
The proposed ordinance barring anonymous complaints raises 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.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hector 0.Villagra
CHAIR Michele Goodwin VICE CHAIRS Rob Hennig and Stacy Horth-Neubert
CHAIRS EMERITI Marla Stone Shari Leinwand Stephen Rohde Danny Goldberg Allan K.Jonas* Burt Lancaster* Irving Lichtenstein,MD*
Jarl 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
ANALYSIS
The rationale the Council previously provided as a basis to ask the City Attorney
to draft a proposed ordinance to bar anonymous complaints to Code
Enforcement was that it is supported by the Sixth Amendment's right of a
defendant to face 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 Conf 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
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Page 3
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
the fundamental right to present concerns to government agencies." Evans v.
Evans, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1 172 (2008).
The First Amendment also protects the right of anonymous speech. Courts have
repeatedly invalidated provisions that burden the ability of persons 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 their 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.'
It is not clear from the ordinance exactly how the form must be submitted. But if it requires
submission of complaints in person at City Hall —as was called for December 20, 2022 Agenda
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 to 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 vote to reject the ordinance
because it raises 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
Item Report, it 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.
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 be
triggered only by code violations.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday,January 17, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: New code enforcement rules.
From:Craig Frampton<cframpton143@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 17, 2023 11:32 AM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: New code enforcement rules.
I do think there should be protection for tenants reporting code violations on landlords. Thanks Craig Frampton
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting tie: k i g IPoa3
Agate Nem No.; (;3oI )
Switzer, Donna
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Agenda Alerts a I
Subject: FW: NO vote on Councilmember Item#)Plat the 1-17-23 council meeting
From: Dan Jamieson <danjamieson4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,January 16, 2023 12:07 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: NO vote on Councilmember Item #20 at the 1-17-23 council meeting
Dear HB City Councilmembers:
al
I urge a NO vote on Councilmember Item#) at the 1-17-23 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, discriminatory, likely illegal and smacks of political retaliation.
The ordinance would adversely impact residents who have mobility issues and elderly folks who may find it
difficult to travel to city hall in person.
It would also open up the possibility of harassment against those making complaints. This harassment could
extend to city employees. The Huntington Beach Management Employees Organization says the proposed
ordinance will harm the ability of city employees to conduct enforcement inquiries by requiring them to
disclose personal information in identifying compliance issues. (See 12-20-22 comment from Debra Jubinsky,
HBMOE president). Code complaints may come from neighbors of offending properties or employees of a
business who may need to avoid conflict with the business owner. Forcing public disclosure of the complainant
will force many residents, employees and other businesses to remain silent and suffer from ongoing code
violations of a nearby business.
Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would be unconstitutional. (See 12-19-22 letter from the ACLU of
Southern California and the First Amendment Coalition.) If approved, the ordinance would be challenged in
court, incurring unnecessary legal costs.
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.) SUPPLEMENTAL
Please vote NO on Item #20. COMMUNICATION
Sincerely,
Meeting Date: I// 7/23
1 Agenda Item No.; A (?3 - oI )
Dan Jamieson
Huntington Beach
2
Anaheim Bulletin
1920 Main St., Suite 225
Irvine, Ca 92614
714-796-2209
5190751
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY OF PROOF OF PUBLICATION
CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
2000 MAIN ST Legal No. 0011586076
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648-2763 H.B.Wave
PUBLISH DATE: 02/16/2023
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
LEGAL NOTICE
). 4277-Amen. Ch. 1.18 of HBMC Anonymous ORDINANCE NO.4277
Adopted by the City Council on February 7,2023
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 1.18 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SYNOPSIS:
SS. Ordinance No. 4277 amends Chapter 1.18 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code to ban anonymous complaints by individuals to Code
County of Orange Enforcement about alleged business violations.
COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Ball votet a regular meeting held February 7, 2023 by the following roll
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and AYES: Van Der Mark,Strickland,McKeon,Burns
not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I
am the principal clerk of the Anaheim Bulletin, a NOES: Kalmick,Moser,Bolton
newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of ABSENT: None
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of This ordinance is effective March 9,2023.
Orange, State of California, on December 28, 1951, Case CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
No. A-21021 in and for the City of Anaheim, County of HUNTINGTON BEC ,STREET 92648
Orange, State of California; that the notice, of which the 714-536-5227
annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in ROBIN ESTANISLAU,CITY CLERK
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
02/16/2023
I certify(or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct:
Executed at Anaheim, Orange County, California, on
Date: February 16, 2023.
Signature
LP,-'215aC 1