Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4326 Adding Chapter 1 (2)
"� 2000 Main Street, � INGr04a g Huntin ton Beach,CA 141111.1114 OQ ?pOARGM'�..BF 92648 i-----� Cityof Huntington Beach 9 _ _ APPROVED FOR ADOPTION 9�cF�oUNTv�P\FOQ 4-3 (MOSER,BOLTON, KALMICK-NO) File #: 24-634 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager PREPARED BY: Jennifer Carey, Acting Deputy City Manager Subiect: Adopt Ordinance No. 4326 Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents' Right to Know City -Approved for Introduction September 3, 2024 -Vote 4 -3 (Moser, Bolton, Kalmick - No) Statement of Issue: On August 6, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager's Office to work with the City Attorney's Office to draft an Ordinance declaring that Huntington Beach is a "Parents' Right to Know City" in response to Governor Newsom signing Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955) into law. • Financial Impact: There is no financial impact to adopt this Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance No. 4326, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents' Right to Know City." Alternative Action(s): Do not approve Ordinance No. 4326, and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: On August 6, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager's Office to work with the City Attorney's Office to draft an Ordinance declaring that Huntington Beach is a "Parents' Right to Know City" in response to Governor Newsom signing Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955) into law. Ordinance No. 4326 is provided for City Council consideration. Suggested Findings include: A. State Assembly Bill ("AB") 1955, signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 15, 2024, City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 9/11/2024 powered,*LegistarTM File #: 24-634 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 prohibits public schools from adopting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation requiring an employee to disclose any information related to a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the minor student's consent. B. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts. C. The matters of"student sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" contained in the prohibitions of AB 1955 are not related to "education." but instead are subject matters that are extremely "private" and highly "personal" for the parent and child. D. The State may not claim control over education as a pretext or a guise to invade or regulate the "private" and highly "personal" matters that naturally belong to and should remain within the parent/child relationship. Accordingly, as the State's attempt to legislate the parent/child relationship by way of AB 1955 is an illegal violation of the California and United States constitutions and not "education," as such, AB 1955 does not preempt local regulation and may be subject to legal challenges of local authorities, parents, and/or children. E. Although the State may regulate "education," AB 1955 exceeds the State Legislature's authority to regulate public schools under the California and United States Constitutions and infringes on parents' constitutional rights by prohibiting schools from adopting policies that would require notifying parents of"private" and highly "personal" matters such as when a parents' child may be at increased risk of psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and extremely high rates of suicide and suicide attempts, no matter how young the child is, without the child's consent and is not a matter of statewide concern. F. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized parents' constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).) This includes the right to direct their children's upbringing and education. ( Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535 (1925).) G. Parental rights are not secondary to the desires of government agencies. In Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602-603 (1979), the United States Supreme Court declared, "our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is 'the mere creature of the State' and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally 'have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations'...[t]he statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." H. In David v. Kaulukukui, 38 F.4th 792, 799 (2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 9/11/2024 powereAl,LegistarTM File #: 24-634 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 Ninth Circuit observed, "[t]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children - is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. Our case law has long recognized this right for parents and children under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." I. The City of Huntington Beach has nearly 200,000 residents comprised of parents and children. There are 35 elementary schools and five high schools located in the City. By population, Huntington Beach is the 23rd largest city, or is within the top 4% largest cities, among a total of 482 cities in the State of California. J. The City of Huntington Beach was constituted by its people and incorporated on February 17, 1909. Since adoption of its Charter on May 17, 1937, the City of Huntington Beach is a Charter City created by the consent of the people within its jurisdiction and authorized by Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution to exclusively govern municipal affairs. K. Charter Cities "are distinct individual entities and are,not connected political subdivisions of the state." (Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, 66 Cal.App.5th 429, 459 (2021)). "It is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations." (Id .) Charter Cities are creatures of the state constitution, formed by the authority of the people. "Charter Cities are specifically authorized by our state constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to those matters deemed municipal affairs." (City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla, 46 Cal.App.5th. 902, 909 (2020).) As a Charter City, Huntington Beach is a city of and by the people. Its people, including parents and children, are directly affected by AB 1955. L. The protection of parents and children in the City from interference by the State over"a ' student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" is a municipal affair, not a statewide concern. There can be no greater example of a municipal affair than the regulation of Huntington Beach citizens private and highly personal subject of"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" that should be, and remain, between a parent and a child. The people of Huntington Beach have a right to govern Huntington Beach municipal affairs and challenge the State's attempt to assert authority of municipal affairs. M. As a Charter City, that derives its power from the consent of the people, the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest in protecting the rights of parents of minor children residing within its jurisdiction, and it has a direct interest in challenging the State's actions that are demonstrably driving large economic producers out of California. Environmental Status: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and I5060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 9/11/2024 powerecithilf LegistarTM File #: 24-634 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 Strategic Plan Goal: Non Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Ordinance No. 4326, City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 9/11/2024 powered'LegistarTM ORDINANCE NO. 4326 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 1.23 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL • CODE RELATING TO PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW CITY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding Chapter 1.23 to read as follows: CHAPTER 1.23 HUNTINGTON BEACH PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW CITY 1.23.010 Findings. A. State Assembly Bill ("AB") 1955, signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 15, 2024,prohibits public schools from adopting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation requiring an employee to disclose any information related to a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the minor student's consent. B. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts. C. The matters of"student sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" contained in the prohibitions of AB 1955 are not related to "education."but instead are subject matters that are extremely"private"and highly"personal" for the parent and - child. D. The State may not claim control over education as a pretext or a guise to invade or regulate the "private" and highly "personal"matters that naturally belong to and should remain within the parent/child relationship. Accordingly, as the State's attempt to legislate the parent/child relationship by way of AB 1955 is an illegal violation of the California and United States constitutions and not"education," as such, AB 1955 does not preempt local regulation and may be subject to legal challenges of local authorities, parents, and/or children. E. Although the State may regulate "education," AB 1955 exceeds the State Legislature's authority to regulate public schools under the California and United States Constitutions and infringes on parents' constitutional rights by prohibiting schools from adopting policies that would require notifying parents of"private" and highly"personal"matters such as when a parents' child may be at increased risk of psychological, emotional, and ORDINANCE NO. 4326 physical harassment and abuse, and extremely high rates of suicide and suicide attempts, no matter how young the child is, without the child's consent and is not a matter of statewide concern. F. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law." (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized parents' constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).) This includes the right to direct their children's upbringing and education. (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925).) G. Parental rights are not secondary to the desires of government agencies. In Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602-603 (1979),the United States Supreme Court declared, "our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is 'the mere creature of the State' and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally 'have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations'...[t]he statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." H. In David v. Kaulukukui, 38 F.4th 792, 799 (2022),the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed, "[t]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. Our case law has long recognized this right for parents and children under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." I. The City of Huntington Beach has nearly 200,000 residents comprised of parents and children. There are 35 elementary schools and five high schools located in the City. By population, Huntington Beach is the 23rd largest city, or is within the top 4% largest cities, among a total of 482 cities in the State of California. J. The City of Huntington Beach was constituted by its people and incorporated on February 17, 1909. Since adoption of its Charter on May 17, 1937,the City of Huntington Beach is a Charter City created by the consent of the people within its jurisdiction and authorized by Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution to exclusively govern municipal affairs. K. Charter Cities "are distinct individual entities and are not connected political subdivisions of the state." (Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, 66 Cal.App.5th 429, 459 (2021)). "It is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations." (Id.) Charter Cities are creatures of the state constitution, formed by the authority of the people. "Charter Cities are specifically authorized by our state constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to those matters deemed municipal affairs." (City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla, 46 Cal.App.5th. 902, 909 350455/24-15205 2 • ORDINANCE NO. 4326 (2020).) As a Charter City, Huntington Beach is a city of and by the people. Its people, including parents and children, are directly affected by AB 1955. L. The protection of parents and children in the City from interference by the State over"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression"is a municipal affair, not a statewide concern. There can be no greater example of a municipal affair than the regulation of Huntington Beach citizens private and highly personal subject of"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression"that should be, and remain,between a parent and a child. The people of Huntington Beach have a right to govern Huntington Beach municipal affairs and challenge the State's attempt to assert authority of municipal affairs. - M. As a Charter City,that derives its power from the consent of the people, the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest in protecting the rights of parents of minor children residing within its jurisdiction, and it has a direct interest in challenging the State's actions that are demonstrably driving large economic producers out of California. 1.23.020 Huntington Beach is a "Parents' Right to Know" City. A. For the purposes of this Chapter, "Parents" shall refer to parents and/or legal guardians. B. Parents have a right to know about their child's "sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression"without the interference,prohibition, and/or inhibition presented by AB 1955. C. Based on the findings in Section 1.23.010 above,the City of Huntington Beach, California is hereby declared a"Parents' Right to Know" city. D. No educators in the City of Huntington Beach, including but not limited to instructors, counselors, or other adults entrusted with the teaching or caring of children, who work in the City's Libraries, Parks, City Recreational Facilities, Community Services Facilities, or other City facilities or City sponsored programming shall withhold any information related to a child's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to Parents of said children with or without the child's consent. 1.23.030 Legal Challenge. A. Based on the findings in Section 1.23.010 above, the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest in protecting its Parents, children, and the City's economy by the impact of this State legislation, and therefore the City of Huntington Beach has legal standing, as claimed, emphasized, and asserted herein, to challenge AB 1955. B. Upon a majority vote of the City Council,the City Attorney may initiate a legal action on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach against the State to challenge AB 1955. 350455/24-15205 3 ORDINANCE NO. 4326 C. Alternatively, upon majority vote of the City Council,the City Attorney may join the City to other legal actions of other jurisdictions, agencies, or individuals challenging AB 1955, and the City Attorney may initiate legal action against the State on behalf of a City resident who is a Parent of a minor student in a public school in Huntington Beach alleging violations of their rights as a result of AB 1955. D. Per Resolution No. 2015-61, The City Attorney may immediately engage in defense of the City in any legal challenge brought by the State or other agency for the City's adoption of this Ordinance. 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. 17th day of September , 2024. 411 ATTEST: . ft' L, q6-10-120.-44) Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIE AND PRO D: City Attorney City Manager 350455/24-15205 4 Ord. No. 4326 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 September 3,2024, and was again read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on September 17, 2024, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Bums,Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon NOES: Moser, Bolton, Kalmick 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 September 26,2024. 6c2eAtti e6-1114,Utod In accordance with the City Charter of said City. a 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 From: Fikes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW:Ordinance No.4326 Date: Thursday,September 12,2024 9:54:04 AM From:ginger sammito<ginger@sammito.net> Sent: Monday,September 9, 2024 12:28 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Ordinance No.4326. First,thank you for boldly fighting back against the state's overreach with respect to our children. God Bless you all! We too are looking for a path to keep our children safe within the school systems in this state and have followed your ordinance as a model. Hope you don't mind me asking you a question on the ordinance. My question is about the weight of Huntington Beach being a Charter City. Did being a Charter vs General Law have any influence on whether the ordinance would be a viable option to press back? Thank you so much. Ginger Sammito ginger@sammito.net (530) 598-9474 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 9/17/2024 12 (24-634) Agenda item No., From: Levin.Shannon To: sunnlementalcommesurfcity-hb.orq Subject Fwd:Parents Right to Know Ordinance Date: Friday,September 13,2024 7:02:49 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Michelle Larsson <misunsetca@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday,September 12, 2024 8:12:25 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Parents Right to Know Ordinance Council members,Thank you to the 4 Councilmembers who actually care about children&parents in our city. To the 3 opposing this ordinance: shame on you for having no morals or family values. ML Voter/Property Owner/Resident/Tax payer From: Michele Burgess To: suoolementalcomm#surfcity-hb.orq;citvcouncil(alsurfcity-hb.orq Subject 9/17/24 CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AGENDA ITEM#12,FILE#24-634 Date: Friday,September 13,2024 10:38:02 AM Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-08-30 at 3.29.17 PM.onq To refresh your memory, these are the two letters I sent previously regarding this disgusting issue. Obviously, I'm still vigorously opposed to what you're doing, and it's probably also illegal. FOR AGENDA ITEM #20, 9/3/2024 To the MAGA 4+1: At the August 6 meeting you claimed your ridiculous and unlawful ordinance would apply to educators in schools, now you sneak in extra language also applying it to those who work in the city's libraries, parks, recreational and community service facilities and programs, ad infinitum. Did you think no one would notice? We are watching you every minute because you cannot be trusted. What the hell is wrong with you people? This isn't Nazi Germany, where friends, relatives, and fellow citizens are charged with outing Jews. Just leave people alone and stop imposing your homophobic crap on the rest of us. LGBTQ+ individuals have human rights, too, including the right to dignity, equality, and yes, even privacy. Mind your own damn business. Take care of your own intolerant selves and leave everyone else alone. Michele Burgess Huntington Beach resident since 1961 l 23 02t) 11* n Besot is a"Parents} ►,t to Know"City. A. For the purposes of tliis:t hapter,,"Parents"shall`refer to paarunts and/or legal guardians. B. Parents have a right to w about their chi1d',s"sexual o dcntation genderide ttity,oar gender expression"without the interferenc prohibiition, td/i r inhibition ent by= 155: C.Based oat the findi egs in Section I.2°t i ah+ov ;. City of Huntii gton Beach, California isC es'eby dec d a"Parents'1t t,to`Kite '•: No educators htthe CkolH Dgtert,Beac h,including;but not limited to instructors, counselors,or Qther adults with the teaching or earutgof eiilildren,it+tlro wont the City',.Libraries,Pad s,City Recreational Facilities,t ommunity Sergi Paciliti';, or Cay es or City onsored prograiuitursg`shall mold any`ibrntetiorr rlated to a child's sexual orientation,ge der identity,or gOdOt expressionto,Parents tt ;aid children with r'owiithout the:child`s consent FOR AGENDA ITEM #30, 8/6/2024 • Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark begins her issue statement with a blatant lie: "...Assembly Bill 1955...prevents educators from informing parents of their child's gender identity or gender expression." Fearmongering and misinformation as usual, her specialties. AB 1955 DOES NOT PREVENT educators from informing parents of their child's gender expression and identity. It only prohibits school boards from FORCING teachers to out students against their will. It does not say anything about schools keeping secrets from parents. If a teacher thinks it's in their student's best interest to talk to a parent about something going on with that student, the teacher is free to do so. If.a student is afraid to talk with a parent about such issues, the teacher can help develop a plan or refer the student to other help. Mayor Gracey seems to have appointed herself some kind of savior. "Protect the children!" is her battle cry. However, considering her personal history with children and the gay community, I'd posit she's not the best choice. * Her children were removed from her custody at some time in the past. * She has posted Facebook photos posing with Proud Boys, one of whom is showing her young son how to wear a gas mask "to protect himself against the Antifa masked cowards at rallys [sp] and patriotic events."That Proud Boy was sentenced to prison for involvement in the January 6 riot, was also convicted of assaulting a restaurant worker and for tearing down a Hanukkah menorah outside the Arizona state capitol a month before the insurrection. * She helped revise the city's human dignity statement to remove any reference to hate crimes and state that the city "will recognize from birth the genetic differences between male and female." * She voted to revise the city's flag policy to prevent the pride flag from being flown on city property. * She was instrumental in removing all library books from the children's and teens' sections with any "sexual" references, particularly if related to LGBTQ. * She was a featured speaker at a God, Guns, Government conference, a group that promoted a Patriot Boys camping trip for boys 7 and up, teaching them to love Jesus and be masculine. * She was a featured speaker at Eagle Forum of Orange County, and praised for creating a children's book review board and banning the flying of the LGBTQ pride flag over City Hall. * She actively solicits support from Calvary Chapel of the Harbour and other evangelical churches that consider homosexuality an abomination. So, hypothetically, if a teacher were forced to tell Gracey that her child is transgender, even if the child didn't want the teacher to do so, what would Gracey do? Pray the gay away? Send the child to conversion therapy? Kick the child out of the family home? Disown the child? "Disappointed" parents often verbally and physically abuse their child in such situations. Would that be in the best interests of the child? Would that be "protecting the children"? Sometimes children need to be protected from their parents. Mayor Gracey should stop wasting staff time and taxpayer money with culture wars and political theater — and mind her own damn business. Always yammering about government overreach. Gracey, dear, you ARE the government and you are definitely overreaching. The City Council does not have jurisdiction over education policy, nor would it have standing in any legal case. By the way, who gives a rat's ass what Elon Musk says and does? He's a very rich wacko whose estranged transgender daughter disowned him and changed her surname. Michele Burgess Huntington Beach resident since 1961 From: cathv werbiiri To: suppiementaicomm aC lsurfity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF Subject: Agenda item 24-634 Date: Friday,September 13,2024 4:04:39 PM You don',‘t often get e-tamtrom ccwerbl n©yahoo corn°Learn why this is irnpgrtani Council members and staff, I am writing to state my strong objection to item 24-634,the proposed ordinance to make Huntington Beach a"Parents Right to Know City"on the council's Sept. 17 agenda. Like so many of the council's recent decisions,this ordinance is a misguided attempt to inflict the majority's unwanted philosophy on the residents of the city, It is another in a string of moves to solve problems that simply don't exist. In pitching the ordinance to the council during the last meeting, Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark used the example of her own teenage pregnancy, and remembered how afraid she was of her parents' reaction and disappointment. In the end she nonetheless had to approach them and tell them her situation. In her own specific example,the mayor didn't have members of her city government calling her parents to tell them they suspected she was pregnant. She approached her parents in her own time and with her own thoughts-not those of prying eyes in her community.Why the mayor thinks it would have been better for her teachers or coaches or tutors or librarians to call her parents is a mystery, In fact, her situation and resolution seem contrary to the ordinance-no one interfered in her life and she resolved the problem on her own. It is obvious that the council majority fears children becoming gay or transgender.They are allowed their own fears and prejudices. But be clear that community member not only don't share these feelings, but in fact are more fearful of the government meddling in what should be private family matters.Additionally, there is no outline for training these community reporters, no suggestion of how to perform these duties, and in fact the ordinance lacks any specifics at all for how it will be implemented. In watching and attending city council meetings over the last few years, I know the majority of the members will not pay any heed to objections from the community, I sincerely wish it were otherwise, and that you could see the damage you are doing to your own community and to the residents who just want to live their lives without constant interference and threats from their elected officials. Cathy Werblin Old Town Resident From: Grosvenor.Stacey A-Xylem To: suoolementalcommasurfcity-hb.orq Cc: Stacey Grosvenor Subject: Supplemental Communication for City Council Meeting on Tuesday,September 17,2024 Date: Monday,September 16,2024 4:06:04 PM Attachments: Grosvenor Supplemental Communication regarding Ordinance 4326.doa 7777' You don t often get,email!from stacey.grosvenor@xylem corn i eam why'thic Fs important Attached is my written communication regarding the adoption of Ordinance 4326 on the Tuesday evening agenda. I am submitting this attachment for distribution to the City Council prior to consideration of agenda Item 12 (24-634). Thank you, Stacey Grosvenor 601 21st Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments and/or linked documents, is intended for the sole use of the intended addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential,proprietary, or otherwise protected by law.Any unauthorized review, dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please contact the original sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Xylem Inc.. SUPPLEMENTAL ,COMMUNICATION Meeting.Date: 9/17/2024 12 (24-634) Agenda,Item,:No. I would like to speak out regarding the adoption of Ordinance Number 4326. I have a bit more to say than a two minute spoken time limit will allow, and so I'm submitting my written comments here under the Supplemental Communications for City Council consideration prior to vote. Ordinance 4326 states that matters of student sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression are subject matters which are extremely private and highly personal in nature for both parent and child, yet for some reason, our City Council majority wants our city to insert itself into these private family matters. The part that seems to be overlooked is that AB 1955 does not prevent notification to parents. It just does not require notification to the parents. Each person's situation is unique, and the State seems to understand that. From what I can see, the State of California is trying to stay out of these personal and private matters and leave such conversations upon the parent and the child to have together in the way that best fits for each particular family. So why in Huntington Beach do we feel the need to insert ourselves into this parent and child relationship? Why should this become a municipal affair? This Ordinance reeks of anti-LGBTQ+ ideologies just like one that led to the removal of the gay pride flag here in Huntington Beach. Laws like these are born out of intolerance and discrimination, and hastily authored by those who are so caught up in their agenda of hate that they don't take the time to even reason things through. How do we even intend to enforce this parental notification requirement? Has that even been thought through? What constitutes as "knowledge" or "information" related to a child's sexual orientation? Is it based on conversation with the child, observation of the child, or just a hunch? If a boy is wearing a Taylor Swift t-shirt, is his teacher or the librarian required to make a judgement call about whether that boy might be gay? What's next? An anonymous tip line? Unlike our Ordinance 4326,AB1955 is an easy thing to measure. It does not require that teachers "out" their students. It's a very simple law to understand. If a teacher speaks with the student's parents, then they do, and if they don't, they don't. It's simple and straight forward. There is no requirement to fulfill. But here in Huntington Beach we've opened up a pandoras box for ourselves, because in our haste to stamp out any gay tendencies that might be brewing in our children, we have failed to think through all of the consequences this Ordinance may bring. And aren't our city council majority members supposed to be fiscal conservatives? Why would you want to spend our hard earned tax dollars on a legal fight with the State of California over this matter? Is this really something that we need our City Attorney to become occupied with? Does he not have enough matters of real consequence to deal with? Is our City Attorney really going to be initiating legal action against the State of California on behalf of any Huntington Beach parent who feels their rights have been violated due to AB 1955? Is this how we want our tax dollars spent? I am also shaking my head at how passage of this Ordinance was supposedly needed to protect our city's economy. Ordinance chapter 1.23.030 Item A states that"the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest in protecting...the City's economy by the impact of this State Legislation (AB 1955)." How is our city's economy going to be negatively affected by AB 1955? My understanding is that this conclusion of our city's pending economic doom was derived from Mayor Van Der Mark,who felt that businesses in Huntington Beach would move out of our city, given Elon Musk's comment about moving his Hawthorne, CA SpaceX business to Texas as a result of AB 1955. The truth is that he wants to lower his company's taxes, and payroll costs, and is using the news about AB 1955 to stir up anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. But apparently our conservative city council majority cannot see through the smoke and mirrors. Just remember: There are two sides to the political aisle. Do you think it's only far right conservative Republicans that own businesses in our city? You can offend just as many business owners on the right as those who are on the left and middle. I continue to recommend that our council majority press the stop button on this Ordinance. It will only serve to increase the growing culture wars in our city, and will lead to nothing but wasted tax dollars and complications for so many city personnel who work in teaching and the caring of our children. Respectfully, Stacey Grosvenor 24 year resident and homeowner, Huntington Beach From: Linda Moon To: suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq Subject 9-17-24 City Council Agenda Item 12 Date: Monday,September 16,2024 6:48:35 PM Dear Councilmembers, I write in opposition to City Council Item 12, Ordinance 24-634,the Parents'Right to Know Ordinance. This ordinance again assumes incorrectly that the City of Huntington Beach is immune from the duty to comply with State laws due to its Charter Status. Further, it absurdly requires city employees to become gender behavior reporters, something far beyond their designated job requirements.Besides being most likely illegal, I'm sure it violates the collective bargaining agreements that the City holds with its collective bargaining organizations. Also,the authorization of the City Attorney's office to represent private citizens in civil litigation against school boards is outrageous, constitutes an inappropriate use of public funds and resources and is clearly beyond the charter stated responsibilities of the City Attorney's office. I urge you to reconsider adoption of this ordinance. Linda Sapiro Moon Huntington Beach, 50 year resident From: Harry McLachlan To: supolementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF Subject CC Mtng.Sept.17,2024 Date: Monday,September 16,2024 11:29:30 PM Attachment: Huntington Beach City Counci ISeot.17.2024.docc See attached word document. Huntington Beach Special City Council Meeting Sept. 17, 2024 Agenda Item 26 I'm Harry McLachlan, I live in Huntington Beach. I am writing in opposition to Agenda Item 26-634. Another ordinance to impose the MAGA 5's version of morality and "family values" on to the citizens of Huntington Beach. It is no secret that much of this vitriol stems from the propaganda spewed weekly from the Calvary Chapel cult and embraced by the MAGA 5, and the 3 MAGA Stooges that hope to be elected in November. Well, Stooges, the state audit on the corrupt airshow settlement should be revealed before the election, and the undying support of the MAGA 5 will be hung around your necks like an albatross. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Justice is coming. Your Hubris is doing you in! Vote no on this ordinance! (Bet you don't!) I am also writing in support of Agenda Item 26. I have attended many city council meetings and can't help noticing the discrepancy of onsite police presence at certain meetings. I have also noticed an occasional jackass sporting a visible sheathed knife. WTF? Please vote yes on26. From: Cathev Ryder To: suoplementalcomm(alsurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Agenda Items on 9/17/2024 Date: Tuesday,September 17,2024 7:59:29 AM Agenda Items on 9/17/2024 Mayor,Mayor Pro Team and City Council members, HB Homeowners and voters for 39 years-Multiple topics this on agenda. As a community volunteers for Huntington Beach Art programs that are offered for children, we have questions about the new parent's right to know ordinance. If we see 2 8 year old girls holding hands, do we report it and to whom?If a boy is wearing a shirt with Taylor Swift, is that reportable?Will there be log or form that volunteers will use?Will we be given • parent/guardian information?Will there be training or written materials for volunteers?We have many more questions and so far very vague answers or no real understanding of even where to get answers. Has the city filed their lawsuit against Amplify Energy for the 2021 oil spill?Time is of the essence. Has the CEQA for the Pacific Air Show been completed?Will HB residents see the results with the need to do a public records request.Transparency was a campaign promise in 2022. It is definitely time to make the City Council Chambers a safer environment. We urge the council to explore all options with the HBPD so EVERY attendee feels safe. We are also pleased to see a vote for the adoption of the June 2024 HB in Motion Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan. We applaud the multiple times at each city council meeting when the council votes 7-0 on actual city issues like water and sewer lines, street improvements,public safety and community programs. Let's return to the real business of the city and practice good governance. CJ and Bob Ryder From: K Carroll To: suoolementalcomm(a)surfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFFS Subject Comments CC Mtg.9/17/2024 Date: Tuesday,September 17,2024 8:42:35 AM Greetings Mayor Van Der Mark,Pro Tern Pat Burns,Illustrious Councilmen McKeon and Strickland: Sharing comments on a few Agenda Items: Item 24-619 OCPA Huge CONGRATULATIONS for taking action to mitigate the City's Electric Expense followed with all residents that were being duped, especially vulnerable senior citizens and coordinating the smooth transition with ZERO COST or ramifications! 24-634 Right to Know Another victory on the horizon. What our kids do in school IS parent's business. Thank you for putting this on the agenda and moving the item forward. 23-571 Tank Farm No more high density.This WILL create more traffic congestion and wear and tear on our infrastructure. Can we please put this this to rest once and for all.Really, low income housing on the beach too?This will be a forever negative high density footprint in BIB right across from the beach. 24-672 Security How interesting that the people that are proposing this item to have apparatus to detect guns are the same people that have spewed hatred and false narratives and fed the news false narratives and conducted cattle calls. The same two people that bullied and did the same to • Tito Ortiz. The same people that do cattle calls where people come from out of HB..including authors of the books that are relocated in the library. It's never about what is right for the majority citizens; it is about their hatred for conservatives and hatred for HB. You can see it from their fan base vs.the conservative fan base. I recall the night the conservatives took their seat on the dias...these three totally ignored the four WINNERS and felt forced to shake the extended hands of the just voted in. I also remember when the previous majority including Moser and Kalmick had police escort them to the chambers (legends in their own minds)when me and some others were driving thru the parking lot in protest.No more than 20 cars...Driving thru the parking lot in a circle for at most ten minutes. One time. They also had someone taking down license plates. We were such a threat. The horns,I guess were a threat. They were paraded from the police station in front of the circling cars surrounded by police while Erik Peterson was watching the cars drive around and talking to various people and waving at some drivers who waved at him..yes,we were waving at Erik Peterson....very threatening,we were.No signs,no yelling just riding around in circles. We have security..our police officers who are trained and many in different areas.Here they are trying to take our guns away. What about conceal and carry?How about they tell the truth and converse like mature adults instead of making rude and immature faces, smirks, gestures and attacking sarcastic comments,walking out of meetings, shaking fingers and savoring their fans'poor behavior. They are nurturing and feeding this unsafe behavior...that could carry out into the parking lot. How about we look at where the trouble is coming from?I do believe the last several meetings have improved. I believe many are getting the message that they will be escorted out and it is working. As always,thank you for reading my comments and considering. I respect and am so grateful for everything you have accomplished and the promises you have kept. Best regards, Kris Carroll / INCLUDES THE l,P, FOUNTAIN '�/ VALLEY VIEW 1920 Main St. Suite 225, Irvine Irvine, California 92614 (714) 796-2209 legals@inlandnewspapers.com City of Huntington Beach - City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Account Number: 5272431 Ad Order Number: 0011693225 Customer's Reference/PO Number: Publication: Huntington Beach Wave Publication Dates: 09/26/2024 Total Amount: $1039.97 Payment Amount: $0.00 Amount Due: $1039.97 Notice ID: IHWfIPLoVJvmdvhkNR3X Invoice Text: HB Wave PUBLISH DATE: 09/26/2024 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE NO.4326 Adopted by the City Council on September 17, 2024 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 1.23 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW"SYNOPSIS:On August 6, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager's Office to work with the City Attorney's Office to draft an Ordinance declaring that Huntington Beach is a"Parents' Right to Know City"in response to Governor Newsom signing Assembly Bill 1955(AB 1955) into law.Ordinance No.4326 adds Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents Right to Know. Suggested Findings include:A. State Assembly Bill ("AB") 1955,signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 15, 2024, prohibits public schools from adopting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation requiring an employee to disclose any information related to a student's sexual orientation,gender identity,or gender expression to any other person without the minor student's consent. B. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological,emotional,and physical harassment and abuse,and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts. C.The matters of"student sexual orientation,gender identity, or gender expression"contained in the prohibitions of AB 1955 are not related to"education." but instead are subject matters that are extremely"private"and highly"personal"for the parent and child. D.The State may not claim control over education as a pretext Synopsis - Ord No. 4326 - Page 1 of 3 T- See Proof on Next Page IFOUNTAINNCLUDES THE VALLEY VIEW Huntington Beach Wave 1920 Main St.Suite 225,Irvine Irvine,California 92614 (714)796-2209 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange County I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the Huntington Beach Wave, a newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange County, State of California, on July 1, 1998, Case No. A-185906 in and for the City of Irvine, County of Orange County, State of California; that the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: 0912612024 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: Sep 26, 2024. COIMP S iature Synopsis - Ord No. 4326 - Page 1 of 3 NB Wave PUBLISH,DATE: 09/26/2024 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL-NOTICE • ORDINANCE NO.4326 , Adopted by the City Council on September 17,2024 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY"COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 1.23 OF THE,HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW" SYNOPSIS: On August 6, 2024,the City Council directed the City Manager's Office to work with the City Attorney's Office to draft on Ordinance declaring that Huntington Beach is a "Parents'Right to Know-City"in response to Governor Newsom signing Assembly Bill 1955(AB 1955)into law.Ordinance No.4326 adds Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents Right to Know- Suggested Findings Include: A. State Assembly'Bill ("AB") 1955, signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 15; 2024, prohibits public schools from adopting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation requiring an employee to disclose any Information related to a student's,sexual orientation, gentler identity, or gender expression to any other person without the minor student's consent. B. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological,emotional,and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts. C.The matters of-"student sexual orientation,gender identity,or gender expression" contained In the prohibitions of AB 1955 are not related to"education."but instead are subject matters that are extremely"private"and highly"personal"for the parent and child. D.The State may not claim control over education as a pretext or a guise to Invade or regulate the"private"and highly"personal"matters that naturally belong.to'and should remain within the parent/child relationship.Accordingly,as the State's attempt to legislate the parent/child relationship by of-AB 1955 is an illegal violation of the California and United States constitutions and not"education,"as such,AB 1955 does not preempt local regulation and may be subject to legal challenges of Iocatauthorities, parents,and/or children. E. Although the State may regulate "education," AB 1955 exceeds the State Legislature's authority to regulate public"schools under the California and United States Constitutions and infringes on parents' constitutional rights•by prohibiting schools from adopting policies that would require notifying parents of"private"and highly "personal"matters such as when a parents'child may be.at increased risk of psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and,abuse, and extremely high rates of suicide and suicide attempts, no matter how young the child-ls,'without the child's consent and is not a matter of statewide concern. F. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive-any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law:" (U.S, Const. amend. XIV.) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized parents' constitutional right to make"decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (Troxel-v.G'ranville,530 U.S.57,65(2000).)This includes the right to direct their children's upbringing and education.(Meyer v.Nebraska,262 U.S. 390,400.(1923); Pierce v.Society of Sisters,268 U.S.510,534-535(1925);), G.Parental rights are not secondary to the desires of government agencies.In Parham v.:J.R.,-442 U.S. 584,'602-603 (1979), the.United States Supreme Court.declared, "our constitutional system long ago relected any notion that"a child Is'the mere creature of The_State':and,'on the contrary,asserted that parents generally'have the right;coupled with the high duty,to recognize and prepare their-children for additional obligations'... (t]he statist notion-that-.governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." H.In David-v. Kaulukukui,38'F.4th 792,799(2022),the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed, "Wile interest of parents in-the care, custody, and control of their children- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. Our case law:nos.long-recognized this right for parents and children under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." I.The City of Huntington Beach has nearly 200,000 residents comprised of parents anti children.There are 35 elementary schools and five high'schools located In the City.By population, Huntington Beach Is the 23rd largest city or is within the top 4% largest cities,among a total of 482 cities in the State of California. J. The City of Huntington Beach was constituted by its people and incorporated on February 17,1909.Since adoption of Its Charter on.May 17,1937,the City of Huntington Beach is a Charter City created by.the consent of the people within its'iurisdlctian and authorized by Article Xi;Section 5 of the California Constitution to exclusively govern municipal affairs.. Synopsis - Ord No. 4326 - Page 2 of 3 K. Charter Cities "are,distinct individual entitles and are not connected.political subdivisions of the state. (Haytasingh:v. City of San Diego,.66 Cal.App.5th 429, 459 (2021))."it is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations." (Id.) Charter Cities are creatures of the state constitution, formed by the authority of the people."Charter Cities are specifically authorized by our state constitution to govern themselves,free of state legislative intrusion,as to those matters deemed municipal affairs. (City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla,46 Cal. App.5th.902,909(2020).) As a Charter City, Huntington Beach is a city of and by the people. Its people,including parents and children,are directly affected by AB 1955. L.The protection of parents and children in the City from Interference by the State over "a student's sexual orientation,gender identity,or gender expression"is a municipal affair,not a statewide concern.There can be no greater example of a municipal affair than the regulation of Huntington Beach citizens private and highly personal subiect of"a student's sexual orientation,gender identity,or gender expression"that should be,and remain,between a parent and a child.The people of,Huntington Beach have a right to.govern Huntington.Beach municipal affairs and challenge the State's attempt to assert authority-of municipal affairs. M.As a Charter City,that derives its power from the consent of the people,_the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest In protecting the rights of parents of minor children residing within its 1urisdictlon, and it has a direct interest In challenging the,State's actions that are demonstrably driving large economic producers out of California. Copies of this ordinance are available in the City Clerk's Office. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held September 17,2024 by the following roil call.vote: AYES.: Burns,.Van Der Mark,Strickland,McKeon NOES: Moser,Bolton, Kaimick ABSENT: None This ordinance'is effective October 17,2024. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 714-536-5227 ROBIN ESTANISLAU,CITY CLERK Huntington Beach Wave Published:9/26/24 Synopsis - Ord No. 4326 - Page 3 of 3 e1ING7 2000 Main Street, �� ti a Huntington Beach,CA ter^ a 9n.8 92648 _ Cityof Huntington Beach A}_ � __ .-,,� g APPROVED FOR INTRODUCTION V ,;, ova 4-3 (MOSER, BOLTON, c. ouN KALMICK-NO) File#: 24-622 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2024 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager PREPARED BY: Jennifer Carey, Acting Deputy City Manager Subject: Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4326 Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents' Right to Know City Statement of Issue: On August 6, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager's Office to work with the City Attorney's Office to draft an Ordinance declaring that Huntington Beach is a "Parents' Right to Know City" in response to Governor Newsom signing Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955) into law. Financial Impact: There is no financial impact to adopt this Ordinance. Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4326, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents' Right to Know City." Alternative Action(s): Do not approve Ordinance No. 4326, and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: 1. On August 6, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager's Office to work with the City Attorney's Office to draft an Ordinance declaring that Huntington Beach is a "Parents' Right to Know City" in response to Governor Newsom signing Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955) into law. Ordinance No. 4326 is provided for City Council consideration. Suggested findings include: A. State Assembly Bill ("AB") 1955, signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 15, 2024, City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 8/28/2024 power Legistarm File#: 24-622 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2024 prohibits public schools from adopting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation requiring an employee to disclose any information related to a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the minor student's consent. B. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts. C. The matters of"student sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" contained in the prohibitions of AB 1955 are not related to "education." but instead are subject matters that are extremely "private" and highly "personal" for the parent and child. D. The State may not claim control over education as a pretext or a guise to invade or regulate the "private" and highly "personal" matters that naturally belong to and should remain within the parent/child relationship. Accordingly, as the State's attempt to legislate the parent/child relationship by way of AB 1955 is an illegal violation of the California and United States constitutions and not "education," as such, AB 1955 does not preempt local regulation and may be subject to legal challenges of local authorities, parents, and/or children. E. Although the State may regulate "education," AB 1955 exceeds the State Legislature's authority to regulate public schools under the California and United States Constitutions and infringes on parents' constitutional rights by prohibiting schools from adopting policies that would require notifying parents of"private" and highly "personal" matters such as when a parents' child may be at increased risk of psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and extremely high rates of suicide and suicide attempts, no matter how young the child is, without the child's consent and is not a matter of statewide concern. F. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized parents' constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).) This includes the right to direct their children's upbringing and education. ( Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535 (1925).) G. Parental rights are not secondary to the desires of government agencies. In Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602-603 (1979), the United States Supreme Court declared, "our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is 'the mere creature of the State' and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally 'have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations'...[t]he statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." H. In David v. Kaulukukui, 38 F.4th 792, 799 (2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 8/28/2024 power€6144 LegistarTM File#: 24-622 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2024 Ninth Circuit observed, "[t]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children - is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. Our case law has long recognized this right for parents and children under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." I. The City of Huntington Beach has nearly 200,000 residents comprised of parents and children. There are 35 elementary schools and five high schools located in the City. By population, Huntington Beach is the 23rd largest city, or is within the top 4% largest cities, among a total of 482 cities in the State of California. J. The City of Huntington Beach was constituted by its people and incorporated on February 17, 1909. Since adoption of its Charter on May 17, 1937, the City of Huntington Beach is a Charter City created by the consent of the people within its jurisdiction and authorized by Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution to exclusively govern municipal affairs. K. Charter Cities "are distinct individual entities and are not connected political subdivisions of the state." (Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, 66 Cal.App.5th 429, 459 (2021)). "It is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations." (Id .) Charter Cities are creatures of the state constitution, formed by the authority of the people. "Charter Cities are specifically authorized by our state constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to those matters deemed municipal affairs." (City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla, 46 Cal.App.5th. 902, 909 (2020).) As a Charter City, Huntington Beach is a city of and by the people. Its people, including parents and children, are directly affected by AB 1955. L. The protection of parents and children in the City from interference by the State over"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" is a municipal affair, not a statewide concern. There can be no greater example of a municipal affair than the regulation of Huntington Beach citizens private and highly personal subject of"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" that should be, and remain, between a parent and a child. The people of Huntington Beach have a right to govern Huntington Beach municipal affairs and challenge the State's attempt to assert authority of municipal affairs. M. As a Charter City, that derives its power from the consent of the people, the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest in protecting the rights of parents of minor children residing within its jurisdiction, and it has a direct interest in challenging the State's actions that are demonstrably driving large economic producers out of California. Environmental Status: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 8/28/2024 powera44 Legistar File #: 24-622 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2024 Strategic Plan Goal: Non Applicable -Administrative Item Attachment(s): 2. Ordinance No. 4326 • City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 8/28/2024 powerea4f'LegistarTM ORDINANCE NO, 4326 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 1.23 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW CITY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding Chapter 1.23 to read as follows: CHAPTER 1.23 HUNTINGTON BEACH PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW CITY 1.23.010 Findings. A. State Assembly Bill ("AB") 1955, signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 15, 2024, prohibits public schools from adopting or enforcing any policy,rule, or administrative regulation requiring an employee to disclose any information related to a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the minor student's consent. B. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological,emotional,and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts. C. The matters of"student sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" contained in the prohibitions of AB 1955 are not related to "education." but instead are subject matters that are extremely"private" and highly"personal"for the parent and - child. D. The State may not claim control over education as a pretext or a guise to invade or regulate the"private" and highly"personal"matters that naturally belong to and should remain within the parent/child relationship. Accordingly, as the State's attempt to legislate the parent/child relationship by way of AB 1955 is an illegal violation of the California and United States constitutions and not"education," as such, AB 1955 does not preempt local regulation and may be subject to legal challenges of local authorities, parents, and/or children. E. Although the State may regulate"education," AB 1955 exceeds the State Legislature's • authority to regulate public schools under the California and United States Constitutions and infringes on parents' constitutional rights by prohibiting schools from adopting policies that would require notifying parents of"private"and highly"personal"matters such as when a parents' child may be at increased risk of psychological, emotional,and 54 ORDINANCE NO. 4326 physical harassment and abuse, and extremely high rates of suicide and suicide attempts, no matter how young the child is, without the child's consent and is not a matter of statewide concern. F. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law." (U.S. Const. amend. XIV.) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized parents' constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).)This includes the right to direct their children's upbringing and education. (Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters,268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925).) G. Parental rights are not secondary to the desires of government agencies. In Parham v. J.R,,442 U.S. 584, 602-603 (1979),the United States Supreme Court declared,"our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is 'the mere creature of the State' and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally 'have the right, coupled with the high duty,to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations'...[t]he statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." H. In David v. Kaulukukui, 38 F.4t11792, 799 (2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed,"[t]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. Our case law has long recognized this right for parents and children under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." I. The City of Huntington Beach has nearly 200,000 residents comprised of parents and children. There are 35 elementary schools and five high schools located in the City. By population,Huntington Beach is the 23`d largest city, or is within the top 4% largest cities, among a total of 482 cities in the State of California. J. The City of Huntington Beach was constituted by its people and incorporated on February 17, 1909. Since adoption,of its Charter on May 17, 1937,the City of Huntington Beach is a Charter City created by the consent of the people within its jurisdiction and authorized by Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution to exclusively govern municipal affairs. K. Charter Cities "are distinct individual entities and are not connected political subdivisions of the state." (Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, 66 Cal.App.5th 429,459 (2021)). "It is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations." (Id.) Charter Cities are creatures of the state constitution, formed by the authority of the people. "Charter Cities are specifically authorized by our state constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to those matters deemed municipal affairs." (City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla,46 Cal.App.5th. 902, 909 350455/24-15205 2 55 ORDINANCE NO. 4326 (2020).) As a Charter City, Huntington Beach is a city of and by the people. Its people, including parents and children, are directly affected by AB 1955, L. The protection of parents and children in the City from interference by the State over"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression"is a municipal affair, not a statewide concern. There can be no greater example of a municipal affair than the regulation of Huntington Beach citizens private and highly personal subject of"a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" that should be,and remain,between a parent and a child. The people of Huntington Beach have a right to govern Huntington Beach municipal affairs and challenge the State's attempt to assert authority of municipal affairs. M. As a Charter City,that derives its power from the consent of the people, the City of Huntington Beach has'a direct interest in protecting the rights of parents of minor children residing within its jurisdiction, and it has a direct interest in challenging the State's actions that are demonstrably driving large economic producers out of California. 1.23.020 Huntington Beach is a "Parents' Right to Know" City. A. For the purposes of this Chapter, "Parents" shall refer to parents and/or legal guardians. B. Parents have a right to know about their child's"sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression"without the interference,prohibition, and/or inhibition presented by AB 1955, C. Based on the findings in Section 1.23.010 above, the City of Huntington Beach, California is hereby declared a"Parents' Right to Know"city. D. No educators in the City of Huntington Beach, including but not limited to instructors, counselors, or other adults entrusted with the teaching or caring of children, who work in the City's Libraries, Parks, City Recreational Facilities, Community Services Facilities, or other City facilities or City sponsored programming shall withhold any information related to a child's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to Parents of said children with or without the child's consent. 1.23.030 Legal Challenge. A. Based on the findings in Section 1.23.010 above,the City of Huntington Beach has a direct interest in protecting its Parents, children, and the City's economy by the impact of this State legislation, and therefore the City of Huntington Beach has legal standing, as claimed, emphasized, and asserted herein, to challenge AB 1955. B. Upon a majority vote of the City Council, the City Attorney may initiate a legal action on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach against the State to challenge AB 1955. 350455/24-15205 3 56 ORDINANCE NO. 4326 C. Alternatively, upon majority vote of the City Council,the City Attorney may join the City to other legal actions of other jurisdictions, agencies, or individuals challenging AB 1955, and the City Attorney may initiate legal action against the State on behalf of a City resident who is a Parent of a minor student in a public school in Huntington Beach alleging violations of their rights as a result of AB 1955. D. Per Resolution No. 2015-61, The City Attorney may immediately engage in defense of the City in any legal challenge brought by the State or other agency for the City's adoption of this Ordinance. 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 , 2024. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Qjb 350455/24-15205 4 57 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION 9/3/2024 From: Michele Buroesg Meeting Date: To: suoolementalcommesurfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF) 20 (24-622) Subject: City Council meeting 9/3/24,Agenda Item#20,File#24-622 Agenda Item No.. Date: Friday,August 30,2024 3:11:26 PM TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GATES: AB 1955 DOES NOT PREVENT educators from informing parents of their child's gender expression and identity. It only prohibits school boards from FORCING teachers to out students against their will. Any ordinance the City Council may approve declaring Huntington Beach a "Parents' Right to Know City" is unenforceable since the city has no control over schools within its borders. The ordinance goes against state law, charter city or not. The Council majority and City Attorney Gates need to stop wasting taxpayer money on these ridiculous "culture war" fights. I recommend a "No" vote on this item and am absolutely certain you don't care. "City attorneys should not get involved in city council politics to preserve their role as neutral officers charged with rendering impartial opinions on legal matters. Therefore, council members should not be offended if the city attorney does not attend their fundraisers or other political events." (League of California Cities, "Counsel and Council: A Guide to Building a Productive City Attorney-City Council Relationship," 102 pages) But what if the city attorney DOES attend their fundraisers and other political events, and indeed even campaigns with them, endorses inexperienced/unqualified candidates whose political views coincide with his own, and publicly celebrates their wins? Which is exactly what's going on in Huntington Beach with City Attorney Michael Gates. After a contentious relationship with the previous City Council, a new majority whose extremist conservative political views align closely with those of Mr. Gates now sits on the dais, and the minority members have been sidelined. Immediately after taking office, the self-named "Fab Four" gave Mr. Gates free rein and bestowed on him a nearly $100,000 raise, making him at that time the second highest-paid of any elected city attorney in the state. Why? A generous reward for helping them get • elected? Incentive to assist them in implementing their draconian Project 2025 agenda? The pugnacious Mr. Gates spends his days fighting his archenemies, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, on just about everything. — all with the City Council majority's blessing and at taxpayer expense. He makes guest appearances on TV and podcasts, self-promoting his ongoing battles against the State, perhaps with aspirations of running for governor (as one chyron suggested) or a position in a potential second Trump administration. He crows on social media, about his successes (conveniently downplaying or omitting losses and setbacks, or the cost of this endless fighting) and has bamboozled way too many HB citizens into believing he's always fighting for us and can do no wrong. The annual budget for the City Attorney's office has now ballooned to over $4 million for 2024/25. His "legal opinions" tend to favor the Council majority, as when he allowed campaign signs for the November election to be posted even before the March election, based on a technicality. Thus, his three hand-picked MAGA City Council candidates were given advance name recognition months before any other candidates. He is also instrumental in crafting controversial agenda items, charter amendments, ordinances, policy revisions, and resolutions that are moving our city backward. In a stunning lack of transparency, Mr. Gates fought against releasing the explosive details of the secret Pacific Airshow settlement he and the City Council majority had approved. They just rolled over and gave away the farm for up to 40 years, costing the city millions, while boasting "We saved the Airshow!" Why has our City Attorney not yet sued Amplify Energy, the oil company that caused the spill? When pressured to explain, Mr. Gates proclaimed there was no wrongdoing and said anyone who disagrees is free to file a complaint with any of several named entities. Some people did so. Mr. Gates is now in persecuted victim mode, rallying his ill- informed loyalists by claiming on social media that the state government has been weaponized against him and "our precious city," prompted and fed by attacks from within city leadership. City Attorney Michael Gates and the "Fab Four" should not expect that we will sit quietly by while they continue to swing their ideological wrecking ball at Huntington Beach, ruining our reputation and quality of life, and wasting an enormous amount of taxpayer money while doing so. Michele Burgess Huntington Beach resident since 1961 From: Michele Buraesg To: 5uoolementalcomm4surfcity-hb.orq;citvcouncika)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: 9/3/24 meeting,Agenda Item#20,File#24-622 Date: Friday,August 30,2024 3:53:56 PM Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-08-30 at 3,29.17 PM.onq Screen Shot 2024-08-30 at 3,29.17 PM.onq To the MAGA 4+1: At the August 6 meeting you claimed your ridiculous and unlawful ordinance would apply to educators in schools, now you sneak in extra language also applying it to those who work in the city's libraries, parks, recreational and community service facilities and programs, ad infinitum. Did you think no one would notice? We are watching you every minute because you cannot be trusted. What the hell is wrong with you people? This isn't Nazi Germany, where friends, relatives, and fellow citizens are charged with outing Jews. Just leave people alone and stop imposing your homophobic crap on the rest of us. LGBTQ+ individuals have human rights, too, including the right to dignity, equality, and yes, even privacy. Mind your own damn business. Take care of your own intolerant selves and leave everyone else alone. Michele Burgess Huntington Beach resident since 1961 1, 020 *W1041001,1Reacht fs �P agents'Itt ht to Know"_City. A. For tt a putposes of this Chapter, ent "` all re la tia and/o legal guardii ,. B. Pat ts-haste.a right to know:about?thei;r ld's`'seatial rientatio gentle identi y,or ,gender expression''without the interference,prohiibition,and'/or inhibition meted byr 44 1 5 , Base l on t e inga in Section 1.23,fl t 0 above,the Cityl<of Huntington Beach, is de byr clared `Pre nts'I ,hs*kW' �, . .. No educators:,in the City off iunting Beach,including but not limited to instructors, r`atinselorsx cr ether adults entrusted with the teaching or g o�titsldren,who work its t ;CityF's Libyan Parks,.City< reatio ial l a lil ties,Community Services Facilities,: • or outer City+facilit es or City**370ed piggrammingshall44thh(4any inforiitatioin related to a child's sexual o Otatian„grade ,ident y,or g nder a resionF to " saidsiiiiiciindout with orr without the child's consent::. .- From: Carlos Rubio To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);suoolementalcomm(Tsurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Ordinance 4326 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:58:32 AM The Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters represent a broad range of positions across all City of Huntington Beach departments. To date, we have not received a comprehensive list of positions within our organization that may be affected by Ordinance 4326. Additionally,we have not been invited to engage in a meet and confer process regarding the ordinance and its potential implications for our members. Accordingly,we respectfully request that Ordinance 4326 be voted down and not put into effect, until specific terms and conditions that could impact our members have been clearly identified and discussed with our leadership team. Please accept this as a meet and confer request regarding Ordinance 4326. Carlos I. Rubio President Teamsters Local911 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 9/3/2024 20 (24-622) Agenda Item No. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From: Erin Spivey Meet!ng...Date 9/3/2024 To: suonlementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq Cc: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF) Agenda Item No. 20 (24-622) , Subject: Agenda item 20 Date: Saturday,August 31,2024 6:20:26 PM Dear Councilmembers, I once again write to oppose a proposed ordinance that on its face is wrong for this city,unenforceable,and a waste of time and money:agenda item 20"parents right to know"city ordinance The city can declare itself a"parents right to know"city and express support for people who align with this idea without creating the legal quagmire they seem intent on or by wasting more time in a lawsuit over a law we have no basis to object to. However,since the council seems intent on moving forward,here are some questions for the four who support this ordinance,given its extremely vague language: 1.How old is a child?The ordinance says children,so that would legally apply to all minors,0-17 and 11 months.If a child of 4 says"I like boys and girls"is that to be given the same weight as a 16 year old saying"I like boys and girls"? 2.What do you mean by"no educator...shall withhold information"?Are city employees expected to keep detailed records of each and every interaction and conversation with a teen,preteen,child,in case someone mentions that they might have same sex feelings?Given that city employees don't have the same personal relationships with minors that teachers do,should employees also create logs with pictures of the minors to help them remember later, in case this ever comes up? 3.If an adult demands to know about a conversation in which a female minor mentioned a dream of kissing a princess,how is the city employee expected to verify that this person is a parent or guardian?Should the parent or guardian be prepared to show picture id plus the child's birth certificate indicating they are the legal guardian?Or in case of foster children,should the guardian be required to present a letter from the state of California as well as express permission from their social worker?Could get very complicated. 4.Prior to speaking to any child,should city employees request the minor's full name,birthdate and other verification to make sure they can document the conversation for the record,should a parent or guardian request it? 5.Or will the city be supplying body cameras to all employees for a third party panel to review,in case anything related to a minor's sexuality,gender,or gender expression come up? 6.How does the city plan to enforce the ordinance that no educators/counselor/other adults interacting with minors ever withhold information,should they fail to comply?Will there be random reviews?Will a demerit system be implemented?Is jail time a possibility? Obviously there are many other questions about this agenda item!However none of it matters.The four who support this agenda item clearly have no intention of creating an enforceable city ordinance,because that's not what this is about. This is just another chance for Gates and crew to sue the state of California over a law they don't like.A virtue signaling suit built to earn them campaign donations and talking spots on Fox News,at the expense of Huntington Beach's tax payers. This is merely another way to burn down our budget with frivolous lawsuits,full of fury,resulting in nothing for our city,only more bills we cannot pay. As always,in deepest disdain for the four who support this,and of course Michael Gates,I urge you to vote against this item. Erin Spivey Librarian Lifelong resident Sent from my iphone,please excuse any typos From: SUSAN MORABITO To: suoo!ementalcammCa surfcity-hb,orq. Subject Agenda 20 is a strong No!Infringement on individual rights and privacy Date: Sunday,September 1,2024 8:26:36 AM Susan Morabito From: )`Maureen Bekin5 To: supolementalcommCla surfcity-hb.orq Subject City Council meeting 9/3/24,Agenda Item#20,File#24-622 Date: Sunday,September 1,2024 8:47:14 PM To City Council Members and City Attorney Michael Gates Regarding Agenda Item 20 (24-622) Approving an ordinance making Huntington Beach a `Parents Right to Know' city would be a waste of time and resources since the City has no control over the schools within its borders. The ordinance goes against state law, and we don't need more endless lawsuits wasting money of the Huntington Beach taxpayers. Additionally, adding in the dedicated City employees who work in our libraries, parks, recreation and community service facilities, to be the responsible parties of this ordinance is ridiculous. It would turn them into a Gestapo-like group. I can't imagine that any of them ever signed up for that as part of their job responsibilities! I recommend a no vote on this ordinance. Maureen B ekins Huntington Beach homeowner since 1978 From: terrylaurenrose aC)gmail.com To: suoolementaicomm(&surfcity-hb.orq Subject For the record-City Council Meeting 090324 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 10:00:38 AM Importance: High Dear City Council Members, It is obvious to me that our city attorney, Michael Gates, is the ringleader of the" posse" consisting of councilmembers Van der Mark, Burns,Strickland and McKeon...and it is obvious to me that what Mr.Gates is trying to do,does nothing to benefit our city and in fact, causes more unnecessary spending that only hurts the taxpaying citizens of Huntington Beach as well as our reputation as a friendly place to live and visit. I have walked past the parking spaces for our councilmembers, city clerk, city attorney, etc. at all times of the day and all days during the work week for over a year. Only once, have I seen Mr.Gates'car parked in his spot. That leads me to question:does he really work? In addition,the debacle with the Air Show beginning with the lawsuit and more recently with the agreement looks like payola to a buddy or a big contributor. Why should the air show have greater benefits and concessions, at our cost,than any other event that takes place in Huntington Beach? Any why isn't it called the Huntington Beach Pacific Air Show?Before Michael Gates,Jennifer McGrath,who served for 12 years, consistently received plaudits for her work to reduce outsourcing and save the city money,whereas Michael Gates has done just the opposite. I would like to go on the record to say that Mr. Gates should resign his position so that the citizens of Huntington Beach can elect a City Attorney who will work for the good of the whole not for his or her own self-interests. I would also like to go on the record in opposition to Items: 19:24-551,the zoning map amendments 20:24-622,the parents right to know 21:24-617, establishing a flagpole at Baca Park in honor of Vietnam Veteran Medal of Honor Recipient John P. Baca 22:24-624, establishing tobacco retailer regulations In my opinion, Item 19 would change the current zones,would most likely cost the city money to do so and doesn't really seem necessary. Item 20 infers that the city of Huntington Beach has authority over education policies and practices,which it doesn't. It also gives the City Attorney the ability to represent individual and/or private plaintiffs against the state rather than representing the city as a whole which would not only be potentially very costly but also is in violation of our City Charter. Once again,this could open up more costly lawsuits from the state. When will Gates stop wasting our money? Item 21 goes against what councilmembers Van der Mark,Strickland, Burns and McKeon voted on regarding flags flown on city property. If this item gets passed, it shows clear favoritism of one councilmemberto pass his pet projects and also once again, shows how non diverse and non-inclusive these 4 members of our city council are: NO to the Pride flag for 6 weeks;YES,to a John Baca flag forever. And it seems only 2 people(out of almost 200,000 citizens of Huntington Beach), one definitely a buddy of the"posse"are requesting this. In addition, it will cost the city money that could be spent on more important things, like our infrastructure. Item 22, proposed by councilmember McKeon goes from the ridiculous to the absurd. Did he come up with this idea in a dream?While it's true that cigarette smoking is the most preventable cause of death in the US, it is a waste of time and money to even study this proposal. The state of California is already taking steps to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors so,why are you wasting our time with this Casey? Don't you have better things to do? In conclusion, councilmembers Van der Mark,Strickland, Burns and McKeon, it would be great if you stopped serving yourselves and started serving the city you claim you love before you put us into complete bankruptcy. Terri Rose 40+ jear resi�evA,t awl hot/mowv1,er PS. Have you seen what our state Senate did this past week? August 30,2024 (SACRAMENTO, CA)-Today, Senator Dave Min(D-Irvine)announced that the Assembly passed Senate Bill(SB)1174,which places a ban on Local governments imposing voter identification (ID) requirements in local elections.The legislation prevents a patchwork of varying election requirements across the state and reinforces the State of California's exclusive jurisdiction on the issue. "This legislation makes clear that election integrity and voter eligibility requirements are exclusively up to the State of California,"said State Senator Dave Min. "We cannot have 100 different charter cities making up 100 different sets of voting rules, based on fringe conspiracy theories. I have repeatedly told the Huntington Beach City Council members pushing this issue that if they were to produce any evidence of widespread voter fraud, I would lead efforts to change California's voter eligibility rules.They have not produced any such evidence. I am grateful to my colleagues for their overwhelming support for this bill, and I am hopeful that the Governor will sign SB 1174 into law later this year." In March,the City of Huntington Beach approved a charter amendment that would implement voter ID requirements in City elections starting in 2026. If signed into law by the Governor, SB 1174 would nullify Measure A before it is enacted. State Senate Passes California Freedom to Read Act,Targeting Book Bans at Public Libraries August 29,2024 (SACRAMENTO, CA)-Yesterday,the California State Senate passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1825 authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi(D-Torrance)and coauthored by Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine). Known as the California Freedom to Read Act,the bill is designed to fight back against book bans that silence communities of color and LGBTQ voices.AB 1825 would prohibit public libraries from banning books based on partisan or political reasons,viewpoint discrimination,gender, sexual identity, religion, disability, or on the basis that the books contain inclusive and diverse perspectives."California has an obligation to protect the fundamental right of access to diverse and inclusive books and library materials for everyone.The freedom to read is not only a fundamental right under our constitution, it's at the heart of our nation's democracy,"said Senator Min. • "Censorship and book bans are not new in America.At an earlier, uglier time in our history, bans were placed on works by Shakespeare,the Diary of Anne Frank, and even Robin Hood.Today, in Huntington Beach and across the state,we've seen book bans take aim at the lived experiences and voices of LGBTQ and people of color.That's why the passage of AB 1825 is so important, and I am so incredibly proud to work alongside my colleague Assemblymember Muratsuchi to defend the freedom to read and get this important bill to the Governor's desk." "I am honored that the California Freedom to Read Act is now awaiting the Governor's signature. Our freedom to read is a cornerstone of our democracy, and libraries provide a special place in the public's civic education. Unfortunately,there is a growing movement to ban books across the country, including in California," said Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi. "Book banning proponents are disproportionately targeting materials containing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQ and communities of color.We need to fight this movement to ensure that Californians have access to books that offer diverse perspectives from people of all backgrounds, ideas,and beliefs." According to the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, challenges of unique titles in the United States increased 65%from 2022 to 2023, reaching the highest ever level recorded. In California last year,the ALA reported 52 challenges to 98 titles in public libraries and school libraries.A total of 47%of all book bans have primarily targeted LGBTQ+and black indigenous people of color. Please don't get us into more lawsuitsinmilimi From: Levin.Shannon To: supolementalcomm(a)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: Fwd:Council Mtg.of 9/3/2024 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 10:42:00 AM Get Outlook for iOS From:gelliottl@socal.rr.com <gelliottl@socal.rr.com> Sent: Monday,September 2, 2024 10:24:13 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Council Mtg. of 9/3/2024 Re Agenda Item#20 From Cheryl Elliott(44-yr.HB resident) Frankly put,those of you who think this ordinance is justified or enforceable are out of your minds!!! From: Jeanne Paris To: suoolementalcommCa)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: Parents Right to know City Date: Monday,September 2,2024 12:36:32 PM I am writing in strong support of adding a chapter to the HB municipal code relating to making Huntington Beach a Parent's Right to know City. I do not want to see parents'rights undermined.The California public government schools have once again overstepped their boundaries-and once again the HB majority of the CC have stepped up to protect children and parental rights. The state wants to tear families apart.The state has no business interring in family's personal lives regarding this matter. Thank you. Jeanne Paris HB Resident From: Pride at the Pier To: suoolementaicomm(@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Kalmick.Dan;Moser.Natalie;Bolton.Rhonda;McKeon,Casey;Burns.Pat;Van Der Mark.Gracev;Strickland, Tony Subject: Public Comment-Agenda Item#20,"Parents"Rights"Ordinance(24-622) Date: Monday,September 2,2024 5:51:26 PM Attachments: PatP Public Comment HB-124-6221.odf Hello, • Please see the attached supplemental communication regarding Agenda Item#20 (24-622). • Thank you. Instagram Facebook Linkedin Tiktok www.orideattheoier.orq • {3� Pride at the Pier is fiscally sponsored by Hack Club,a 501(c)(3)nonprofit. Our registered EIN is 81-2908499 1; PRIDE AT w1� THE PIER Public Comment: Agenda Item #20 (24-622) September 3rd, 2024 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach City Council; Pride at the Pier stands in opposition of Agenda Item #20, wherein Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark asks for a Yes vote on an ordinance Declaring Huntington Beach to be a"Parents' Right to Know" City. This ordinance enshrines performative cruelty into the law, while simultaneously lacking the detail,required for effective enforcement and understanding from the city's employees. This city council majority made statements from the dais during the last meeting regarding AB 1955 that showed a continued desire to mislead constituents regarding the content and intent of the law. This alone creates doubt surrounding the intent behind this ordinance. Mrs. Van Der Mark's long and documented history of anti-LGBTQ+ activism and associations with prominent figures in the anti-LGBTQ+ movements creates additional doubt, as does the statements and votes made from the dais from Mrs. Van Der Mark, Mr. Burns, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Strickland over the last nearly 2 years. The Huntington Beach LGBTQ+ community and our allies have significant reason to believe that this ordinance does not come from a good-hearted place to encourage healthy, family communication in HB, but rather it is an attempt to further build an environment where LGBTQ+ people, minors and adults alike, do not feel safe expressing their identity in this city. The arguments for and against forced outing policies have been made loudly up and down this state. Pride at the Pier stands against forced outing policies, and in support of keeping government overreach out of these private conversations. No elected official should be dictating the timeline by which an LGBTQ+youth comes out to their parent. 1 A•. ix��ai: _,r .a.- i'f� &° . a ,.�#3 x .�, . c.pnnecj PRIDE AT THE PIER Considering the incredibly unclear manner in which this ordinance is written,we feel it is likely that this is either a piece of unenforceable performative cruelty to rile up an anti-LGBTQ+voting base ahead of the election season, or it's an ordinance that is meant to tempt a lawsuit from the ACLU that the City Attorney Michael Gates will accept on behalf of the city with the hope of rising his political clout with a small minority of voters. A lawsuit, of course, that HB will be unsuccessful in at the cost of more taxpayer dollars. Either way, we don't see this ordinance as being a positive for the community. Mayor Van Der Mark, the Huntington Beach LGBTQ+ community is not a smokescreen for you, Michael Gates, and the council majority to use when you need a distraction from the calls of thousands asking for accountability for your governance decisions. We ask you to do better. Best regards, 7(ar2Gdv ali/i2Q,hv Executive Director Pride at the Pier (Fp prideatthepier.org 0 Orange County, California 0 prideatthepier@gmail.com From: Linda Moon To: suoolementalcommaa surfcity-hb.orq Subject: 9-3-24 Agenda Item 20 Parents Right to Know Date: Monday,September 2,2024 6:00:31 PM I write in strong opposition to Agenda Item 20, Ordinance 24-622. This ordinance puts city employees in legal jeopardy for failing to become mandated sexual orientation reporters, which is entirely unreasonable and far beyond their employment responsibilities. This sort of responsibility will make their continued service by highly skilled employees untenable. Enforcement will also be virtually impossible. Further,the provision stating that the city has legal standing to challenge AB1955 is absurd and essentially commits substantial funds, as well as employee service to more litigation over matters solely within the jurisdiction of school districts,not the city. It appears that the City Council Majority is again seeking only to draw attention to itself and garner favor among extremist members of the community who might support their political ambitions. I urge you to come to your senses and vote in opposition to this ordinance. Linda Sapiro Moon 50 Year Huntington Beach Resident From: Judith Lewis To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);suoolementaicommCa)surfdty-hb.orq Subject: Regarding Agenda Item 20.24-622 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 6:02:22 PM Agenda Item 20. 24-622 Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4326 Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents'Right to Know City Members of the City Council majority have gone crazy bonkers unhinged by wasting time and money on politically divisive issues and, in this case, something totally outside your jurisdiction.. State legislation AB 1955 affects schools, not the city. Offering up our City Attorney to engage in lawsuits for individual parents who object to the State legislation is irresponsible and a waste of our taxpayers' money when the City is already facing deficits. Furthermore, I suspect your hidden agenda is an anti-homosexual campaign. You likely are among those who believe people in schools and libraries are "grooming" children to become homosexual and that parents should be able to take measures to forbid such an abomination. But you dare not say this out Loud. Instead, you base the legitimacy of your concern on possible "harassment or suicidal ideation," which the schools are still required to report to parents. Your bias on this issue was revealed last September by your banning the pride flag, rewriting the Statement of Human Dignity to exclude mention of any minority groups, and dissolving the Human Relations Committee. Your political stance seeks to reverse any progress in dealing with hatred and biases against homosexuals. This agenda item is unjustified, and you four should be recalled for dereliction of duty and misuse of taxpayer money. Mitt Lewis rjialfaratitrthTfltintihifaifSeiati From: H Meyers To: CITY COUNCIL.(INCL.CMO STAFF)suoolementalcomm(thsurfcity-hb.orq Subject City Council Agenda Item#20 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 6:14:06 PM I am a long-time resident of Huntington Beach.I oppose the ordinance proposed in Agenda Item#20 for the September 3,2024,City Council meeting.The City has no jurisdiction over schools and is again wasting taxpayer money to pursue an inappropriate right-wing social agenda that pretends to protect children while also purposely misinterpreting AB 1955.Too bad,HB City Council members who disagree with State law on this.This ordinance also irresponsibly,and probably illegally, expands the City Attorney's power—another reason to oppose this reckless and dangerous ordinance. Hildy Meyers From: Joi Defoe To: suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq Subject September 3rd council meeting Date: Monday,September 2,2024 6:30:18 PM I would like to voice my concerns regarding two issues: 1) Parents Right to Know ordinance Please stay out of school business. The city council has no control over schools (thank god for that) and as such should focus on the business of running this city. 2) I support the demand that Supervisor Andrew Do resign his seat immediately. There is no place in government for someone like Andrew Do. Thank you, Joi Defoe Joi Defoe joidefoe(&gmail.corn 310.750.8535 From: Bev Sansone To: suoolementalcomm(alsurfdty-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF) Subject City Council agenda item#20 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 7:12:03 PM I am a long-term resident of Huntington Beach. I do not understand why our city council is proposing an ordinance regarding an issue we have no jurisdiction over. Why are we wasting tax payer dollars to propose this ordinance? And why would the city want our city attorney representing private interests? I disagree with the proposed ordinance and hope the city council sees fit to deny this agenda item. Beverly Sansone,MD 201 20th St. Huntington Beach From: K Carroll To: CITY COUNCIL.(INCL.CM0 STAFF);suoolementalcommesurfaty-hb.orq Subject City Council Meeting Agenda Items 9/3/2024 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 8:07:44 PM Greetings Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Pro Tern Pat Burns, Illustrious Councilmen Casey McKeon and Tony Strictland, Thank you for reviewing my feedback on the following agenda Items: 24-622 Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4326 Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to parents'right to know City. I strongly support this item. Schools and teachers need to stay out of the personal lives'of children and concentrate on academics. Parent's WILL continue to take their children out of school and homeschool if they continue to push politically motivated agendas. 24-617 Item submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Burns -Establishing a flagpole at Baca Park in Monor of Vietnam Veteran Medal of Honor Recipient John P. Baca, Thank you Pat Burns for submitting this item. I strongly support and believe we cannot do enough for our Vets, especially Vietnam. This particular item is especially close to my heart because my husband served in active duty in Vietnam and I was old enough to experience the loss of my older sister's friends who were drafted. Mr. John P.Baca certainly is deserving. I would be proud as an HB Citizen to recognize him. 24-624 Item submitted by Council Member McKeon-Establish Tobacco Retailer Regulations, Direct the City Manager to work with the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance for introduction at a future City Council Meeting to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to establish regulations for tobacco retailers citywide. Thank you Councilman McKeon for bringing this forward and listening to the concerned citizens. Just like sober living, liquor stores, etc. I do believe that zoning for tobacco retailers should be zoned and regulated appropriately and not near schools. I strongly support this. I do not believe tobacco retailers should be anywhere near schools or business' and organizations that serve minor's needs. 24-628 Item submitted by Council Members Bolton,Kalmick and Moser- Supervisor Andrew Do - Demand to Resin I strongly oppose this item. The people's vote must be honored and pressure to resign should not the role of our Huntington Beach City Council that is representative of the City of HB Citizens. Through my many investigations or fact finding, I have learned that things are not always what they appear on the surface. The investigation has just begun. I personally think it is disgusting that this is even being presented prior to finalizing the investigation and going through the Justice System. If Supervisor Do is found guilty; obviously, he would not continue in his current role. This agenda item is a political strategy on the part of the three who submitted this item and totally inappropriate. In closing,Thank you so much for all you do for the HB Citizens and your tireless fast tract items. Your accomplishments are awesome and unmatched. Know you are supported and appreciated by the HB majority!! Best regards, Kris Carroll From: Stouts Mamma To: suoalementalcommesurf ity-hb.org Subject: Parents Rights City Ordinance Date: Monday,September 2,2024 8:57:09 PM To the City Council members, Griselda Van Der Mark, Pat Burns, Casey McKeon, Tony Strickland: What is your fascination with minor's genitalia and sexuality!?! Your fascination is seriously cringe, creepy and weird. You also put children in harm's way by forcibly outting them to their parents. Not all parents are safe to come out to. But I don't think you believe kids are being indoctrinated into being gay or trans. I think you're just trying to scare your gay/trans kids to remain scared of accepting who they are. Because if your kids see others out there living happily as their authentic selves then that might tell your kids that it's safe to be themselves. You want to keep them scared and terrified to be who they are. Also, stop trying to deflect from your horrible airshow settlement. You thought your HUGE payout to your buddy, Kevin Elliot, would never get out. But thanks to Gina, it has. Well, you can't put the cat back in the bag. We see your handouts and we want answers. LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE! Christy From: tjengland41(@vahoo.com To: suoDlementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq Subject: city Council meeting Sep 3,2024 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 8:57:49 PM I find your attempt to meddle in our public school policies with this ridiculous Parent Notification ordinance totally unacceptable.Take care of city business and leave the schools to run themselves!No to Agenda 20. Let Our Libraries run themselves and City Council attend to our city problems! Let our parents decide what books their children read and not city council!Keep government out of our schools and libraries! And quit wasting our city money on STUPID lawsuits against the state of CA.You arrogance and frivolous waste of our taxpayers money defies belief.Stop it! TJ England,HB resident/taxpayer. Sent from my iPhone From: Buffie Channel To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CM0 STAFF);supolementalcomm(@surfdty-hb.orq Subject Agenda Items-20,NO&23,YES Date: Monday,September 2,2024 10:01:16 PM To City Council members: Once again,the City Council MAJORITY attempts to pretend they have jurisdiction beyond their scope of power. You just don't tire of being belittled by our local newspapers for your ridiculousness. Is it actually conservative to subject city workers to mandatory subjective tattle-tailing on kids at camps, libraries, etc? What if the employee does not comply?Will they be arrested?I hear"anything is possible". What if they are wrong and the child isn't gay or wanting to change pronouns and they heard wrong?This will open the city up to discrimination lawsuits. This is so dumb. But that's what we expect from you- constant culture wars and political stunts.. You want to "out" kids so they can be possibly beaten or thrown out on the streets?How does that protect kids? And the City Attorney will represent a parent who wants to sue the state over what?How will that work exactly?You have no jurisdiction over schools or teachers. The taxpayers will be on the hook for this? Seems like a very bad decision and one that Mr. Gates is salivating over so he can get his name on the news. He doesn't care about this city or kids. --VOTE NO on AGENDA ITEM 20. 24-622 Meanwhile, OC GOP darling Andrew Do is up to his neck in corruption and FBI investigations. That corrupt buddy of Tony Strickland's should resign. --VOTE YES on AGENDA ITEM 23. 24-628 This is beyond embarrassing. Can't wait for the local newspapers and Opinion sections to skewer the majority and Gates once again. I think HB City Council MAJORITY and the City Attorney should mind their own damn business Sincerely Buffie Channel 35 year resident and homeowner From: Aoril Downs To: 5uoolementalcomm aC)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: Reject"Parents Right to Know" Date: Monday,September 2,2024 10:04:48 PM Dear City Council-The"Parents Right to Know"ordinance is not only a waste of city resources and an example governmental overreach,it is poorly written(vague)and threatens to open more lawsuits from our city.The City Attorney works for the city and is not in the position to represent individuals using our tax dollars. We are a city where tourism is vital,and continuing to deliberately try and draw media attention for a far right ' agenda,advertises to investors and visitors we are not welcoming.This is not how I want me tax dollars spent nor how I want my city council to spend their time! April Downs Sent from my iPhone From: Scott Malabarba To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFFL suoolementalcommCalsurfdty-hb.orq Subject: in opposition to agenda item 20 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 11:08:53 PM Dear City Council, I am writing to voice my opposition to agenda item 20 and the proposed ordinance. As usual,your culture war posturing is insincere,grotesque,and self-serving. We all know how the the four of you on the majority feel about queer and trans people.You made that very clear during your repeated attacks on the library,its staff,and the children who see themselves represented in the books you ban(which would actually be all of them,seeing as you banned"Everyone Poops").You're not trying to help these kids,and you don't care about parents'rights unless those parents agree with you. Ordinance 4326 is a disturbing mess that,among other horrors,claims the parent-child relationship as"a municipal affair." The text correctly notes that"transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological,emotional,and physical harassment and abuse."If you were sincere,you would be asking yourselves and your supporters some tough questions about who is doing this harassing and what you are doing to enable and even encourage it. As a resident and a parent,I don't care what you have to say about any of this.However,I would like to learn more about the disastrous Pacific Air Show settlement,which despite your best efforts we have now read and which this agenda item is probably just a weak attempt to distract the public from. Hi Rhonda,Natalie,and Dan--we appreciate you,as always! Sincerely, Scott Malabarba HB resident From: Melanie Tioleco-Chenq To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);suoolementalcommesurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Opposition to Agenda item 20 Date: Monday,September 2,2024 11:21:17 PM Hello, It's late so I'll keep it simple. For those parents--or any parents--who are concerned about"Parents Right to Know", the solutions is straightforward, TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN. Have open lines of communication. Keep open minds. Ask them about their day, about their friends, about their hopes and dreams, and, YES, ask them about their gender identity and sexual orientation in an age appropriate way. If you're worried that they won't talk to you, then you have bigger problems than asking the government to mandate that you get to know who your kids are. This agenda item is unnecessary, and can also have serious consequences for our children. Please stop wasting our time and tax money and start governing our city. Sincerely, Melanie Tioleco-Cheng HB resident and pediatrician From: Pat Goodman To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFFI;suoalementalcom as surfcfty-hb.orq Subject: Vote NO on Agenda Item 20 and Pull Agenda Item#21 for further study Date: Monday,September 2,2024 11:28:01 PM Agenda Item 20 - please vote NO. This ordinance does not belong in city government, and will likely result in legal actions by school districts, unions, State of California, civil rights organizations. What I find most disturbing is how it misinforms the public about what current laws require of classroom teachers and administrators and school boards. Please don't use such a sensitive issue a child's human development, parent's rights, and school district responsibilities to misinform citizens, and cause division within our community. This is bullying and voter manipulation at its worse. You can be better than this. Agenda Item 21 - please pull for further study. This item raises several questions. It seems that it's an issue that deserves a deeper dive. I'm curious about other parks in Huntington Beach having U.S. flags flown. I don't think there is a flag at every park in the city. How will the flags be raised and taken down each day or will it be displayed on special occassions or a light shone on it from dusk to dawn? What about maintenance of the flag? I think that John Baca's story needs to be told, is there a way to make his story more prominent and accessible to visitors? Aren't there other parks that honor veterans and patriots in the city? Interesting subject. Pat Goodman From: diannef22(avahoo.com To: suoolementalcomm(asurfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF) Subject: Oppose Item#20 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 1:39:15 AM I strongly oppose agenda item #20. It is clear that Ordinance 4326 was written in response to propaganda that has been spread in certain communities with regard to California bill AB1955. To be clear, AB1955 does not require teachers to keep secrets from parents. It clearly states that schools and school districts cannot create rules and policies that FORCE teachers to "out" their students. If, as you state in.paragraph B of the Findings section, you truly are concerned about the psychological well-being of LGBTQ students, you would understand that the stress of knowing their teacher is required to "out" them only adds more stress and increases the risk the student will attempt suicide. Reducing the stresses on students by eliminating their fear of outing before they are ready is the best way to reduce the suicide risk. Knowing they have a safe space to discuss their questions will help the student develop a plan to discuss with their parents, but that cannot usually be done in only three days. Let's jump down to Section 1.23.020 (D). The ordinance has nothing to do with schools. You are now talking about educators only in city facilities, but you don't specify that you are only making this requirement of employees. What about library volunteers? Art Center volunteers? Are you intending to impose this ordinance on teen age employees, such as camp counselors and lifeguards? Are you going to define exactly what constitutes sexual orientation? Are parents going to be getting phone calls every time someone sees their child holding hands with another child? How exactly are you defining gender identity or gender expression? Many boys like to wear nail polish. Are their parents going to be getting phone calls advising them that their son may be exhibiting a female gender expression? But the craziest section of all is 1.23.030 (C). When the city is facing huge deficits and has looming legal judgements, you are writing a law that specifies that the City Attorney may initiate legal actions on behalf of residents with children in HB public schools. Since when will the City Attorney represent private citizens at taxpayer expense? As Mr. McKeon likes to say, you have a fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars you oversee. Allowing them to be wasted on ridiculous lawsuits on behalf of individuals is an abdication of your responsibility. Please vote NO and dispose of this item that is clearly a political stunt. Diane James From: Chris Varga To: suoolementalcomm(a surfcity-hb.orq Subject: City Council Meeting Comments for 9/3/24 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 7:34:57 AM Huntington Beach City Council: The following are comments to City Council Meeting.on 9/2/24 • Agenda Item 19 (24-551)—No to this agenda item. Come up with a state mandated housing plan to first! • Agenda Item 20(34-622)—No to the Parents Right to Know—The City Council should stay out of the school. This is not in their roles and responsibilities. This is a non-problem. Quit with these MAGA agenda items • Agenda Item 21 (34-617)—No to another flag pole for the city to maintain. The war hero has a park named after him. This is an unnecessary expense in a city with budget issues. • Agenda Item 22,24-624)—No to more regulations on Tobacco sales. What's next Alcohol? Stop the government overreach. • Agenda Item 23 (34-628)—I support the call for the resignation of Andrew Do for the Orange County board of Supervisors. Sincerely, Chris Varga Huntington Beach From: Deb Harvey To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL,CMO STAFF);suoolementalcommesurfcity-hb.orq Subject Opposition to Ordinance 4326 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:14:21 AM Subject: Opposition to Ordinance 4326 To the Huntington Beach City Council, As a long-standing tax-paying property owner, I wish to express my strong opposition to Ordinance 4326. This ordinance appears to be poorly conceived, carrying significant fiscal irresponsibility and potentially punitive consequences for City and contract staff. Furthermore, it seems unnecessary and could result in the misuse of tax dollars. Specifically, I am opposed to any allocation of public funds that would permit the City Attorney to initiate legal action against the State on behalf of a private individual. I urge you to vote against Ordinance 4326. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Deborah R. Harvey From: vanessawebOaol.com To: suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq Subject Parents Right to Know Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:19:29 AM Dear City Council Members, Please stop wasting our hard earned tax dollars on this frivolous ordinance and get down to business on making our city a safe and prosperous place for all. Our spending on attorneys and frivolous lawsuits is a huge misuse of public funds. Sincerely, Vanessa and Jeff Webster 40 year residents of HB Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS From: Richard Morris To: suoolementalcommAsurfcity-hb.orq Subject: tonight's meeting Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:23:17 AM To the city council members, I am asking you to vote against the ordinance known as "Parents Right to Know". The city council should not be creating ordinances for our city schools as you have no control over the schools. Please stop creating ordinances that wastes our city's taxpayer money on litigation. Richard Morris 92646 From: Patrick Huohe@ To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)suoolementalcomm(asurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Opposition to Ordinance 4326 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:28:17 AM To the Huntington Beach City Council, As a long-standing tax-paying property owner, I wish to express my strong opposition to Ordinance 4326. This ordinance appears to be poorly conceived, carrying significant fiscal irresponsibility and potentially punitive consequences for City and contract staff. Furthermore, it seems unnecessary and could result in the misuse of tax dollars. Specifically, I am opposed to any allocation of public funds that would permit the City Attorney to initiate legal action against the State on behalf of a private individual. I urge you to vote against Ordinance 4326. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Patrick Hughes From: Sue Welfringer To: suoolementaicommCla surfcity-hb.orq Subject: OPPOSE 24-622 Ordinance No.4326 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:29:03 AM 24-622 Approve for Introduction Ordinance No.4326 Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents' Right to Know City Approve for introduction Ordinance No.4326, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents' Right to Know City. " • Resending my opposition email from August 4th.This ordinance does NOTHING to protect kids.Your motivations appear political and self-serving your own personal agendas. Regards, Sue Welfringer August 04, 2024 Dear Mayor Van Der Mark and City Council Members: I oppose item 24-541 placed on the Huntington Beach City Council Meeting Agenda for Tuesday,August 6th • I am curious: how many Huntington Beach educators have you asked for input/ concerns regarding how your statement negatively affects them? • I am curious: how many parents of LGBTQ+children have you talked with to learn how this statement affects them and their children? • I am curious: if the City of Huntington Beach does not have the authority to set policy for our public and private education institutions,then why is this even a conversation to happen in our local council chambers? Your actions on council are, indeed, curious.And in case you aren't sure, based on how I feel about your attack on our library, curious is a euphemism for what I really think. Sincerely, Sue Welfringer Resident since 1997 From: Isabella Ford To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CM0 STAFF1;suoolementalcomm(a)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: For the record Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:36:26 AM For the record, I'd like to add my name to the list of residents requesting the city council take the following actions tonight: 1 - Cancel the "Parents Right to Know" Ordinance. AB 1955 should be signed into law. 2 -Demand OC Supervisor Andrew Do resign immediately. Even Janet Nguyen, one of your comrade politicians, has demanded he resign. This should be an easy one for all to agree on given the impact on the Orange County Budget and the fact that the City of HB counts on the County for funding various projects. 3 -Regarding John Baca park: Is the Medal of Honor flag one of the approved flags on our revised charter to limit the allowed flags on city property? I ask that you remove your flag amendment to the charter which limits the types that can fly on city property and go back to a time when you could fly different flags to publicly display the pride HB has for all groups. Regarding your statement: "A flagpole will bring the park added attention, as it is easily missed in its current state."Are you sure residents surrounding John Baca Park actually want MORE people to frequent that park? I remember my toddler son asking "why are so many people at OUR park" as our neighborhood park started being used more. HB has hundreds of neighborhood parks and my understanding is we designed these small parks to not have bathrooms or a lot of parking spots so they attract the families that can walk or bike there. We don't necessarily want our neighborhood parks to be destinations. That is the purpose of the larger parks with facilities like bathrooms,parking,water, etc. 4 -Finally a few requests -please release the Infrastructure report card -please rejoin OCPA -please cancel the Parent/Guardian committee at the library Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Isabella Ford 714-308-0660 From: Lisa Angela Gibilie To: suaolementalcomm(@surfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CM0 SrAFF1 Subject Re AB 1955 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:36:56 AM It is long past due for the City Council to focus on local affairs instead of their numerous attacks on the State. Leave the kids alone. You are taking your own personal views and wasting city money and resources to attack vulnerable children.You misled people in the community to think this is a larger issue when in truth, it would likely not even apply to most of them.You are attempting to violate the civil rights of a small vulnerable group of children. Many of these children come from homes where"outing"them to their parents may result in physical and or verbal abuse. Some may even be kicked out of their homes. How,many lost lawsuits have we had recently? How much time and money does this cost? How much of your time is spent on TV and Youtube interviews bragging about terrorizing our libraries and librarians, our teachers and students, and soon the electorate as we try to sort our way through your unnecessary change in voting. Who will you target next? LGBTQ protections and anti-Semitism were removed from your revised Human Dignity statement. Did you mean them to be targets of abuse, or just not worth protecting? Before you go through with this, each person on the City Council needs to remember back when they were teenagers. Did your parents know everything you did? I doubt it. If you had secrets of your own,you need to let this fight go and the City Attorney has no business representing any one family on this issue either. Better that you focus on the hordes of ebike riders who defy the rules of the road, causing accidents or the kids who get together in the evening and vandalize homes. These are the parents who need to be told about what their kids are doing because their kids are causing trouble. Liberal Blue states are the antithesis of tyrannical governments. Iran,Afghanistan, Russia, N. Korea are tyrannical regimes. The definition of tyranny is a cruel, harsh, and unfair government in which a person or small group of people have over everyone else.When you fight tyrannical governments, you are typically incarcerated or executed. You are on the wrong side of this argument,will waste time and money and lose in the end. More importantly just shame on you for even taking this on. Lisa Gibilie When 1 started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix From: Mary Ann Celinder To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF1;supoIementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq Subject Parents Right to Know Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:39:35 AM RE: Parents Right to Know If we are lucky, we all have safe spaces,people with whom we can be ourselves without holding back any part of who we are. Your safe spaces might include work, school, a club, a political gathering,your church, and hopefully,your family. Most likely,your safest space is among friends where you can share the very personal side you might never feel free to talk about with family, especially your parents. Admit it, how many of you talk, in any detail, about your sex life with your parents? All children need safe spaces, for all the reasons listed in the ordinance.Nothing is more personal than your sexuality.Not all homes have the capability of accepting a child whose identity is not the norm Not only will this ordinance remove those safe spaces in every place with a Huntington Beach public worker, it removes the child's home from being a safe space. If your child does not feel free to be themselves at home,there is probably a reason. What a shame for a child to have fear of acceptance and the loss of freedom to be who they are without judgement. If a parent hasn't sensed who a child is, it is on them to know their kids better,not an educator or any other public employee. You can leave a place that does not feel safe, like a club or church, but most of us don't leave our family even if we have to hold back part of ourselves to be accepted. This makes me think of how kids who were different were treated in the past. left handed kids were forced to be right handed to conform. We've come a long way since I or my kids were in school, but it's still a right handed world and being a lefty isn't easy. Read this article to see how what I mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_aga.inst_left-handed_people#::text=hand if necessary.- ,Forced use of the right hand,activities with their right hands. In 1989, my eldest son entered kindergarten at Eader Elementary at 5 1/2. Mrs. Z had returned to teaching after 25 years. At the October parent/teacher conference, she shared that she expected our son would need to repeat kindergarten because of delayed fme motor skills, he would pick up a tool with either hand. She said it was important to develop pathways to the brain from a dominant hand and it would be best to correct him at home and school to be right handed. This felt very wrong to us, so at our own expense, we took him to be evaluated by a developmental psychologist. After a series of tests,we were advised he was 50/50, no strong preference, but would likely find his way by his 6th birthday. In the meantime,he was building strengths in both sides and if he every became a brain surgeon (like the doctor's left- handed wife),those strengths would come in handy. Armed with this report,the teacher was stopped from correcting our child and sure enough,by his 6th birthday, he'd landed on writing with his left hand. We supported him as best as we could with tools available for left handedness, but it isn't easy living in a world designed for right-handed people No one chooses to be different, it's simply part of our core being. We did not hold him back to repeat kindergarten.His favorite subjects were math and science and he is now a Marine Geophysicist. In high school,he became an All American Swimmer, lettered in Water Polo, Swimming, and Wrestle, earned the Hall of Fame Award for Waterpolo at Edison (those left and right strengths paid off as a'goalie), and was State Champion in College for his Breaststroke. He was a FIB lifeguard for 12 years and voted Life Guard of the Year by his peers.Things could have got differently for our son if we had thwarted his natural being. Freedom to be who we are Is the most fundamental freedom we have. The intent of this ordinance is to take away the freedom of our children. Mary Ann Celinder Celinder's Glass Design 21341 Fleet Lane Huntington Beach Ca 92646 studio 714 962 8361 ce11 714 504 8361 www.customleadedglass.com From: Carol Keane To: suoolementalcomm(alsurfdty-hb.orq Subject: Tuesday"s city coundl meeting Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:42:15 AM To the Huntington Beach City Council members: The city council does not have control over our schools and should not be spending time writing and voting on ordinances that will ultimately result in more wasted money on lawsuits. Our city attorney represents the Municipal Corporation of Huntington Beach and should not be a part of representing individuals. The Parents Right to Know ordinance is vague and you should vote against it. I would like the City Council to address the real issues facing Huntington Beach like traffic, recreation and particularly the deficit facing our city. Thank you, Carol Keane Huntington Beach 92646 From: Jaime Kauffman Palumbo To: suoolementalcommt surfdty-hb.orq Subject Public Comment for Meeting Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:51:30 AM Hello, I would like to express my extreme displeasure with Mayor Van Der Mark's agenda item 20.This council majority's priorities seem to be completely misplaced.Their job is to run the city,not insert themselves into the families of their constituents.How conversations about sexuality and gender expression should be had are not in their jurisdiction.They need to stay in their lane and work for the betterment of the city and not fear mongering about issues that do not pertain to them.Not only is the agenda item misleading,but it opens up our city to lawsuits once again.How much money are we going to pay out in pointless culture war fights before we realize the majority and our city attorney don't know what they are doing and are simply trying to distract the electorate from that fact. No matter how many ridiculous agenda items the majority concoct,we are not going to be deterred from holding them to account for the egregious air show settlement and all the money they have been bleeding out of our coffers. Thank you, Jaime and John Palumbo From: Larry Slonim To: suoolementalcomm(asurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Supplemental Comments on HB City Council Agenda,dated September 3,2024 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:51:37 AM Attachments: To HBCC on Item 20.Ordinance 4326.9.3.24.docx HBCC Agenda for 9.3.24 To the Huntington Beach City Council (and more specifically to Gracey, Pat, Tony, Casey and most of all, Michael Gates), My wife and I do NOT support Item 20, relating to Ordinance No. 4326 and adding Chapter 1.23 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and urge all of the CC members to either A) table this proposal until it can be redrafted into a more fair ordinance accounting for and respecting every HB citizens' rights, or B) make it a ballot measure for special:election, so that ALL of HB's registered voters can vote on it, or C) do both A) and B). Our reasoning is as follows: Under findings L & M, Michael Gates wrote "The people of Huntington Beach have a right to govern...municipal affairs" and "As a Charter City, that derives its power from the consent of the people..." That means more than the 'less than majority' election of the councilmembers in 2022. You clearly are not representing the majority of the residents in this city of 200,000 people! And you certainly aren't representing my wife and I in the manner we expect and demand. This new ordinance is very clearly based on religious morals, and those are NOT morals that many residents, including my wife and I, blanketly agree with! This proposed new ordinance flies in the face of our morals and chosen religion, and we will NOT sit idly by while the majority council and its city attorney spend our tax dollars attempting to apply and enforce citywide moral standards that we do not subscribe to! This proposal for ordinance 4326 needs to be WITHDRAWN, or put on a citywide ballot for a public vote (though I don't see how such a law, as it's been currently drafted, could stand up to everyone's constitutional right to freedom of religion). Larry and Susan Slonim Home Owners in HB, continuously, since 1980 _ HBCC Agenda for 9.3.24 To the Huntington Beach City Council (and more specifically to Gracey, Pat, Tony, Casey and most of all, Michael Gates), My wife and I do NOT support Item 20, relating to Ordinance No. 4326 and adding Chapter 1.23 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and urge all of the CC members to either A) table this proposal until it can be redrafted into a more fair ordinance accounting for and respecting every HB citizens' rights, or B) make it a ballot measure for special election, so that ALL of HB's registered voters can vote on it, or C) do both A) and B). Our reasoning is as follows: Under findings L& M, Michael Gates wrote"The people of Huntington Beach have a right to govern...municipal affairs" and"As a Charter City, that derives its power from the consent of the people..." That means more than the 'less than majority'election of the councilmembers in 2022. You clearly are not representing the majority of the residents in this city of 200,000 people!And you certainly aren't representing my wife and I in the manner we expect and demand. This new ordinance is very clearly based on religious morals, and those are NOT morals that many residents, including my wife and I, blanketly agree with! This proposed new ordinance flies in the face of our morals and chosen religion, and we will NOT sit idly by while the majority council and its city attorney spend our tax dollars attempting to apply and enforce citywide moral standards that we do not subscribe to! This proposal for ordinance 4326 needs to be WITHDRAWN, or put on a citywide ballot for a public vote (though I don't see how such a law, as it's been currently drafted, could stand up to everyone's constitutional right to freedom of religion). Larry and Susan Slonim Home Owners in HB, continuously, since 1980 From: Dana Lee To: suoolementalcamm(alsurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Oppose Item 20 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:51:53 AM Forced outing of kids to potentially abusive parents, and forcing other people to be gender police is appalling. Vote no on Item 20. From: Paula Schaefer To: CITY COUNCIL.(INCL.CM0 STAFF);suoolementalcomm(alsurfcity-hb.orq;city.manaaer(alsurfcity-hb.arq;Gates, Michael Subject: Fwd:VOTE NO ON AGENDA ITEM 20(24-622) Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:52:08 AM Council Members: This item has absolutely no place on a City council agenda. It is yet another example of the Fab4+1's self-aggrandizing efforts to garner attention to their ongoing culture war vendetta against any law they don't like. The City has no control over the activities that this proposed ordinance attempts to criminalize within a school - in case you don't know, the City does not have jurisdiction over schools! So,the extremist majority 4 have added obligations to City employees to become park and playground police. Will the City now require its employees (shrinking in number)to monitor children's every action in a park,what the child is wearing,what game the child is playing? This proposed ordinance smacks of a police state, not a democracy. The only economic problem that AB 1955 causes the City is the colossal waste of time and money that City Attorney Gates wants to spend on this messianic mission. Since when does the City Attorney represent individuals?Isn't the City Attorney's job to represent the elected City Council? So now, the City Attorney's office will also represent individuals?How will this even be possible? To paraphrase what I heard recently,the Fab4+l s ego have no bounds and incompetence no floor. Paula A. Schaefer Huntington Beach resident Paula A. Schaefer From: Carol Daus To: suoolementalcomm(asurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Opposition to Item 20 on Agenda(24-622)for Council meeting on 9-3-24 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:53:54 AM Dear Council Members, I am in strong disagreement to Item 20 (24-622), which represents governmental interference into the personal lives of families. Teachers and city employees should not feel that it's their job to "out"teens. You are clearly on the wrong side of history with this issue, and that's why the vast majority of Americans agree that LGBTQ+ individuals deserve the same freedoms as straight, cisgender individuals. I would like Huntington Beach to remain a modern, welcoming city; not one that's ruled by four-homophobic, backwards-thinking Council members. Thankyou, Carol Daus 29-year resident of Huntington Beach From: Steven C Shepherd Architect To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CM0 STAFFI;supolementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq Subject: OPPOSED TO AGENDA ITEM#20 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:54:20 AM I was opposed to this item previously and remain opposed for all the reasons I mentioned in my previous email when this nonsense was originally introduced. Steve Shepherd Huntington Beach 92646 From: Tim Channel To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL..CMO STAFF) Cc: suoolementalcommc@surfcity-hb.orq Subject Agenda Comments 9/3/2024 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 8:59:55 AM City Council, I urge a NO vote on item#20 24-622. When will the council majority realize that they DO NOT have magical powers that allow them to dictate rules they have no jurisdiction over?You do not have power to override state law nor any power over school boards. This is an embarrassment and complete over-reach. VOTE NO. I urge a YES vote on item#23 24-628.Let's get the criminals out of office.Please VOTE YES. Timothy Channel Huntington Beach From: Fikes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW:Agenda 20 is a strong No for me;please don't support Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:08:19 AM Original Message----- From:SUSAN MORABITO<smorabito@aol.com> Sent:Sunday,September 1,2024 8:25 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda 20 is a strong No for me;please don't support Susan Morabito From: Fakes.Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW:Parents Right to Know proposed city ordinance/supplemental communication Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:08:28 AM. From: pacj<pacj_03@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday,September 1, 2024 10:12 AM To: Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Parents Right to Know proposed city ordinance/supplemental communication Based on AB1955 discussions at the last council meeting, an ordinance was drafted. The ordinance recognizes it has limits on jurisdiction, but includes a segment through which the council majority can vote for the City to join other jurisdictions in litigation and can vote to assist individuals through litigation. I have two serious questions. 1)Wth respect to HB employee duty to report gender identification issues to parents: How is that going to work? What training will be provided employees? Who will draft this training? What disciplinary measures will be taken against HB employees who fail to report gender identification issues to parents?What is the employee appeal process? Does this mandate violate any HB state or federal rights?2) HB has a limited amount of dollars to fulfill its regular role as a city. The council has a serious duty to safeguard those dollars. Does the council seriously want to assist individual citizens in litigation over legislation? If so,where does it stop? Sincerely, Pat Quintana From: Fikes.Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subjects FW:School Issues item 20 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:09:37 AM From: Diane Amendola<diane@sandy-paws.com> Sent:Sunday,September 1, 2024 6:34 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:School Issues item 20 We elect school boards to run our schools. We elect City Councils to run our City. Simple. Other than as a parent you as council members need to mind our city business and leave schools alone. Shame on you butting into something that is not your business as a council. Is this all about Gracey losing her School Board election twice? It's not her business or yours.As a parent I'm astounded at your attempted Overreach. Wow I did not know when I voted for 3 of you how controlling you are. Guess I made a big mistake as did my Republican friend in Sacramento. Wow I am astounded.What in the world ever happened to the concept of limited government. You members supporting #20 are sure not from my old Republican Party. Shame on you who forgot what we once stood for. Mary Amendola Get Outlook for iOS From: Ekes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Agenda item 20 Tuesday meeting Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:10:35 AM From: Lynne Deakers<Icdeakers@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,September 1, 2024 6:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item 20 Tuesday meeting I am writing to oppose item 20 on your next meeting's agenda.This is way beyond the scope of city council. Please get back to the business of running our city!! I am appalled at the politics you are bringing to the council.You are just asking for lawsuits we as a city cannot afford. HB city council has always been a bipartisan group working to solve the every day issues our city faces. Please can you get back to working on city relevant matters !! Lynne Deakers Tim Deakers Huntington Beach residents From: Ekes.Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW:Opposing Agenda Item 20"Parent Notification Ordinance" Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:10:41 AM Original Message From:Ameelia Ghareeb<amghareeb@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,September 2,2024 8:05 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Opposing Agenda Item 20"Parent Notification Ordinance" Good Morning Huntington Beach City Council Members, I am a resident of HB,a Public School Teacher,and every member of my household votes in every single election. I am shaking my head that the"Parent Notification Ordinance"(Agenda Item 20 on the September 3 Agenda)is being taken up for action.Outing gay kids is a new low. In my 24 years of public service, personally have seen that the horror stories are true:kids kicked out,kids abused by their parents,kids whose lives fall apart because of someone revealing their orientation or identity.Thankfully,I have not seen a suicide...yet.There is great documentation that trans and gay kids experience this in far greater numbers. The LEAST of the bad outsources is that this will cost taxpayer money and wasted time as the state overrules this anyway.I don't even want to think of the worst consequences.It will not be adults who suffer them;it will be kids. Please focus on solving real problems.Leave our kids alone. Thank you, Ameelia Ghareeb,92649 From: Fikes.Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW:Council Mtg.of 9/3/2024 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:11:02 AM From:gelliottl@socal.rr.com <gelliottl@socal.rr.com> Sent: Monday,September 2, 2024 10:24 AM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Council Mtg. of 9/3/2024 Re Agenda Item#20 From Cheryl Elliott(44-yr. HB resident) Frankly put,those of you who think this ordinance is justified or enforceable are out of your minds!!! From: Pikes.Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Parent Notification Ordinance Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:11:14 AM Original Message From:d.wada<denisewada714@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,September 2,2024 2:52 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Parent Notification Ordinance To all this concerns, I am taking more time than I care to on this,not any of your business,agenda item.It seems the majority council members are attempting to cozy up to a small group of citizens with another non-issue that they keep creating. Parents have the same rights as they've always had and it is their business to exercise that right without infringing on our overworked and underpaid teachers who have their jobs.Why do you demand more government oversight to do what parents should already be doing... know their own children.What does this say about the council members who vote yes and the people who support this ordinance that they need someone else to tell them how their child identifies?It is not good governance creating policy that opens the door to unnecessary litigation,this is not a good fight for the elected officials of HB. Keep it to crime,roads,tourism,and stay out of our personal lives. Also,I know Pat Burns jingoistic maga mania knows no limit but can we table a flagpole at the Baca Park.It's great we have a park named after this hero but with a looming budget deficit this is not good timing.I dare say,a flag for one person versus a flag for one month supporting a group of discriminated lgbqt hardly seems balanced when you represent a city. With regret, Denise Wada From: Pikes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject: RN: Parents Right to Know Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:11:41 AM From: Mark Tonkovich <marktonko@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,September 2, 2024 4:07 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Parents Right to Know Hello everyone, • Please note my wife and I support HB being a Parents Right to Know City. Parents are _ responsible for their children, not the government and parents should duly be notified about a student's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Best, Mark and Val. From: Fkes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Tuesday night meeting agenda items Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:11:56 AM From: Leslie Golson<lesliegolson@verizon.net> Sent: Monday,September 2, 2024 5:16 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Tuesday night meeting agenda items Dear City Council members, I am dismayed to read that the majority and Michael Gates are again attacking established State Law, in this case State Assembly Bill 1955, which was signed into law July 15th. Your proposed ordinance#4326, re; Parents Right to Know is another attack against our state and majority rule. Your role is to uphold the law; not to tear it down with frivolous lawsuits that have nothing to do with running our city. In addition, may I note that your very argument in Paragraph C is specious since indeed sexual and gender orientation is "highly personal" (your words) and belongs between parents and children. There is no need for any city employee to stick their nose in it. Keep your noses clean and drop this idea before it becomes another expensive drain on our city coffer! Also on the agenda is a recommended action to demand the resignation of Supervisor Andrew Do, which I wholeheartedly support. Regarding the installation of a flag pole in honor of veterans and John Baca, there is no issue but money. How is it the city has $18,000 to raise a new flagpole when you are actively seeking ways to save money by privatizing our one- hundred-year-old public library? I am against this expense at this time. Thank you for considering one constituent's opinions. Leslie Golson Huntington Beach resident From: Fikes.Cathy To: Agenda AgEL5 Subject: FW: Regarding Agenda Item 20.24-622 Date: Tuesday,September 3,2024 9:12:46 AM From:Judith Lewis<judilew22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,September 2, 2024 6:02 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>;supplementalcomm@surfcity- hb.org Subject: Regarding Agenda Item 20. 24-622 Agenda Item 20. 24-622 Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4326 Adding Chapter 1.23 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Parents'Right to Know City Members of the City Council majority have gone crazy bonkers unhinged by wasting time and money on politically divisive issues and, in this case, something totally outside your jurisdiction. State legislation AB 1955 affects schools, not the city. Offering up our City Attorney to engage in lawsuits for individual parents who object to the State legislation is irresponsible and a waste of our taxpayers' money when the City is already facing deficits. Furthermore, I suspect your hidden agenda is an anti-homosexual campaign. You likely are among those who believe people in schools and libraries are "grooming" children to become homosexual and that parents should be able to take measures to forbid such an abomination. But you dare not say this out loud. Instead, you base the legitimacy of your concern on possible "harassment or suicidal ideation," which the schools are still required to report to parents. Your bias on this issue was revealed last September by your banning the pride flag, rewriting the Statement of Human Dignity to exclude mention of any minority groups, and dissolving the Human Relations Committee. Your political stance seeks to reverse any progress in dealing with hatred and biases against homosexuals. This agenda item is unjustified, and you four should be recalled for dereliction of duty and misuse of taxpayer money. Judith Leuus '7 year�re�ident of�Huntin���n ���cf Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 12:24 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Ordinance 4326 on Sept 3, 2024 Agenda Original Message From: Mike Selna<mwselna@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,September 3, 2024 11:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Ordinance 4326 on Sept 3, 2024 Agenda The subject ordinance does not pass the logic test. Repeatedly the ordinance refers to sexual orientation etc as being private and personal and correctly stating that it should be left to the private relationship between children and their parents.AB1955 adheres to that premise by keeping educators out of the private relationship unless the child wants the educator to communicate with the parents. Ordinance 4236 would reinsert educators in the private relationship that the ordinance repeatedly says should be between children and their parents. If I were an educator I would not want to be compelled to be the person bringing news to parents about their kids on such a sensitive subject,would you? Leave the educators out of this! Sent from my iPhone i Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 12:10 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Agenda Item#20 - From: Barbara Van Dine<barb8980@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,September 3, 2024 10:59 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item#20- Council Members, • This is getting ridiculous. You were elected to run the City of Huntington Beach in both an ethical and fiscally prudent manner. It is NOT your job to run our schools; it is NOT your job to parent our children and it is NOT your job to decide what a person can read. It IS your job to resolve the deficit budget. It IS your job to replace all the department heads who have quit since Gracey became mayor. It IS your job to deal with homelessness and fix our infrastructure. If you were doing the job you were elected to do,we would not be in multiple lawsuits;we would not be paying your air show buddy millions of dollars and we would not be the laughing stock of most of the United States. Council members Burns, McKeon, Strickland and Van Der Mark,you should be ashamed of the mess you have made in this city and the division you have caused. I certainly will NOT be voting to reelect you in 2026. Barbara Van Dine Huntington Beach resident 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:10 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Agenda item 20 Tuesday meeting From: Lynne Deakers<lcdeakers@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,September 1, 2024 6:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item 20 Tuesday meeting I am writing to oppose item 20 on your next meeting's agenda.This is way beyond the scope of city council. Please get back to the business of running our city!! I am appalled at the politics you are bringing to the council.You are just asking for lawsuits we as a city cannot afford. HB city council has always been a bipartisan group working to solve the every day issues our city faces. Please can you get back to working on city relevant matters !! Lynne Deakers Tim Deakers Huntington Beach residents • • Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 3:47 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Parents' Right To Know From: B L<becky.langenwalter@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2024 1:59 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Re: Parents' Right To Know Dear HB council, I am writing in support of the PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW ordinance in HB. Please pass this protection of our children and grandchildren. There insanity being promoted in the media and even in schools. It is a lie to state that boys or girls can change their sex. We should not be allowing this lie to be taught to minors who do not necessarily have the critical skills to recognize this deception. If parents are not allowed to be informed, they will remove their children from the public schools. Stand up to this madness, please! Rebecca Langenwalter 562 686-8256 On Tue,Aug 6, 2024, 9:12 AM B L<becky.langenwalter@gmail.com>wrote: As a homeowner in HB, who will have grandchildren attending school in HB in a few years, I support a Parents' Right To Know. What happens to children is a parents' responsibility, not the schools'. Just as we would not want a school to give our children medication, we have a right to consent to or decline ANY activities that involve our kids. AB 1955 breaks all precedence of respecting the rights of parents and strengthening families. This bill is being tested in court and will eventually be nullified due to violating parents' constitutional rights. In the meantime, I ask you to maintain the parental rights that have been serving us well for decades by supporting a Right To Know city rule. In other southland cities, the public schools have seen a mass exodus of students when overreaching practices like AB 1955 are implemented. Respectfully, Rebecca Langenwalter (562) 686-8256 1 HB Homeowner Sent from Mail for Windows 2 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 3:48 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Parental notification Original Message From:Stephen MacDowell<toyomo@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday,September 3, 2024 3:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Parental notification Please do not pass the Parent's Right to Know ordinance. The idea that city employees should track or even pay attention to my children's sexuality when in their is care creepy. This is a tremendous intrusion of government into what should be family concerns. Stephen MacDowell Sent from my iPhone 1 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 3:48 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Please Revise the Huntington Beach Parents Right to Know Act for a More Rational Approach to Protect the Freedom of Our Future From:Veronica Ingrid Rojas Munoz<virojas@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2024 5:55 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Please Revise the Huntington Beach Parents Right to Know Act for a More Rational Approach to Protect the Freedom of Our Future Good evening, City Council. Huntington Beach hosts annual surfing competitions and marathons. The city parks attract thousands of tourists year round. The city of Huntington Beach also boasts a significant amount of high end real estate properties and is in close proximity with one of the state's major educational institutions. The thousands of tourists visiting Huntington Beach on a daily basis include a significant percentage of people under 18 years of age. The passage of the Parents Right to Know Act without further revision poses a threat to the rest of the cities in our state and across the nation. While the constitutional protections surrounding gender and gender identity weigh far less than those protected with strict scrutiny, the privacy of our children is in stake by allowing any educator to make an inference that could damage and humiliate the interest of the state of raising socially confident children that support an environment of inclusion. Errors are detrimental and antagonistic in creating an ambiance of hate, humiliation and at worst,violence. While the proponents of this Act may focus on child safety, the opponents also stress the safety our students. An educator's opinion should not be the supporting statement of a community that also wishes to persecute our youth in public, especially when such opinion is without grounds. Please protect the sensitive and confidential information that can circulate for the rest of our students' live and prevent it from dissemination to groups who really do not support our students and their growth, future, families and economic contributions. End the gap that puts our children at risk of the dangers of retaliation for false reports of necessary warnings. We thank you for providing the services as council and trust that you will make a sound decision for our children and the rest of our communities. Please always feel free to direct all replies to this message, including requests for further information, including clarification, to assist in preparing responses, to this e-mail address, virojasC(gmail.com. Please don't hesitate to request an appointment to speak over the phone if this option works best for you. Written responses and requests for information are preferred over verbal responses and requests that may be made when contacting me at(626) 315-1705. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully, i Veronica I. Rojas Munoz (VIRM) Cell: (626) 315-1705 Phone appointments only. virojas@igmail.com Notice: This message and any attachments may only be intended for the named and/or addressed recipient(s). Its contents (including any attachments) may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law, confidential and/or proprietary information about VIRM, or its customers, which VIRM, does not intend to disclose to the public. Unauthorized use, copying, distribution or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. The owner of this account assumes no responsibility to persons other than the intended named and addressed recipient(s), no responsibility to any persons in cases of unsolicited electronic junk or spam messages sent using the address of this account or use of the account without authorization of its owner, and does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which are a result of email transmission. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and confirm that the original message and any attachments and copies have been destroyed and deleted from your system. 2 Moore, Tania From: berreprincess@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:01 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: STOP THE MAGA AGENDAS Enough with these made up issues that have nothing to do with the city business. Since you can't control schools and their employees you want to control the city employees in such a disgusting manner. For people that claim to be so concerned with the children you really have no clue at all and do not care what can happen to a child that might be outed to bigot parents who may beat them or kick them out of the house or send them to a evil abusive conversion camp. What will do for kids that have bigot parents like that who beat the kids or kick them out to the streets? Anything? Or does it not matter when it comes down to a child that is part of the LGBTQ community? Why is this the responsibility of someone on city staff when it has nothing to do with their job? Who is to say something like this won't be used to target city employees that someone doesn't like? Enough with this made up boogeymen you 4+1 keep trying to push insane and illegal agendas on us all. It is NOT ok to use our taxpayer money to fund suing the state on behave of any parents either and using our city resources in this manner. If CA Gates wants to do such things as a lawyer then resign from being the CA and go set up your own firm to do so but you do NOT have the right to use our taxpayer money to do so. Something that maybe you all can thing about as you try to act as if kids are your property and not humans. Would you have liked if your parents treated you that way? Would you have liked if anyone told your parents all the little things you do as a kid/teen and were keeping from them? You 4 councilmembers are a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to these things. Anna i Moore, Tania From: cherivatkinson@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:59 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; citycouncil@surfcity-hb.org; Cheri Atkinson Subject: No on Item 24-622 Dear City Council, As a mental health professional, of over 50 years, I am strongly opposed to what it means, to be a Parents Right to Know City. Having worked for Drew Medical Center, at the EIP program for six years, I have first hand knowledge of the extreme emotional damage, that can be done, when youth and adults are not accepted, and often rejected by their parents, because of their sexual identity. It is the role of parents to build a safe and trusting relationship, with their children, so that their children can be open with them, and not rely on teachers, to tell them if their children's pronouns have changed. This is not the role of the teacher. We don't know what kind of an emotional environment, the child will come home to, and if rejected, the emotional impact, and what action the child will take, self harm or suicide. Worst scenario- A teacher presents to a parent, that their child's pronouns have changed. The child is rejected at home, where they should feel safe, and takes their own life. It happens. Do you want to have the teacher, and City Council, take this responsibility. Helpful to check all the protections for GLBTQ youth, in Federal Title 9. Why not offer classes to parents, to help them in making their homes, emotionally safe for their children, so that their children feel comfortable talking with them, and not fearing rejection. I and many of the mental health clinicians, in Huntington Beach, would be glad to help. Cheri Atkinson LCSW You may read my comments i