Agenda Report
Fullerton City Council
MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 2022
TO: CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY
SUBMITTED BY: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
PREPARED BY: KRISTA MACNEVIN JEE, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: JP23 / POOZHIKALA BROWN ACT VIOLATION CLAIMS
SUMMARY
Request for City Council action relating to prior City Council proceedings regarding the entertainment permit appeal of JP23 / Jacob Poozhikala.
RECOMMENDATION
Rescind prior deliberations and action on the entertainment permit appeal on December 21, 2021 in closed session. Conduct deliberations and a decision again on the entertainment appeal, in open session. Reaffirm that no discussion, deliberations, hearing or actions occurred or were taken relating to the appeal on January 18, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
DISCUSSION
The following prior proceedings occurred relating to the entertainment permit appeal:
December 16, 2021 –City Council conducted an appeal hearing at a Special Meeting in open session.
December 21, 2021 –City Council concluded deliberated on the appeal in closed session and directed legal counsel to prepare written findings and an order (reported out by the City Attorney at City Council’s next meeting on January 18, 2022, after completion of draft findings).
February 1, 2022 –City Council approved the written Findings and Order on the appeal in open session.
Legal counsel for JP23 / Poozhikala subsequently sent a letter to City Council dated April 5, 2022, claiming certain Brown Act violations relating to the appeal, including asserting that discussion not on City Council’s agenda had allegedly occurred on January 18, 2022 and that the City should not have conducted the appeal deliberations (which concluded on December 21, 2022) in closed session.
These claims are disputed, in that no action or discussion occurred at all on January 18, 2022, relating to the appeal and City Council properly held a Closed Session to consider the appeal deliberations, decision and direction to prepare written findings.
However, the Brown Act provides a 30-day period to cure any alleged Brown Act violations and curative steps can avoid a legal action for alleged violations of the Brown Act. Further, by law, any curative action does not establish that any such Brown Act violation(s) exist or existed.
Thus, City Council may take action to avoid any further disputes relating to its decision on the entertainment permit appeal. Specifically, City Council may rescind its prior deliberations and decision on the appeal and adoption of the Findings and Order. It may then conduct its deliberations again, in open session. City Council may then decide on the appeal again and adopt the Findings and Order, as appropriate. Also, City Council may reaffirm that no discussion, deliberations, hearing or actions occurred or were taken relating to the appeal on January 18, 2022.
City Council will note that the matter was previously submitted to it, after it conducted a full hearing in open session at a noticed public meeting on December 16, 2021. As the City Council will recall, that appeal hearing included the presentation of all documentary evidence and sworn witness testimony by both the Police Department’s legal counsel and legal counsel for the permittee relating to the appeal. Each side was permitted two hours for the presentation of evidence as well as fifteen minutes of closing argument. City Council should consider no further evidence or argument, since that portion of the appeal has already concluded and closed.