DATE: February 17, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alan Fenstermacher, City Attorney
CONTACT: Alan Fenstermacher, City Attorney
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Ordinance to Repeal Poway Municipal Code Provisions Regarding Conduct During Physical Attendance at City Council Meetings
Summary:
City staff periodically reviews the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) and makes recommendations for revisions, often to remove outdated or unenforceable provisions. Staff recommends adopting the proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) deleting PMC sections 2.18.190 and 2.18.200 as being no longer necessary, and unconstitutional portions of Section 2.18.160(3)(b).
The City Council’s purpose of enacting Sections 2.18.190 and 2.18.200, which require physical presence at the dais at Council meetings, was “to ensure all members of the public that take the time to come to a City Council meeting and participate in public are treated with respect, that City Council colleagues treat each other with respect, and that all viewpoints are considered prior to speaking or acting on an item” during a time when the actions of a former City Councilmember refused to sit at the dais for extended periods of time without legitimate reason, particular during criticism. This was unique to the unprecedented behavior of a former Councilmember, who has now been removed from Council.
Section 2.18.160 also contains an outdated provision requiring all public comments to be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not an individual Councilmember. The City Attorney’s office believes this provision violates state law and perhaps the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore unenforceable. As a result, this requirement has not been enforced.
If approved, the Ordinance would repeal PMC §§ 2.18.190 & 2.18.200, which would allow Councilmembers to use the restroom or otherwise briefly leave the dais without asking for a formal recess. The Ordinance would return the rules to reasonableness and treating elected officials like 1 of 6 February 17, 2026, Item #5
AGENDA RE PO RT City of Poway
CITY COUNCIL
professional adults. The Ordinance would also eliminate confusion over why an unenforceable provision of the PMC is not enforced by formally removing it from the PMC.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended the City Council introduce the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) for first reading by title only, waive further reading, and schedule the adoption of the Ordinance for the February 17, 2026 Regular City Council meeting.
Discussion:
On May 7, 2025, the City Council approved Ordinance 873 which amended Chapter 2.18 of the PMC to institute rules regarding conduct by City Councilmembers when physically present at a meeting.
These rules, which require members of the City Council to request to leave the dais during an ongoing City Council meeting or risk being barred from participation in matters that occur while they are physically away from the dais, has resulted in Council time that could be otherwise focused on accomplishing the important work of the City of Poway instead being devoted to ensuring that Councilmembers were conducting themselves in a manner becoming of the City’s elected representatives. However, the conduct of a former Councilmember made these rules necessary to ensure the continued functioning of City Council meetings as contemplated by the Poway Municipal Code.
Since the removal of the former Councilmember, none of the current Councilmembers have engaged in the disruptive conduct that necessitated these rules or shown any inclination to do so, and that kind of conduct never occurred in the decades prior to the former Councilmember’s tenure. As mentioned above, this Ordinance will return City Council procedure to the way it operated throughout its history, prior to the enactment of Ordinance 873.
Additionally, the requirement in PMC section 2.18.160(3)(b) to only address the Council as a whole is unenforceable, because it likely violates the First Amendment as well as the Brown Act--the state open meeting law that contains contrary provisions. This issue was mostly recently raised last year, in the City of Huntington Beach, which also changed its Code accordingly:
https://voiceofoc.org/2025/06/huntington-beach-nixes-public-comment-restrictions-after-aclu- warning/.
Environmental Review:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Public Notification:
None.
2 of 6 February 17, 2026, Item #5
3 of 6February 17, 2026, Item #5Attachments: A. Ordinance XXX Reviewed/Approved By: Assistant City Manager Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Ap:~ Chris Ha • e City Manager
4 of 6February 17, 2026, Item #5ATTACHMENT AORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.18 (MEETINGS) OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE RE PHYSICAL ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, City staff periodically conducts review of the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) and recommends amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway wishes to rescind rules regarding Councilmembers' physical presence on the dais during City Council meetings, which are no longer necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway wants to removal all unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable portions of the PMC when the chance arises. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct. SECTION 2: Chapter 2.18 (Meetings) of the PMC is hereby amended to delete Sections 2.18.190 and 2.18.200 in their entirety, as follows 2.18.190 Attendance Generally Any member of the City Council physically present at a City Council meeting must request a recess to leave the dais during any portion of the City Council meeting. The request for a recess shall be granted, unless, in the discretion of the Mayor (or the member of the City Council chairing the meeting in the Mayor's absence), the request for a recess is unreasonable. A request for a recess may be unreasonable only if the quantity or duration of the requested recess(es) will materially disrupt the meeting. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a request for a recess shall not be unreasonable if it is needed due to a medical or disability related emergency. The City Council may, by majority vote of members present, override the determination of whether a recess is reasonable. Leaving the dais during an ongoing City Council meeting not in recess shall be considered an absence from the meeting without permission. This Section 2.18.190 shall not apply when members of the City Council recuse themselves from discussion of or participation in any agendized item due to a perceived or actual conflict of interest, or any other legally required recusal. 2.18.200 Attendance During Each Agendized Item Any member of the City Council physically present at a City Council meeting who physically leaves the dais during any part of an item (including public comment)
5 of 6February 17, 2026, Item #5Ordinance No. Page 2 without a recess shall not be permitted to participate in, make comments on, or vote on that item or any subsequent items introduced while they are absent from the dais. SECTION 3: Section 2.18.160, subdivision (3)(b) of Chapter 2.18 (Meetings) of the PMC is hereby amended as follows (deletions in strikeout): Each person addressing the Council shall speak into the microphone at the speaker's podium when the same is in use and, unless further time is granted by the Mayor, shall limit the address to three minutes, unless this three-minute time limit is reduced by the Mayor due to a large number of speakers. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body, and not to any member thereof. No person other than the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Mayor. No person shall address or question a Councilmember, the City Attorney, the City Manager or other official without the prior consent of the Mayor. SECTION 4: The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). SECTION 5: If any provisions of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be codified. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its adoption. CERTIFICATION/PUBLICATION: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it or a summary of it, to be published with the names of the City Councilmembers voting for and against the same in the Poway News Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Poway within fifteen (15) days after its adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code § 36933. II II II II II II II
6 of 6February 17, 2026, Item #5Ordinance No. Page 3 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, held the 17th day of February, 2026, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held the 3rd day of March, 2026 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk