San Dimas City Council
May 14, 2024

Boards Commissions Committees Handbook
Revision 3 47 July 2023
What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always fails since an affirmative vote is required to
pass any motion. For example, in a five-member
body, if the vote is two in favor and two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated.

Vote counting starts to become complicated when
members vote “abstain” or in the case of a written
ballot, cast a blank (or unreadable) ballot. Do
these votes count, and if so, how does one count
them? The starting point is always to check the
statutes.

In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors to be valid and binding, the action must
be approved by a majority of the board. (California
Government Code Section 25005.) Typically, this
means three of the five members of the board must
vote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of 2-1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3-0 with two
abstentions would be sufficient. In general law cities
in California, as another example, resolutions or
orders for the payment of money and all ordinances
require a recorded vote of the total members of the
city council. (California Government Code Section
36936.) Cities with charters may prescribe their own
vote requirements. Local elected officials are always
well-advised to consult with their local agency
counsel on how state law may affect the vote count.

After consulting state statutes, step number two is to
check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body
say that you count votes of “those present” then you
treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of
the body say that you count the votes of those
“present and voting,” then you treat abstentions a
different way. And if the rules of the body are silent
on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and
default rule) is that you count all votes that are
“present and voting.”
Accordingly, under the “present and voting” system,
you would NOT count abstention votes on the
motion. Members who abstain are counted for
purposes of determining quorum (they are “present”),
but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if
they did not exist (they are not “voting”). On the other hand, if the rules of the body specifically say that you count votes of those “present” then you DO count
abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and
on the motion. In this event, the abstention votes act
just like “no” votes.

How does this work in practice?
Here are a few examples.

Assume that a five-member city council is voting on a
motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass,
and assume further that the body has no specific rule
on counting votes. Accordingly, the default rule kicks
in and we count all votes of members that are
“present and voting.” If the vote on the motion is 3-2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2-2 with one
abstention, the motion fails.

Assume a five-member city council voting on a
motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to
pass, and further assume that the body has no
specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies. If the vote is 3-2, the motion fails for lack of a two-thirds majority. If the vote is 4-1, the motion
passes with a clear two-thirds majority. A vote of
three “yes,” one “no” and one “abstain” also results in passage of the motion. Once again, the abstention is
counted only for the purpose of determining quorum,
but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the
abstention vote never existed — so an effective 3-1
vote is clearly a two-thirds majority vote.

Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same
five-member city council voting on a motion that
requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but now
assume that the body DOES have a specific rule
requiring a two-thirds vote of members “present.”
Under this specific rule, we must count the members
present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and
effect as if it were a “no” vote. Accordingly, if the votes were three “yes,” one “no” and one “abstain,” then the
motion fails. The abstention in this case is treated like a “no” vote and effective vote of 3-2 is not enough to
pass two-thirds majority muster.

Now, exactly how does a member cast an
“abstention” vote? Any time a member votes
“abstain” or says, “I abstain,” that is an abstention.

However, if a member votes “present” that is also
treated as an abstention (the member is essentially
saying, “Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my

Boards Commissions Committees Handbook
Revision 3 48 July 2023
vote on the issue is abstain.”) In fact, any
manifestation of intention not to vote either “yes” or
“no” on the pending motion may be treated by the
chair as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a
blank or unreadable ballot is counted as an
abstention as well.

Can a member vote “absent” or “count me as
absent?” Interesting question. The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better approach is for the chair to
count this as if the member had left his/her chair and
is actually “absent.” That, of course, affects the
quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a
vote to abstain, particularly if the person does not
actually leave the dais.

The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a
bit of explanation all by itself; the motion to
reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is
finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so,
after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed,
subject only to reopening if a proper motion to
consider is made and passed.

A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to
pass like other garden-variety motions, but there are
two special rules that apply only to the motion to
reconsider.

First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider
must be made at the meeting where the item was first
voted upon. A motion to reconsider made at a later
time is untimely. (The body, however, can always
vote to suspend the rules and, by a two-thirds
majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at
another time.)
Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only
by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a
motion to reconsider may be made only by a
member who voted in the majority on the original
motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he
or she may make the motion to reconsider (any
other member of the body — including a member
who voted in the minority on the original motion —
may second the motion). If a member who voted in
the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider,
it must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this
rule is finality. If a member of minority could make a
motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought
back to the body again and again, which would
defeat the purpose of finality.

If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original
matter is back before the body, and a new original
motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and
debated as if it were on the floor for the first time.

Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an
atmosphere where the members of the body and the
members of the public can attend to business
efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of
the body to maintain common courtesy and
decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is
always best for only one person at a time to have
the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to
be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to
speak.

The chair should always ensure that debate and
discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item
and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy,
debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude.

Debate and discussion should be focused, but free
and open. In the interest of time, the chair may,
however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body.

Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker?
The general rule is “no.” There are, however,
exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the
following reasons:

Privilege. The proper interruption would be, “point of
privilege.” The chair would then ask the interrupter to “state your point.” Appropriate points of privilege
relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may
be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person’s ability to hear.

Order. The proper interruption would be, “point of

Boards Commissions Committees Handbook
Revision 3 49 July 2023
order.” Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to
“state your point.” Appropriate Appeal. If the chair
makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees
with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair.

If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it
passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of
the chair is deemed reversed.

Call for orders of the day. This is simply another
way of saying, “return to the agenda.” If a member
believes that the body has drifted from the agreedupon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the
agenda has not been followed, the chair simply
reminds the body to return to the agenda item
properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the
chair’s determination may be appealed.

Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion
of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at
any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or
her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately
deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the
person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes
to make the motion, and any other member may
make the motion if properly recognized.

Special Notes About Public Input
The rules outlined above will help make meetings
very public friendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special
rules that apply to each agenda item:

Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing.

Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is
doing it.

Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the
public what the body did.
points of order relate to anything that would not be
considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For
example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion
that permits debate without allowing that discussion
or debate.

Boards Commissions Committees Handbook
Revision 3 50 July 2023
1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 658-8200 | Fax (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
To order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8200. $10
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.

Printed on recycled paper.

Boards Commission Committees Handbook
Revision 3 2 July 2023
A GUIDE TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT
Open & Public V
REVISED APR20IL16

Boards Commission Committees Handbook
Revision 3 3 July 2023

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The League thanks the following individuals for their work on this publication:

Brown Act Committee
Michael Jenkins, Committee Chair
City Attorney, Hermosa Beach, Rolling Hills and West Hollywood Michael W. Barrett
City Attorney, Napa
Damien Brower
City Attorney, Brentwood
Ariel Pierre Calonne
City Attorney, Santa Barbara
Veronica Ramirez
Assistant City Attorney, Redwood City
MA lathy Subramanian
City Attorney, Clayton and Lafayette
Paul Zarefsky
Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco
Gregory W. Stepanicich
1st Vice President, City Attorneys’
Department City Attorney Fairfield, Mill
Valley, Town of Ross
League Staff
Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel
Koreen Kelleher, Assistant General
Counsel
Corrie Manning, Senior Deputy General
Counsel
Alison Leary, Deputy General Counsel
Janet Leonard, Legal Assistant

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Boards Commission Committees Handbook
Revision 3 4 July 2023
Open & Public V
A GUIDE TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT
REVISED APRIL 2016
CHAPTER 1: IT IS THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS .

CHAPTER 2: LEGISLATIVE BODIES
CHAPTER 3: MEETINGS
CHAPTER 4: AGENDAS, NOTICES, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CHAPTER 5: CLOSED SESSIONS
CHAPTER 6: REMEDIES

Boards Commission Committees Handbook
Revision 3 5 July 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: IT IS THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS
The right of access
Broad coverage
Narrow exemptions .

Public participation in meetings
Controversy
Beyond the law — good business practices
Achieving balance
Historical note
CHAPTER 2: LEGISLATIVE BODIES
What is a “legislative body” of a local agency?
What is not a “legislative body” for purposes of the Brown Act? CHAPTER 3: MEETINGS
Brown Act meetings
Six exceptions to the meeting definition
Collective briefings
Retreats or workshops of legislative bodies
Serial meetings
Informal gatherings
Technological conferencing
Location of meetings
CHAPTER 4: AGENDAS, NOTICES, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Agendas for regular meetings
Mailed agenda upon written request
Notice requirements for special meetings
Notices and agendas for adjourned and continued meetings and hearings Notice requirements for emergency meetings
Notice of compensation for simultaneous or serial meetings Educational agency meetings
Notice requirements for tax or assessment meetings and hearings Non-agenda items
Responding to the public
The right to attend and observe meetings
Records and recordings
The public’s place on the agenda

TABLEOF CONTENTS

Boards Commission Committees Handbook
Revision 3 6 July 2023
CHAPTER 5: CLOSED SESSIONS
Agendas and reports
Litigation
Real estate negotiations
Public employment
Labor negotiations
Labor negotiations — school and community college districts Other Education Code exceptions
Joint Powers Authorities
License applicants with criminal records
Public security
Multijurisdictional law enforcement agency
Hospital peer review and trade secrets
Other legislative bases for closed session
Who may attend closed sessions
The confidentiality of closed session discussions
CHAPTER 6: REMEDIES
Invalidation
Applicability to Past Actions
Civil action to prevent future violations
Costs and attorney’s fees
Criminal complaints
Voluntary resolution

Revision 3 7 July 2023
5 Chapter 1
IT IS THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS
The right of access
..............................................................................................................

Broad coverage
...................................................................................................................

Narrow exemptions
............................................................................................................

Public participation in meetings
.........................................................................................

Controversy
.....................................................................................................................

Beyond the law — good business practices
......................................................................

Achieving balance
...............................................................................................................

Historical note
.....................................................................................................................

Revision 3 8 July 2023
CHAPTER 1
IT IS THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS
The right of access
Two key parts of the Brown Act have not changed since its adoption in 1953. One is the Brown Act’s initial section, declaring the Legislature’s intent:
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this
State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s
business. It is the intent of the law that their
actions be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly.”
“The people of this State do not yield their
sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their
public servants the right to decide what is good for
the people to know and what is not good for them
to know. The people insist on remaining informed
so that they may retain control over the
instruments they have created.

PRACTICE TIP: The key to the
Brown Act is a single sentence. In summary, all meetings shall be open and public except when the Brown Act authorizes otherwise.

The people reconfirmed that intent 50 years later in the November 2004 election by adopting Proposition 59, amending the California Constitution to include a public right of access to government information:
“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”2 The Brown Act’s other unchanged provision is a single sentence:
“All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”3 That one sentence is by far the most important of the entire Brown Act. If the opening is the soul, that sentence is the heart of the Brown Act.

Revision 3 9 July 2023
B Broad coverage
The Brown Act covers members of virtually every type of local government body, elected or appointed, decision-making or advisory. Some types of private organizations are covered, as are newly-elected members of a legislative body, even before they take office.

Similarly, meetings subject to the Brown Act are not limited to face-to-face gatherings. They also include any communication medium or device through which a majority of a legislative body discusses, deliberates or takes action on an item of business outside of a noticed meeting.

They include meetings held from remote locations by teleconference.

New communication technologies present new Brown Act challenges. For example, common email practices of forwarding or replying to messages can easily lead to a serial meeting prohibited by the Brown Act, as can participation by members of a legislative body in an internet chatroom or blog dialogue. Communicating during meetings using electronic technology (such as laptop computers, tablets, or smart phones) may create the perception that private communications are influencing the outcome of decisions; some state legislatures have banned the practice. On the other hand, widespread cablecasting and web streaming of meetings has greatly expanded public access to the decision-making process.

Narrow exemptions
The express purpose of the Brown Act is to assure that local government agencies conduct the public’s business openly and publicly. Courts and the California Attorney General usually broadly construe the Brown Act in favor of greater public access and narrowly construe exemptions to its general rules.4
Generally, public officials should think of themselves as living in glass houses, and that they may only draw the curtains when it is in the public interest to preserve confidentiality. Closed sessions may be held only as specifically authorized by the provisions of the Brown Act itself.

The Brown Act, however, is limited to meetings among a majority of the members of multimember government bodies when the subject relates to local agency business. It does not apply to independent conduct of individual decision-makers. It does not apply to social, ceremonial, educational, and other gatherings as long as a majority of the members of a body do not discuss issues related to their local agency’s business. Meetings of temporary advisory committees — as distinguished from standing committees — made up solely of less than a quorum of a legislative body are not subject to the Brown Act.

The law does not apply to local agency staff or employees, but they may facilitate a violation by acting as a conduit for discussion, deliberation, or action by the legislative body.5 The law, on the one hand, recognizes the need of individual local officials to meet and discuss matters with their constituents. On the other hand, it requires — with certain specific exceptions to protect the community and preserve individual rights — that the decision-making process be public. Sometimes the boundary between the two is not easy to draw.

Public participation in meetings
In addition to requiring the public’s business to be conducted in open, noticed meetings, the Brown Act also extends to the public the right to participate in meetings. Individuals, lobbyists, and members of the news media possess the right to attend, record, broadcast, and participate in public meetings. The public’s participation is further enhanced by the Brown Act’s requirement that a meaningful agenda be posted in advance of meetings, by limiting discussion and action to matters listed on the agenda, and by requiring that meeting materials be made available.

Revision 3 10 July 2023
Legislative bodies may, however, adopt reasonable regulations on public testimony and the conduct of public meetings, including measures to address disruptive conduct and irrelevant speech.

PRACTICE TIP: Think of the government’s house as being made of glass. The curtains may be drawn only to further the public’s interest. A local policy on the use of laptop computers, tablets, and smart phones during Brown Act meetings may help avoid problems.

PRACTICE TIP: Transparency is a foundational value for ethical government practices. The Brown Act is a floor, not a ceiling, for conduct.

Controversy
Not surprisingly, the Brown Act has been a source of confusion and controversy since its inception.

News media and government watchdogs often argue the law is toothless, pointing out that there has never been a single criminal conviction for a violation. They often suspect that closed sessions are being misused.

Public officials complain that the Brown Act makes it difficult to respond to constituents and requires public discussions of items better discussed privately — such as why a particular person should not be appointed to a board or commission. Many elected officials find the Brown Act inconsistent with their private business experiences. Closed meetings can be more efficient; they eliminate grandstanding and promote candor. The techniques that serve well in business — the working lunch, the sharing of information through a series of phone calls or emails, the backroom conversations and compromises — are
often not possible under the Brown Act.

As a matter of public policy, California
(along with many other states) has
concluded that there is more to be
gained than lost by conducting public
business in the open. Government
behind closed doors may well be
efficient and business-like, but it may be
perceived as unresponsive and
untrustworthy.

Beyond the law — good business
practices
Violations of the Brown Act can lead to
invalidation of an agency’s action, payment of a challenger’s attorney fees, public embarrassment, even criminal prosecution. But the Brown Act is a floor, not a ceiling for conduct of public officials. This guide is focused not only on the Brown Act as a minimum standard, but also on meeting practices or activities that, legal or not, are likely to create controversy. Problems may crop up, for example, when agenda descriptions

Revision 3 11 July 2023
are too brief or vague, when an informal get together takes on the appearance of a meeting, when an agency conducts too much of its business in closed session or discusses matters in closed session that are beyond the authorized scope, or when controversial issues arise that are not on the agenda.

The Brown Act allows a legislative body to adopt practices and requirements for greater access to meetings for itself and its subordinate committees and bodies that are more stringent than the law itself requires.6 Rather than simply restate the basic requirements of the Brown Act, local open meeting policies should strive to anticipate and prevent problems in areas where the Brown Act does not provide full guidance. As with the adoption of any other significant policy, public comment should be solicited.

A local policy could build on these basic Brown Act goals:

A legislative body’s need to get its business done smoothly; The public’s right to participate meaningfully in meetings, and to review documents used in decision-making at a relevant point in time;
A local agency’s right to confidentially address certain negotiations, personnel matters, claims and litigation; and
The right of the press to fully understand and communicate public agency decision-making.

An explicit and comprehensive public meeting and information policy, especially if reviewed periodically, can be an important element in maintaining or improving public relations. Such a policy exceeds the absolute requirements of the law — but if the law were enough, this guide would be unnecessary. A narrow legalistic approach will not avoid or resolve potential controversies. An agency should consider going beyond the law, and look at its unique circumstances and determine if there is a better way to prevent potential problems and promote public trust. At the very least, local agencies need to think about how their agendas are structured in order to make Brown Act compliance easier. They need to plan carefully to make sure public participation fits smoothly into the process.

Achieving balance
The Brown Act should be neither an excuse for hiding the ball nor a mechanism for hindering efficient and orderly meetings. The Brown Act represents a balance among the interests of constituencies whose interests do not always coincide. It calls for openness in local government, yet should allow government to function responsively and productively.

There must be both adequate notice of what discussion and action is to occur during a meeting as well as a normal degree of spontaneity in the dialogue between elected officials and their constituents.

The ability of an elected official to confer with constituents or colleagues must be balanced against the important public policy prohibiting decision-making outside of public meetings.

In the end, implementation of the Brown Act must ensure full participation of the public and preserve the integrity of the decision-making process, yet not stifle government officials and impede the effective and natural operation of government.

Historical note
In late 1951, San Francisco Chronicle reporter Mike Harris spent six weeks looking into the way local agencies conducted meetings. State law had long required that business be done in public, but Harris discovered secret meetings or caucuses were common. He wrote a 10-part series on “Your Secret Government” that ran in May and June 1952.

Revision 3 12 July 2023
Out of the series came a decision to push for a new state open meeting law. Harris and Richard (Bud) Carpenter, legal counsel for the League of California Cities, drafted such a bill and Assembly Member Ralph M. Brown agreed to carry it. The Legislature passed the bill and Governor Earl Warren signed it into law in 1953.

The Ralph M. Brown Act, known as the Brown Act, has evolved under a series of amendments and court decisions, and has been the model for other open meeting laws — such as the Bagley-Keene Act, enacted in 1967 to cover state agencies.

Assembly Member Brown is best known for the open meeting law that carries his name. He was elected to the Assembly in 1942 and served 19 years, including the last three years as Speaker.

He then became an appellate court justice.

PRACTICE TIP: The Brown Act should be viewed as a tool to facilitate the business of local government agencies. Local policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of law may help instill public confidence and avoid problems.

ENDNOTES:
1 California Government Code section 54950
2 California Constitution, Art. 1, section 3(b)(1)
3 California Government Code section 54953(a)
4 This principle of broad construction when it furthers public access and narrow construction if a provision limits public access is also stated in the amendment to the State’s Constitution adopted by Proposition 59 in 2004. California Constitution, Art. 1, section 3(b)(2). 5 California Government Code section 54952.2(b)(2) and (c)(1); Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 533 6 California Government Code section 54953.7 Updates to this publication responding to changes in the Brown Act or new court interpretations are available at www.cacities.org/opengovernment. A current version of the Brown Act may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Revision 3 13 July 2023
A GUIDE TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT 11
Chapter 2

LEGISLATIVE BODIES
What is a “legislative body” of a local agency?
What is not a “legislative body” for purposes of the Brown Act? ...................................

Revision 3 14 July 2023
CHAPTER 2

LEGISLATIVE BODIES
The Brown Act applies to the legislative bodies of local agencies. It defines “legislative body” broadly to include just about every type of decision-making body of a local agency.1 What is a “legislative body” of a local agency?
A “legislative body” includes:

The “governing body of a local agency” and certain of its subsidiary bodies; “or any other local body created by state or federal statute.”2 This includes city councils, boards of supervisors, school boards and boards of trustees of special districts. A “local agency” is any city, county, city and county, school district, municipal corporation, successor agency to a redevelopment agency, district,
political subdivision or other local public agency.3
A housing authority is a local agency under the
Brown Act even though it is created by and is an
agent of the state.4 The California Attorney
General has opined that air pollution control
districts and regional open space districts are
also covered.5 Entities created pursuant to joint
powers agreements are also local agencies within
the meaning of the Brown Act.6
PRACTICE TIP: The prudent presumption is that
an advisory committee or task force is subject to
the Brown Act. Even if one clearly is not, it may
want to comply with the Brown Act. Public
meetings may reduce the possibility of misunderstandings and controversy.

Newly-elected members of a legislative body who have not yet assumed office must conform to the requirements of the Brown Act as if already in office.7 Thus, meetings between incumbents and newly-elected members of a legislative body, such as a meeting between two outgoing members and a member-elect of a five-member body, could violate the Brown Act.

Q. On the morning following the election to a five-member legislative body of a local agency, two successful candidates, neither an incumbent, meet with an incumbent member of the legislative body for a celebratory breakfast. Does this violate the Brown Act?
A. It might, and absolutely would if the conversation turns to agency business. Even though the candidates-elect have not officially been sworn in, the Brown Act applies. If purely a social event, there is no violation but it would be preferable if others were invited to attend to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Appointed bodies — whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory —

Revision 3 15 July 2023
including planning commissions, civil service commissions and other subsidiary committees, boards, and bodies. Volunteer groups, executive search committees, task forces, and blue-ribbon committees created by formal action of the governing body are legislative bodies. When the members of two or more legislative bodies are appointed to serve on an entirely separate advisory group, the resulting body may be subject to the Brown Act. In one reported case, a city council created a committee of two members of the city council and two members of the city planning commission to review qualifications of prospective planning commissioners and make recommendations to the council. The court held that their joint mission made them a legislative body subject to the Brown Act. Had the two committees remained separate; and met only to exchange information and report back to their respective boards, they would have been exempt from the Brown Act.8 Standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have either: (1) a continuing subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body.9 Even if it comprises less than a quorum of the governing body, a standing committee is subject to the Brown Act. For example, if a governing body creates long-term committees on budget and finance or on public safety, those are standing committees subject to the Brown Act. Further, according to the California Attorney General, function over form controls. For example, a statement by the legislative body that the advisory committee “shall not exercise continuing subject matter jurisdiction” or the fact that the committee does not have a fixed meeting schedule is not determinative.10 “Formal action” by a legislative body includes authorization given to the agency’s executive officer to appoint an advisory committee pursuant to agency-adopted policy.11
The governing body of any private organization either: (1) created by the legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by such body to a private corporation, limited liability company or other entity; or (2) that receives agency funding and whose governing board includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed by the legislative body as a full voting member of the private entity’s governing board.12 These include some nonprofit corporations created by local agencies.13 If a local agency contracts with a private firm for a service (for example, payroll, janitorial, or food services), the private firm is not covered by the Brown Act.14 When a member of a legislative body sits on a board of a private organization as a private person and is not appointed by the legislative body, the board will not be subject to the Brown Act. Similarly, when the legislative body appoints someone other than one of its own members to such boards, the Brown Act does not apply. Nor does it apply when a private organization merely receives agency funding.15
Q: The local chamber of commerce is funded in part by the city. The mayor sits on the chamber’s board of directors. Is the chamber board a legislative body subject to the Brown Act?
A: Maybe. If the chamber’s governing documents require the mayor to be on the board and the city council appoints the mayor to that position, the board is a legislative body. If, however, the chamber board independently appoints the mayor to its board, or the mayor attends chamber board meetings in a purely advisory capacity, it is not.

Q: If a community college district board creates an auxiliary organization to

Revision 3 16 July 2023
operate a campus bookstore or cafeteria, is the board of the organization a legislative body?
A: Yes. But, if the district instead contracts with a private firm to operate the bookstore or cafeteria, the Brown Act would not apply to the private firm.

Certain types of hospital operators. A lessee of a hospital (or portion of a hospital) first leased under Health and Safety Code subsection 32121(p) after January 1, 1994, which exercises “material authority” delegated to it by a local agency, whether or not such lessee is organized and operated by the agency or by a delegated authority.16 What is not a “legislative body” for purposes of the Brown Act? A temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of the legislative body that serves a limited or single purpose, that is not perpetual, and that will be dissolved once its specific task is completed is not subject to the Brown Act.17 Temporary committees are sometimes called ad hoc committees, a term not used in the Brown Act. Examples include an advisory committee composed of less than a quorum created to interview candidates for a vacant position or to meet with representatives of other entities to exchange information on a matter of concern to the agency, such as traffic congestion.18 Groups advisory to a single decision-maker or appointed by staff are not covered. The Brown Act applies only to committees created by formal action of the legislative body and not to committees created by others. A committee advising a superintendent of schools would not be covered by the Brown Act. However, the same committee, if created by formal action of the school board, would be covered.19
Q. A member of the legislative body of a local agency informally establishes an advisory committee of five residents to advise her
on issues as they arise. Does the Brown Act
apply to this committee?
A. No, because the committee has not been established by formal action of the legislative body.

Q. During a meeting of the city council, the council directs the city manager to form an advisory committee of residents to
develop recommendations for a new ordinance.

The city manager forms the committee and
appoints its members; the committee is instructed
to direct its recommendations to the city
manager. Does the Brown Act apply to this
committee?
A. Possibly, because the direction from the city council might be regarded as a formal action of the body notwithstanding that the
city manager controls the committee.

Individual decision makers who are not elected or appointed members of a legislative

Revision 3 17 July 2023
body are not covered by the Brown Act. For example, a disciplinary hearing presided over by a department head or a meeting of agency department heads are not subject to the Brown Act since such assemblies are not those of a legislative body.20
Public employees, each acting individually and not engaging in collective deliberation on a specific issue, such as the drafting and review of an agreement, do not constitute a legislative body under the Brown Act, even if the drafting and review process was established by a legislative body.21 County central committees of political parties are also not Brown Act bodies.22 PRACTICE TIP: It can be difficult to determine whether a subcommittee of a body falls into the category of a standing committee or an exempt temporary committee. Suppose a committee is created to explore the renewal of a franchise or a topic of similarly limited scope and duration. Is it an exempt temporary committee or a nonexempt standing committee? The answer may depend on factors such as how meeting schedules are determined, the scope of the committee’s charge, or whether the committee exists long enough to have “continuing jurisdiction.”PTER 2:

LEGISLATIVE BODIES
ENDNOTES:
1 Taxpayers for Livable Communities v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1127 2 California Government Code section 54952(a) and (b)
3 California Government Code section 54951; Health and Safety Code section 34173(g) (successor agencies to former redevelopment agencies subject to the Brown Act). But see Education Code section 35147, which exempts certain school councils and school site advisory committees from the Brown Act and imposes upon them a separate set of rules. 4 Torres v. Board of Commissioners of Housing Authority of Tulare County (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 545, 549550
5 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 96 (1988); 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (1990) 6 McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal. App.4th 354, 362
7 California Government Code section 54952.1
8 Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 804-805 9 California Government Code section 54952(b)
10 79 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 69 (1996)
11 Frazer v. Dixon Unified School District (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781, 793 12 California Government Code section 54952(c)(1). Regarding private organizations that receive local agency funding, the same rule applies to a full voting member appointed prior to February 9, 1996 who, after that date, is made a non-voting board member by the legislative body. California Government Code section 54952(c)(2)
13 California Government Code section 54952(c)(1)(A); International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 287, 300; Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement District (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 876; see also 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 55 (2002) 14 International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal (1999) 69 Cal. App.4th 287, 300 fn. 5
15 “The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies,” California Attorney General’s Office (2003), p. 7
16 California Government Code section 54952(d)
17 California Government Code section 54952(b); see also Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v.

Orange County Employees Retirement System Board of Directors (1993) 6 Cal.4th 821, 832. 18 Taxpayers for Livable Communities v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1129 19 56 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 14, 16-17 (1973) 20 Wilson v. San Francisco Municipal Railway (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 870, 878-879 21 Golightly v. Molina (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1513 22 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 162, 164 (1976)
Updates to this publication responding to changes in the Brown Act or new court interpretations are available at
www.cacities.org/opengovernment. A current version of the Brown Act may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov.

17 Chapter 3

MEETINGS
Brown Act meetings
.........................................................................................................

Six exceptions to the meeting definition
..........................................................................

Collective briefings
............................................................................................................

Retreats or workshops of legislative
bodies.....................................................................

Serial meetings
.................................................................................................................

Informal gatherings
...........................................................................................................

Technological conferencing
..............................................................................................

Location of meetings
........................................................................................................

Revision 3 19 July 2023
CHAPTER 3

MEETINGS
The Brown Act only applies to meetings of local legislative bodies. The Brown Act defines a meeting as:
“… and any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference location as permitted by Section 54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take any action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”1 The term “meeting” is not limited to gatherings at which action is taken but includes deliberative gatherings as well. A hearing before an individual hearing officer is not a meeting under the Brown Act because it is not a hearing before a legislative body.2
Brown Act meetings
Brown Act meetings include a legislative body’s
regular meetings, special meetings, emergency
meetings, and adjourned meetings.
“Regular meetings” are meetings occurring
at the dates, times, and location set by
resolution, ordinance, or other formal action by
the legislative body and are subject to 72hour
posting requirements.3
“Special meetings” are meetings called by
the presiding officer or majority of the legislative
body to discuss only discrete items on the
agenda under the Brown Act’s notice
requirements for special meetings and are
subject to 24-hour posting requirements.4
“Emergency meetings” are a limited class of
meetings held when prompt action is needed due
to actual or threatened disruption of public
facilities and are held on little notice.5
“Adjourned meetings” are regular or special
meetings that have been adjourned or readjourned to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment, with no agenda required for
regular meetings adjourned for less than five
calendar days as long as no additional business
is transacted.6
Six exceptions to the meeting definition
The Brown Act creates six exceptions to the meeting definition:7 Individual Contacts
The first exception involves individual contacts between a member of the legislative body and any other person. The Brown Act does not limit a legislative body member acting on his or her own. This exception recognizes the right to confer with constituents, advocates, consultants, news reporters,

Revision 3 20 July 2023
local agency staff, or a colleague.

Individual contacts, however, cannot be used to do in stages what would be prohibited in one step. For example, a series of individual contacts that leads to discussion, deliberation, or action among a majority of the members of a legislative body is prohibited. Such serial meetings are discussed
below.

Conferences
The second exception allows a legislative body majority to attend a conference or similar gathering open to the public that addresses issues of general interest to the public or to public agencies of the type represented by the legislative body.

Among other things, this exception permits legislative body members to attend annual association conferences of city, county, school, community college, and other local agency officials, so long as those meetings are open to the public. However, a majority of members cannot discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specific nature that is within their local agency’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Community Meetings
The third exception allows a legislative body majority to attend an open and publicized meeting held by another organization to address a topic of local community concern. A majority cannot discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specific nature that is within the legislative body’s subject matter jurisdiction. Under this exception, a legislative body majority may attend a local service club meeting or a local candidates’ night if the meetings are open to the public.
“I see we have four distinguished members of the city
council at our meeting tonight,” said the chair of the
Environmental Action Coalition.“I wonder if they
have anything to say about the controversy over
enacting a slow growth ordinance?”
The Brown Act permits a majority of a legislative body to attend and speak at an open and publicized meeting
conducted by another organization. The Brown Act may
nevertheless be violated if a majority discusses,
deliberates, or takes action on an item during the
meeting of the other organization. There is a fine line between what is permitted and what is not; hence,
members should exercise caution when participating in
these types of events.

Revision 3 21 July 2023
Q. The local chamber of commerce sponsors an open and
public candidate debate during an election campaign.

Three of the five agency members are up for re-election and all three participate. All of the candidates are asked their views of a controversial project scheduled for a
meeting to occur just after the election. May the three incumbents answer the question?
A. Yes, because the Brown Act does not constrain the
incumbents from expressing their views regarding
important matters facing the local agency as part of the political process the same as any other candidates.

Other Legislative Bodies
The fourth exception allows a majority of a legislative body to attend an open and publicized meeting of:
(1) another body of the local agency; and (2) a legislative body of another local agency.8 Again, the majority cannot discuss among themselves, other
than as part of the scheduled meeting, business
of a specific nature that is within their subject
matter jurisdiction. This exception allows, for
example, a city council or a majority of a board of
supervisors to attend a controversial meeting of
the planning commission.

Nothing in the Brown Act prevents the majority of
a legislative body from sitting together at such a
meeting. They may choose not to, however, to
preclude any possibility of improperly discussing
local agency business and to avoid the
appearance of a Brown Act violation. Further,
aside
from the Brown Act, there may be other reasons,
such as due process considerations, why the members should avoid giving public testimony or trying to influence the outcome of proceedings before a subordinate body.

Q. The entire legislative body intends to testify against a bill before the Senate Local Government Committee in Sacramento. Must this activity be noticed as a meeting of the body?
A. No, because the members are attending and participating in an open meeting of another governmental body which the public may attend.

Q. The members then proceed upstairs to the office of their local Assembly member to discuss issues of local interest. Must this session be noticed as a meeting and be open to the public?
A. Yes, because the entire body may not meet behind closed doors except for proper closed sessions. The same answer applies to a private lunch or dinner with the Assembly member.

Standing Committees
The fifth exception authorizes the attendance of a majority at an open and noticed meeting of a

Revision 3 22 July 2023
standing committee of the legislative body, provided that the legislative body members who are not members of the standing committee attend only as observers (meaning that they cannot speak or otherwise participate in the meeting).9
Q. The legislative body establishes a standing committee of two of its five members, which meets monthly. A third member of the legislative body wants to attend these meetings and participate. May she?
A. She may attend, but only as an observer; she may not participate.

Social or Ceremonial Events
The final exception permits a majority of a legislative body to attend a purely social or ceremonial occasion. Once again, a majority cannot discuss business among themselves of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.

Nothing in the Brown Act prevents a majority of members from attending the same football game, party, wedding, funeral, reception, or farewell.

The test is not whether a majority of a legislative body attends the function, but whether business of a specific nature within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body is discussed. So long as no such business is discussed, there is no violation of the Brown Act.

Grand Jury Testimony
In addition, members of a legislative body, either individually or collectively, may give testimony in private before a grand jury.10 This is the equivalent of a seventh exception to the Brown Act’s definition of a “meeting.”
Collective briefings
None of these exceptions permits a majority of a
legislative body to meet together with staff in advance of a meeting for a collective briefing. Any such briefings that involve a majority of the body in the same place and time must be open to the public and satisfy Brown Act meeting notice and agenda requirements.

Retreats or workshops of legislative bodies
Gatherings by a majority of legislative body members at the legislative body’s retreats, study sessions, or
workshops are covered under the Brown Act. This is the
case whether the retreat, study session, or workshop
focuses on long-range agency planning, discussion of
critical local issues, or team building and group
dynamics.11

Revision 3 23 July 2023
Q. The legislative body wants to hold a team-building session to improve relations among its members. May such a session be conducted behind closed doors?
A. No, this is not a proper subject for a closed session, and there is no other basis to exclude the public. Council relations are a matter of public business.

Serial meetings
One of the most frequently asked questions about the Brown Act involves serial meetings. At any one time, such meetings involve only a portion of a legislative body, but eventually involve a majority. The Brown Act provides that “[a] majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting … use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”12 The problem with serial meetings is the process, which deprives the public of an opportunity for meaningful observation of and participation in legislative body decision-making.

The serial meeting may occur by either a “daisy chain” or a “hub and spoke” sequence. In the daisy chain scenario, Member A contacts Member B, Member B contacts Member C, Member C contacts Member D and so on, until a quorum has discussed, deliberated, or taken action on an item within the legislative body’s subject matter jurisdiction. The hub and spoke process involves at least two scenarios. In the first scenario, Member A (the hub) sequentially contacts Members B, C, and D and so on (the spokes), until a quorum
has been contacted. In the second
scenario, a staff member (the hub),
functioning as an intermediary for
the legislative body or one of its
members,
communicates with a majority of
members (the spokes) one-by-one
for discussion, deliberation, or a
decision on a proposed action.13
Another example of a serial meeting
is when a chief executive officer (the
hub) briefs a majority of members
(the spokes) prior to a formal meeting
and, in the process, information
about the members’ respective views
is revealed. Each of these scenarios
violates the Brown Act.

A legislative body member has the right, if not the duty, to meet with constituents to address their concerns. That member also has the right to confer with a colleague (but not with a majority of the body, counting the member) or appropriate staff about local agency business. An employee or official of a local agency may engage in separate conversations or communications outside of an open and noticed meeting “with members of a legislative body in order to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency if that person does not communicate to members of the legislative body the comments or position of any other member or members of the legislative body.”14 The Brown Act has been violated, however, if several one-on-one meetings or conferences leads to a

Revision 3 24 July 2023
discussion, deliberation, or action by a majority. In one case, a violation occurred when a quorum of a city council, by a letter that had been circulated among members outside of a formal meeting, directed staff to take action in an eminent domain proceeding.15 A unilateral written communication to the legislative body, such as an informational or advisory memorandum, does not violate the Brown Act.16 Such a memo, however, may be a public record.17 The phone call was from a lobbyist. “Say, I need your vote for that project in the
south area. How about it?”
“Well, I don’t know,” replied Board Member Aletto. “That’s kind of a sticky proposition. You sure you need my vote?”
“Well, I’ve got Bradley and Cohen lined up and another vote leaning.

With you I’d be over the top.”
Moments later, the phone rings again. “Hey, I’ve been hearing some rumbles on that south area project,” said the newspaper reporter. “I’m counting noses. How are you voting on it?”
Neither the lobbyist nor the reporter has violated the Brown Act, but they are facilitating a violation. The board member may have violated the Brown Act by hearing about the positions of other board members and indeed coaxing the lobbyist to reveal the other board members’ positions by asking “You sure you need my vote?” The prudent course is to avoid such leading conversations and to caution lobbyists, staff, and news media against revealing such positions of others.

The mayor sat down across from the city manager. “From now on,” he declared, “I want you to provide individual briefings on upcoming agenda items. Some of this material is very technical, and the council members don’t want to sound like idiots asking about it in public. Besides that, briefings will speed up the meeting.” Agency employees or officials may have separate conversations or communications outside of an open and noticed meeting “with members of a legislative body in order to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency if that person does not communicate to members of the legislative body the comments or position of any other member or members of the legislative body.”18 Members should always be vigilant when discussing local agency business with anyone to avoid conversations that could lead to a discussion, deliberation or action taken among the majority of the legislative body.
“Thanks for the information,” said Council Member Kim. “These zoning changes can be tricky, and
now I think I’m better equipped to make the right decision.” “Glad to be of assistance,” replied the planning director. “I’m sure Council
Member Jones is OK with these changes. How are you leaning?” “Well,” said Council Member Kim, “I’m leaning toward approval. I know that two
of my colleagues definitely favor approval.”
The planning director should not disclose Jones’ prospective vote, and Kim should not

Revision 3 25 July 2023
disclose the prospective votes of two of her colleagues. Under these facts, there likely has been a serial meeting in violation of the Brown Act.

Q. The agency’s website includes a chat room where agency employees and officials participate anonymously and often discuss issues of local agency business. Members of the legislative body participate regularly. Does this scenario present a potential for violation of the Brown Act?
A. Yes, because it is a technological device that may serve to allow for a majority of members to discuss, deliberate, or take action on matters of agency business.

Q. A member of a legislative body contacts two other members on a five-member body relative to scheduling a special meeting. Is this an illegal serial meeting? A. No, the Brown Act expressly allows a majority of a body to call a special meeting, though the members should avoid discussing the merits of what is to be taken up at the meeting.

Particular care should be exercised when staff briefings of legislative body members occur by email because of the ease of using the “reply to all” button that may inadvertently result in a Brown Act violation.

PRACTICE TIP: When briefing legislative body members, staff must exercise care not to disclose other members’ views and positions.

Informal gatherings
Often members are tempted to mix business with pleasure — for example, by holding a postmeeting gathering. Informal gatherings at which local agency business is discussed or transacted violate the law if they are not conducted in conformance with the Brown Act.19 A luncheon gathering in a crowded dining room violates the Brown Act if the public does not have an opportunity to attend, hear, or participate in the deliberations of members.

Thursday at 11:30 a.m., as they did every week, the board of directors of the Dry Gulch Irrigation District trooped into Pop’s Donut Shoppe for an hour of talk and fellowship. They sat at the corner
window, fronting on Main and Broadway, to
show they had nothing to hide. Whenever
he could, the managing editor of the
weekly newspaper down the street hurried
over to join the board.

A gathering like this would not violate the
Brown Act if board members scrupulously

Revision 3 26 July 2023
avoided talking about irrigation district issues — which might be difficult. This kind of situation should be avoided. The public is unlikely to believe the board members could meet regularly without discussing public business. A newspaper executive’s presence in no way lessens the potential for a violation of the Brown Act.

Q. The agency has won a major victory in the Supreme Court on an issue of importance.

The presiding officer decides to hold an impromptu press conference in order to make a statement to the print and broadcast media. All the other members show up in order to make statements of their own and be seen by the media. Is this gathering illegal? A. Technically there is no exception for this sort of gathering, but as long as members do not state their intentions as to future action to be taken and the press conference is open to the public, it seems harmless.

Technological conferencing
Except for certain nonsubstantive purposes, such as scheduling a special meeting, a conference call including a majority of the members of a legislative body is an unlawful meeting. But, in an effort to keep up with information age technologies, the Brown Act specifically allows a legislative body to use any type of teleconferencing to meet, receive public comment and testimony, deliberate, or conduct a closed session.20 While the Brown Act contains specific requirements for conducting a teleconference, the decision to use teleconferencing is entirely discretionary with the body. No person has a right under the Brown Act to have a meeting by teleconference. “Teleconference” is defined as “a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.”21 In addition to the specific requirements relating to teleconferencing, the meeting must comply with all provisions of the Brown Act otherwise applicable. The Brown Act contains the following teleconferencing requirements:22 Teleconferencing may be used for all purposes during any meeting; At least a quorum of the legislative body must participate from locations within the local agency’s jurisdiction;
Additional teleconference locations may be made available for the public; Each teleconference location must be specifically identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting, including a full address and room number, as may be applicable;
Agendas must be posted at each teleconference location, even if a hotel room or a residence;
Each teleconference location, including a hotel room or residence, must be accessible to the public and have technology, such as a speakerphone, to enable the public to participate;
The agenda must provide the opportunity for the public to address the legislative body directly at each teleconference location; and All votes must be by roll call.

Q. A member on vacation wants to participate in a meeting of the legislative body and vote by cellular phone from her car while driving from Washington, D.C. to New York. May she?

Revision 3 27 July 2023
A. She may not participate or vote because she is not in a noticed and posted teleconference location.

The use of teleconferencing to conduct a legislative body meeting presents a variety of issues beyond the scope of this guide to discuss in detail. Therefore, before teleconferencing a meeting, legal counsel for the local agency should be consulted.

Location of meetings
The Brown Act generally requires all regular and special meetings of a legislative body, including retreats and workshops, to be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction.23
An open and publicized meeting of a legislative body may be held outside of agency boundaries if the purpose of the meeting is one of the following:24 Comply with state or federal law or a court order, or attend a judicial conference or administrative proceeding in which the local agency is a party;
Inspect real or personal property that cannot be conveniently brought into the local agency’s territory, provided the meeting is limited to items relating to that real or personal property;
Q. The agency is considering approving a major retail mall.

The developer has built other similar malls, and invites the entire legislative body to visit a mall outside the jurisdiction.

May the entire body go?
A. Yes, the Brown Act permits meetings outside the
boundaries of the agency for specified reasons and
inspection of property is one such reason. The field trip must be treated as a meeting and the public must be
allowed to attend.

Participate in multiagency meetings or discussions; however, such meetings must be held within the boundaries of one of the participating agencies, and all of those agencies must give proper notice;
Meet in the closest meeting facility if the local agency has no meeting facility within its boundaries, or meet at its principal office if that office is located outside the territory over which the agency has jurisdiction;
Meet with elected or appointed federal or California officials when a local meeting would be impractical, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction; Meet in or nearby a facility owned by the agency, provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility; or
Visit the office of its legal counsel for a closed session on pending litigation, when to do so would reduce legal fees or costs.25

Revision 3 28 July 2023
In addition, the governing board of a school or community college district may hold meetings outside of its boundaries to attend a conference on non-adversarial collective bargaining techniques, interview candidates for school district superintendent, or interview a potential employee from another district.26 A school board may also interview members of the public residing in another district if the board is considering employing that district’s superintendent.

Similarly, meetings of a joint powers authority can occur within the territory of at least one of its member agencies, and a joint powers authority with members throughout the state may meet anywhere in the state.27
Finally, if a fire, flood, earthquake, or other
emergency makes the usual meeting place
unsafe, the presiding officer can designate
another meeting place for the duration of the
emergency. News media that have requested
notice of meetings must be notified of the
designation by the most rapid means of
communication available.28
Endnotes:
1 California Government Code section 54952.2(a)
2 Wilson v. San Francisco Municipal Railway (1973)
29 Cal.App.3d 870
3 California Government Code section 54954(a)
4 California Government Code section 54956
5 California Government Code section 54956.5
6 California Government Code section 54955
7 California Government Code section 54952.2(c)
8 California Government Code section 54952.2(c)(4)
9 California Government Code section 54952.2(c)(6)
10 California Government Code section 54953.1
11 “The Brown Act,” California Attorney General (2003), p. 10 12 California Government Code section 54952.2(b)(1)
13 Stockton Newspaper Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95 14 California Government Code section 54952.2(b)(2)
15 Common Cause v. Stirling (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 518
16 Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363
17 California Government Code section 54957.5(a)
18 California Government Code section 54952.2(b)(2)

Revision 3 29 July 2023
19 California Government Code section 54952.2; 43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 36 (1964) 20 California Government Code section 54953(b)(1)
21 California Government Code section 54953(b)(4)
22 California Government Code section 54953
23 California Government Code section 54954(b)
24 California Government Code section 54954(b)(1)-(7)
25 94 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 15 (2011)
26 California Government Code section 54954(c)
27 California Government Code section 54954(d) 28 California Government Code section 54954(e) Updates to this publication responding to changes in the Brown Act or new court interpretations are available at www.cacities.org/opengovernment. A current version of the Brown Act may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Revision 3 30 July 2023
A GUIDE TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT 29
Chapter 4

AGENDAS, NOTICES, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Agendas for regular meetings
..........................................................................................

Mailed agenda upon written request
...............................................................................

Notice requirements for special meetings
.......................................................................

Notices and agendas for adjourned and continued meetings and hearings ...................
3 2
Notice requirements for emergency meetings
................................................................

Notice of compensation for simultaneous or serial meetings .........................................

Educational agency meetings
...........................................................................................

Notice requirements for tax or assessment meetings and hearings ...............................

Non-agenda items
.............................................................................................................

Responding to the public
..................................................................................................

The right to attend and observe meetings
.......................................................................

Records and recordings
....................................................................................................

The public’s place on the agenda
.....................................................................................

Revision 3 31 July 2023
Chapter 4

AGENDAS, NOTICES, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Effective notice is essential for an open and public meeting. Whether a meeting is open or how the public may participate in that meeting is academic if nobody knows about the meeting.

Agendas for regular meetings
Every regular meeting of a legislative
body of a local agency — including
advisory committees, commissions, or
boards, as well as standing committees
of legislative bodies — must be
preceded by a posted agenda that
advises the public of the meeting and
the matters to be transacted or
discussed.

The agenda must be posted at least 72
hours before the regular meeting in a
location “freely accessible to members of
the public.”1 The courts have not
definitively interpreted the “freely
accessible” requirement. The California Attorney General has interpreted this provision to require posting in a location accessible to the public 24 hours a day during the 72- hour period, but any of the 72 hours may fall on a weekend.2 This provision may be satisfied by posting on a touch screen electronic kiosk accessible without charge to the public 24 hours a day during the 72-hour period.3 While posting an agenda on an agency’s Internet website will not, by itself, satisfy the “freely accessible” requirement since there is no universal access to the internet, an agency has a supplemental obligation to post the agenda on its website if: (1) the local agency has a website; and (2) the legislative body whose meeting is the subject of the agenda is either (a) a governing body, or (b) has members that are compensated, with one or more members that are also members of a governing body.4 Q. May the meeting of a governing body go forward if its agenda was either inadvertently not posted on the city’s website or if the website was not operational during part or all of the 72-hour period preceding the meeting?
A. At a minimum, the Brown Act calls for “substantial compliance” with all agenda posting requirements, including posting to the agency website.5 Should website technical difficulties arise, seek a legal opinion from your agency attorney. The California Attorney General has opined that technical difficulties which cause the website agenda to become inaccessible for a portion of the 72 hours preceding a meeting do not automatically or inevitably lead to a Brown Act violation, provided the agency can demonstrate substantial compliance.6 This inquiry requires a fact-specific examination of whether the agency or its legislative body made “reasonably effective efforts to notify interested persons of a public meeting” through online posting and other available means.7 The Attorney General’s opinion suggests that this examination would include an evaluation of how long

Revision 3 32 July 2023
a technical problem persisted, the efforts made to correct the problem or otherwise ensure that the public was informed, and the actual effect the problem had on public awareness, among other factors.8 The City Attorneys’ Department has taken the position that obvious website technical difficulties do not require cancellation of a meeting, provided that the agency meets all other Brown Act posting requirements and the agenda is available on the website once the technical difficulties are resolved.

The agenda must state the meeting time and place and must contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.”9 Special care should be taken to describe on the agenda each distinct action to be taken by the legislative body, and avoid overbroad descriptions of a “project” if the “project” is actually a set of distinct actions that must each be separately listed on the agenda.10
Q. The agenda for a regular meeting contains the following items of business: •ƒ Consideration of a report regarding traffic on Eighth Street; and
•ƒ Consideration of contract with ABC Consulting.

Are these descriptions adequate?
A. If the first is, it is barely adequate. A better description would provide the reader with some idea of what the report is about and what is being recommended. The second is not adequate. A better description might read “consideration of a contract with ABC Consulting in the amount of $50,000 for traffic engineering services regarding traffic on Eighth Street.”
Q. The agenda includes an item entitled City Manager’s Report, during which time the city manager provides a brief report on notable topics of interest, none of which are listed on the agenda.

Is this permissible?
A. Yes, so long as it does not result in extended discussion or action by the body.

A brief general description may not be sufficient for closed session agenda items. The Brown Act provides safe harbor language for the various types of permissible closed sessions.

Substantial compliance with the safe harbor language is recommended to protect legislative bodies and elected officials from legal challenges.

Mailed agenda upon written request
The legislative body, or its designee, must mail a copy of the agenda or, if requested, the entire agenda packet, to any person who has filed a written request for such materials. These copies shall be mailed at the time the agenda is posted. If requested, these materials must be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities.

PRACTICE TIP: Putting together a meeting agenda requires careful thought.

Revision 3 33 July 2023
A request for notice is valid for one calendar year and renewal requests must be filed following January 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a fee to recover the cost of providing the service. Failure of the requesting person to receive the agenda does not constitute grounds for invalidation of actions taken at the meeting.11
Notice requirements for special meetings
There is no express agenda requirement for special meetings, but the notice of the special meeting effectively serves as the agenda and limits the business that may be transacted or discussed.

Written notice must be sent to each member of the legislative body (unless waived in writing by that member) and to each local newspaper of general circulation, and radio or television station that has requested such notice in writing. This notice must be
delivered by personal delivery or any other means that
ensures receipt, at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting.

The notice must state the time and place of the meeting, as well as all business to be transacted or discussed. It is recommended that the business to be transacted or
discussed be described in the same manner that an item
for a regular meeting would be described on the agenda — with a brief general description. As noted above, closed session items should be described in accordance with the Brown Act’s safe harbor provisions to protect legislative bodies and elected officials from challenges of
noncompliance with notice requirements.

The special meeting notice must also be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting using the same methods as posting an
agenda for a
regular meeting:
(1) at a site that
is freely
accessible to
the public, and
(2) on the agency’s website if: (1) the local agency
has a website; and (2) the legislative body whose
meeting is the subject of the agenda is either (a) a
governing body, or (b) has members that are
compensated, with one or more members that are
also members of a governing body.12
Notices and agendas for adjourned and continued
meetings and hearings
A regular or special meeting can be adjourned and re-adjourned to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment.13 If no time is stated, the meeting is continued to the hour for regular

Revision 3 34 July 2023
meetings. Whoever is present (even if they are less than a quorum) may so adjourn a meeting; if no member of the legislative body is present, the clerk or secretary may adjourn the meeting. If a meeting is adjourned for less than five calendar days, no new agenda need be posted so long as a new item of business is not introduced.14 A copy of the order of adjournment must be posted within 24 hours after the adjournment, at or near the door of the place where the meeting was held.

A hearing can be continued to a subsequent meeting. The process is the same as for continuing adjourned meetings, except that if the hearing is continued to a time less than 24 hours away, a copy of the order or notice of continuance must be posted immediately following the meeting.15 Notice requirements for emergency meetings
The special meeting notice provisions apply to emergency meetings, except for the 24-hour notice.16 News media that have requested written notice of special meetings must be notified by telephone at least one hour in advance of an emergency meeting, and all telephone numbers provided in that written request must be tried. If telephones are not working, the notice requirements are deemed waived. However, the news media must be notified as soon as possible of the meeting and any action taken.

News media may make a practice of having written requests on file for notification of special or emergency meetings. Absent such a request, a local agency has no legal obligation to notify news media of special or emergency meetings — although notification may be advisable in any event to avoid controversy.

Notice of compensation for simultaneous or serial meetings A legislative body that has convened a meeting and whose membership constitutes a quorum of another legislative body, may convene a simultaneous or serial meeting of the other legislative body only after a clerk or member of the convened legislative body orally announces: (1) the amount of compensation or stipend, if any, that each member will be entitled to receive as a result of convening the meeting of the other legislative body; and (2) that the compensation or stipend is provided as a result of convening the meeting of that body.17
No oral disclosure of the amount of the compensation is required if the entire amount of such compensation is prescribed by statute and no additional compensation has been authorized by the local agency.

Further, no disclosure is required with respect to reimbursements for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the member’s official duties, such as for travel, meals, and lodging.

Educational agency meetings
The Education Code contains some special agenda and special meeting provisions.18 However, they are generally consistent with the Brown Act. An item is probably void if not posted.19 A school district board must also adopt regulations to make sure the public can place matters affecting the district’s business on meeting agendas and to address the board on those items.20

Revision 3 35 July 2023
Notice requirements for tax or assessment meetings and hearings The Brown Act prescribes specific procedures for adoption by a city, county, special district, or joint powers authority of any new or increased tax or assessment imposed on businesses.21 Though written broadly, these Brown Act provisions do not apply to new or increased real property taxes or assessments as those are governed by the California Constitution, Article XIIIC or XIIID, enacted by Proposition 218. At least one public meeting must be held to allow public testimony on the tax or assessment. In addition, there must also be at least 45 days’ notice of a public hearing at which the legislative body proposes to enact or increase the tax or assessment. Notice of the public meeting and public hearing must be provided at the same time and in the same document. The public notice relating to general taxes must be provided by newspaper publication. The public notice relating to new or increased business assessments must be provided through a mailing to all business owners proposed to be subject to the new or increased assessment. The agency may recover the reasonable costs of the public meetings, hearings, and notice.

The Brown Act exempts certain fees, standby or availability charges, recurring assessments, and new or increased assessments that are subject to the notice and hearing requirements of the Constitution.22 As a practical matter, the Constitution’s notice requirements have preempted this section of the Brown Act.

PRACTICE TIP: Subject to very limited exceptions, the Brown Act prohibits any action or discussion of an item not on the posted agenda.

Non-agenda items
The Brown Act generally prohibits any action or discussion of items not on the posted agenda.

However, there are three specific situations in which a legislative body can act on an item not on the agenda:23
When a majority decides there is an “emergency situation” (as defined for emergency meetings);
When two-thirds of the members present (or all members if less than two-thirds are present) determine there is a need for immediate action and the need to take action “came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted.” This exception requires a degree of urgency. Further, an item cannot be considered under this provision if the legislative body or the staff knew about the need to take immediate action before the agenda was posted. A new need does not arise because staff forgot to put an item on the agenda or because an applicant missed a deadline; or When an item appeared on the agenda of, and was continued from, a meeting held not more than five days earlier.

The exceptions are narrow, as indicated by this list. The first two require a specific determination by the legislative body. That determination can be challenged in court and, if unsubstantiated, can lead to invalidation of an action.
“I’d like a two-thirds vote of the board, so we can go ahead and authorize commencement of phase two of the East Area Project,” said Chair Lopez. “It’s not on the agenda. But we learned two days ago that we finished phase one ahead of schedule — believe it or not — and I’d like to keep it that way. Do I hear a motion?”

Revision 3 36 July 2023
The desire to stay ahead of schedule generally would not satisfy “a need for immediate action.” Too casual an action could invite a court challenge by a disgruntled resident.

The prudent course is to place an item on the agenda for the next meeting and not risk invalidation.
“We learned this morning of an opportunity for a state grant,” said the chief engineer at the regular board meeting, “but our application has to be submitted in two days. We’d like the board to give us the go ahead tonight, even though it’s not on the agenda.”
A legitimate immediate need can be acted upon even
though not on the posted agenda by following a twostep process:

First, make two determinations: 1) that there is an
immediate need to take action, and 2) that the
need arose after the posting of the agenda. The
matter is then placed on the agenda.

Second, discuss and act on the added agenda
item.

Responding to the public
The public can talk about anything within the jurisdiction of the legislative body, but the legislative body generally cannot act on or discuss an item not on the agenda. What happens when a member of the public raises a subject not on the agenda? While the Brown Act does not allow discussion or action on items not on the agenda, it does allow members of the legislative body, or its staff, to “briefly respond” to comments or questions from members of the public, provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, or direct staff to place the issue on a future agenda. In addition, even without a comment from the public, a legislative body member or a staff member may ask for information, request a report back, request to place a matter on the agenda for a subsequent meeting (subject to the body’s rules or procedures), ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or briefly report on his or her own activities.24 However, caution should be used to avoid any discussion or action on such items.

Council Member Jefferson: I would like staff to respond to Resident Joe’s complaints during public comment about the repaving project on Elm Street — are there problems with this project?
City Manager Frank: The public works director has
prepared a 45-minute power point presentation for you
on the status of this project and will give it right now.

Council Member Brown: Take all the time you need; we
need to get to the bottom of this. Our residents are
unhappy.

It is clear from this dialogue that the Elm Street project was not on the council’s agenda, but was raised during the public comment period for items not on the agenda. Council Member A properly asked staff to respond; the city manager should

Revision 3 37 July 2023
have given at most a brief response. If a lengthy report from the public works director was warranted, the city manager should have stated that it would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. Otherwise, both the long report and the likely discussion afterward will improperly embroil the council in a matter that is not listed on the agenda.

The right to attend and observe meetings
A number of Brown Act provisions protect the public’s right to attend, observe, and participate in meetings.

Members of the public cannot be required to register their names, provide other information, complete a questionnaire, or otherwise “fulfill any condition precedent” to attending a meeting. Any attendance list, questionnaire, or similar document posted at or near the entrance to the meeting room or circulated at a meeting must clearly state that its completion is voluntary and that all persons may attend whether or not they fill it out.25
No meeting can be held in a facility that prohibits attendance based on race, religion, color, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, sex, sexual orientation, or disability, or that is inaccessible to the disabled. Nor can a meeting be held where the public must make a payment or purchase in order to be present.26 This does not mean, however, that the public is entitled to free entry to a conference attended by a majority of the legislative body.27
While a legislative body may use teleconferencing in connection with a meeting, the public must be given notice of and access to the teleconference location. Members of the public must be able to address the legislative body from the teleconference location.28 Action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final, is flatly prohibited.29 All actions taken by the legislative body in open session, and the vote of each member thereon, must be disclosed to the public at the time the action is taken.30 Q: The agenda calls for election of the legislative body’s officers.

Members of the legislative body want to cast unsigned written ballots that would be tallied by the clerk, who would announce the results. Is this voting process permissible?
A: No. The possibility that a public vote might cause hurt feelings among members of the legislative body or might be awkward — or even counterproductive — does not justify a secret ballot.

The legislative body may remove persons from a meeting who willfully interrupt proceedings.31 Ejection is justified only when audience members actually disrupt the proceedings.32 If order cannot be restored after ejecting disruptive persons, the meeting room may be cleared. Members of the news media who have not participated in the disturbance must be allowed to continue to attend the meeting.

The legislative body may establish a procedure to re-admit an individual or individuals not responsible for the disturbance.33

Revision 3 38 July 2023
Records and recordings
The public has the right to review agendas and other writings distributed by any person to a majority of the legislative body in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a meeting.

Except for privileged documents, those materials are public records and must be made available upon request without delay.34 A fee or deposit as permitted by the California Public Records Act may be charged for a copy of a public record.35
Q: In connection with an upcoming hearing on a discretionary use permit, counsel for the legislative body transmits a memorandum to all members of the body outlining the litigation risks in granting or denying the permit. Must this memorandum be included in the packet of agenda materials available to the public?
A: No. The memorandum is a privileged attorney-client communication.

Q: In connection with an agenda item calling for the legislative body to approve a contract, staff submits to all members of the body a financial analysis explaining why the terms of the contract favor the local agency. Must this memorandum be included in the packet of agenda materials available to the public?
A. Yes. The memorandum has been distributed to the majority of the legislative body, relates to the subject matter of a meeting, and is not a privileged communication.

A legislative body may discuss or act on some matters without considering written materials. But if writings are distributed to a majority of a legislative body in connection with an agenda item, they must also be available to the public. A non-exempt or otherwise privileged writing distributed to a majority of the legislative body less than 72 hours before the meeting must be made available for inspection at the time of distribution at a public office or location designated for that purpose; and the agendas for all meetings of the legislative body must include the address of this office or location.36 A writing distributed during a meeting must be made public:

At the meeting if prepared by the local agency or a member of its legislative body; or After the meeting if prepared by some other person.37
Any tape or film record of an open and public meeting made for whatever purpose by or at the direction of the local agency is subject to the California Public Records Act; however, it may be erased or destroyed 30 days after the taping or recording. Any inspection of a video or tape recording is to be provided without charge on a video or tape player made available by the local agency.38 The agency may impose its ordinary charge for copies that is consistent with the California Public Records Act.39
In addition, the public is specifically allowed to use audio or video tape recorders or still or motion picture cameras at a meeting to record the proceedings, absent a reasonable finding by the legislative body that noise, illumination, or obstruction of view caused by recorders or cameras would

Revision 3 39 July 2023
persistently disrupt the proceedings.40 Similarly, a legislative body cannot prohibit or restrict the public broadcast of its open and public meetings without making a reasonable finding that the noise, illumination, or obstruction of view would persistently disrupt the proceedings.41 The public’s place on the agenda
Every agenda for a regular meeting must allow members of the public to speak on any item of interest, so long as the item is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. Further, the public must be allowed to speak on a specific item of business before or during the legislative body’s consideration of it.42
Q. Must the legislative body allow members of the public to show videos or make a power point presentation
during the public comment part of the agenda, as
long as the subject matter is relevant to the agency
and is within the established time limit?
A. Probably, although the agency is under no obligation to provide equipment.

Moreover, the legislative body cannot prohibit public
criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency or the acts or omissions of the legislative body itself. But the Brown Act provides no immunity for defamatory statements.43
PRACTICE TIP: Public speakers cannot be compelled to give their name or address as a condition of speaking. The clerk or presiding officer may request speakers to complete a speaker card or identify themselves for the record, but must respect a speaker’s desire for anonymity.

Q. May the presiding officer prohibit a member of the audience from publicly criticizing an agency employee by name during public comments?
A. No, as long as the criticism pertains to job
performance.

Q. During the public comment period of a regular
meeting of the legislative body, a resident urges the
public to support and vote for a candidate vying for
election to the body. May the presiding officer gavel
the speaker out of order for engaging in political
campaign speech?
A. There is no case law on this subject. Some would
argue that campaign issues are outside the subject
matter jurisdiction of the body within the meaning of
Section 54954.3(a). Others take the view that the speech must be allowed under paragraph (c) of that section because it is relevant to the governing of the agency and an implicit criticism of the incumbents.

Revision 3 40 July 2023
The legislative body may adopt reasonable regulations, including time limits, on public comments. Such regulations should be enforced fairly and without regard to speakers’ viewpoints. The legislative body has discretion to modify its regulations regarding time limits on public comment if necessary. For example, the time limit could be shortened to accommodate a lengthy agenda or lengthened to allow additional time for discussion on a complicated matter.44
The public does not need to be given an opportunity to speak on an item that has already been considered by a committee made up exclusively of members of the legislative body at a public meeting, if all interested members of the public had the opportunity to speak on the item before or during its consideration, and if the item has not been substantially changed.45 Notices and agendas for special meetings must also give members of the public the opportunity to speak before or during consideration of an item on the agenda but need not allow members of the public an opportunity to speak on other matters within the jurisdiction of the legislative body.46
Endnotes:
1 California Government Code section 54954.2(a)(1)
2 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 327 (1995)
3 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 218 (2005)
4 California Government Code sections 54954.2(a)(1) and 54954.2(d) 5 California Government Code section 54960.1(d)(1)
6 ___ Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.___, No. 14-1204 (January 19, 2016) 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 937 (Cal.A.G.), 2016 WL 375262
7 North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1432 8 ___ Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.___, No. 14-1204 (January 19, 2016) 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 937 (Cal.A.G.), 2016 WL 375262, Slip Op. at p. 8
9 California Government Code section 54954.2(a)(1)
10 San Joaquin Raptor Rescue v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167 (legislative body’s approval of CEQA action (mitigated negative declaration) without specifically listing it on the agenda violates Brown Act, even if the agenda generally describes the development project that is the subject of the CEQA analysis.) 11 California Government Code section 54954.1
12 California Government Code sections 54956(a) and (c) 13 California Government Code section 54955
14 California Government Code section 54954.2(b)(3)
15 California Government Code section 54955.1
16 California Government Code section 54956.5
17 California Government Code section 54952.3
18 Education Code sections 35144, 35145 and 72129
19 Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196 20 California Education Code section 35145.5
21 California Government Code section 54954.6
22 See Cal.Const.Art.XIIIC, XIIID and California Government Code section 54954.6(h) 23 California Government Code section 54954.2(b)
24 California Government Code section 54954.2(a)(2)

Revision 3 41 July 2023
25 California Government Code section 54953.3
26 California Government Code section 54961(a); California Government Code section 11135(a) 27 California Government Code section 54952.2(c)(2)
28 California Government Code section 54953(b)
29 California Government Code section 54953(c)
30 California Government Code section 54953(c)(2)
31 California Government Code section 54957.9.
32 Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. 2010) 629 F.3d 966 (silent and momentary Nazi salute directed towards mayor is not a disruption); Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir. 2013) 718 F.3d 800 (city council may not prohibit “insolent” remarks by members of the public absent actual disruption).
33 California Government Code section 54957.9
34 California Government Code section 54957.5
35 California Government Code section 54957.5(d)
36 California Government Code section 54957.5(b)
37 California Government Code section 54957.5(c)
38 California Government Code section 54953.5(b)
39 California Government Code section 54957.5(d)
40 California Government Code section 54953.5(a)
41 California Government Code section 54953.6
42 California Government Code section 54954.3(a)
43 California Government Code section 54954.3(c)
44 California Government Code section 54954.3(b); Chaffee v. San Francisco Public Library Com. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109; 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 89 (1992)
45 California Government Code section 54954.3(a)
46 California Government Code section 54954.3(a)
Updates to this publication responding to changes in the Brown Act or new court interpretations are available at www.cacities.org/opengovernment.

A current version of the Brown Act may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Revision 3 42 July 2023
Chapter 5

CLOSED SESSIONS
A closed session is a meeting of a legislative body conducted in private without the attendance of the public or press. A legislative body is authorized to meet in closed session only to the extent expressly authorized by the Brown Act.1
As summarized in Chapter 1 of this Guide,
it is clear that the Brown Act must be
interpreted liberally in favor of open
meetings, and exceptions that limit public
access (including the exceptions for closed
session meetings) must be narrowly
construed.2 The most common purposes of
the closed session provisions in the Brown
Act are to avoid revealing confidential
information (e.g., prejudicing the city’s
position in litigation or compromising the
privacy interests of employees). Closed
sessions should be conducted keeping
those narrow purposes in mind. It is not
enough that a subject is sensitive,
embarrassing, or controversial. Without
specific authority in the Brown Act for a
closed session, a matter to be considered
by a legislative body must be discussed in
public. As an example, a board of police commissioners cannot meet in closed session to provide general policy guidance to a police chief, even though some matters are sensitive and the commission considers their disclosure contrary to the public interest.3 PRACTICE TIP: Some problems over closed sessions arise because secrecy itself breeds distrust. The Brown Act does not require closed sessions and legislative bodies may do well to resist the tendency to call a closed session simply because it may be permitted. A better practice is to go into closed session only when necessary.

In this chapter, the grounds for convening a closed session are called “exceptions” because they are exceptions to the general rule that meetings must be conducted openly. In some circumstances, none of the closed session exceptions apply to an issue or information the legislative body wishes to discuss privately. In these cases, it is not proper to convene a closed session, even to protect confidential information. For example, although the Brown Act does authorize closed sessions related to specified types of contracts (e.g., specified provisions of real property agreements, employee labor agreements, and litigation settlement agreements),4 the Brown Act does not authorize closed sessions for other contract negotiations.

Revision 3 43 July 2023
Agendas and reports
Closed session items must be briefly described on the posted agenda and the description must state the specific statutory exemption.5 An item that appears on the open meeting portion of the agenda may not be taken into closed session until it has been properly agendized as a closed session item or unless it is properly added as a closed session item by a two-thirds vote of the body after making the appropriate urgency findings.6
The Brown Act supplies a series of fill in the blank sample agenda descriptions for various types of authorized closed sessions, which provide a “safe harbor” from legal attacks. These sample agenda descriptions cover license and permit determinations, real property negotiations, existing or anticipated litigation, liability claims, threats to security, public employee appointments, evaluations and discipline, labor negotiations, multi-jurisdictional law enforcement cases, hospital boards of directors, medical quality assurance committees, joint powers agencies, and audits by the California State Auditor’s Office.7
If the legislative body intends to convene in closed session, it must include the section of the Brown Act authorizing the closed session in advance on the agenda and it must make a public announcement prior to the closed session discussion. In most cases, the announcement may simply be a reference to the agenda item.8
Following a closed session, the legislative body must provide an oral or written report on certain actions taken and the vote of every elected member present. The timing and content of the report varies according to the reason for the closed session and the action taken.9 The announcements may be made at the site of the closed session, so long as the public is allowed to be present to hear them.

If there is a standing or written request for documentation, any copies of contracts, settlement agreements, or other documents finally approved or adopted in closed session must be provided to the requestor(s) after the closed session, if final approval of such documents does not rest with any other party to the contract or settlement. If substantive amendments to a contract or settlement agreement approved by all parties requires retyping, such documents may be held until retyping is completed during normal business hours, but the substance of the changes must be summarized for any person inquiring about them.10
The Brown Act does not require minutes, including minutes of closed sessions. However, a legislative body may adopt an ordinance or resolution to authorize a confidential “minute book” be kept to record actions taken at closed sessions.11 If one is kept, it must be made available to members of the legislative body, provided that the member asking to review minutes of a particular meeting was not disqualified from attending the meeting due to a conflict of interest.12 A court may order the disclosure of minute books for the court’s review if a lawsuit makes sufficient claims of an open meeting violation.

PRACTICE TIP: Pay close attention to closed session agenda descriptions. Using the wrong label can lead to invalidation of an action taken in closed session if not substantially compliant.

Litigation
There is an attorney/client relationship, and legal counsel may use it to protect the confidentiality of privileged written and oral communications to members of the legislative body — outside of meetings.

But protection of the attorney/client privilege cannot by itself be the reason for a closed session.13

Revision 3 44 July 2023
The Brown Act expressly authorizes closed sessions to discuss what is considered pending litigation. The rules that apply to holding a litigation closed session involve complex, technical definitions and procedures. The essential thing to know is that a closed session can be held by the body to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel when open discussion would prejudice the position of the local agency in litigation in which the agency is, or could become, a party.14 The litigation exception under the Brown Act is narrowly construed and does not permit activities beyond a legislative body’s conferring with its own legal counsel and required support staff.15 For example, it is not permissible to hold a closed session in which settlement negotiations take place between a legislative body, a representative of an adverse party, and a mediator.16 The California Attorney General has opined that if the agency’s attorney is not a participant, a litigation closed session cannot be held.17 In any event, local agency officials should always consult the agency’s attorney before placing this type of closed session on the agenda in order to be certain that it is being done properly.

Before holding a closed session under the pending litigation exception, the legislative body must publicly state the basis for the closed session by identifying one of the following three types of matters: existing litigation, anticipated exposure to litigation, or anticipated initiation of litigation.18
Existing litigation
Q. May the legislative body agree to settle a lawsuit in a properly-noticed closed session, without placing the settlement agreement on an open session agenda for public approval?
A. Yes, but the settlement agreement is a public document and must be disclosed on request. Furthermore, a settlement agreement cannot commit the agency to matters that are required to have public hearings.

Existing litigation includes any adjudicatory proceedings before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator. The clearest situation in which a closed session is authorized is when the local agency meets with its legal counsel to discuss a pending matter that has been filed in a court or with an administrative agency and names the local agency as a party. The legislative body may meet under these circumstances to receive updates on the case from
attorneys, participate in developing
strategy as the case develops, or
consider alternatives for resolution
of the case. Generally, an
agreement to settle litigation may
be approved in closed session.

However, an agreement to settle
litigation cannot be approved in
closed session if it commits the city
to take an action that is required to
have a public hearing.19

Revision 3 45 July 2023
Anticipated exposure to litigation against the local agency Closed sessions are authorized for legal counsel to
inform the legislative body of a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency, but only if based on “existing facts and circumstances” as defined by the
Brown Act.20 The legislative body may also meet under
this exception to determine whether a closed session is authorized based on information provided by legal
counsel or staff. In general, the “existing facts and
circumstances” must be publicly disclosed unless they
are privileged written communications or not yet known
to a potential plaintiff.

Anticipated initiation of litigation by the local agency A closed session may be held under the exception for
the anticipated initiation of litigation when the legislative body seeks legal advice on whether to protect the
agency’s rights and interests by initiating litigation.

Certain actions must be reported in open session at the same meeting following the closed
session. Other actions, as where final approval rests with another party or the court, may be announced when they become final and upon inquiry of any person.21 Each agency attorney should be aware of and make the disclosures that are required by the particular circumstances.

Real estate negotiations
A legislative body may meet in closed session with its negotiator to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency. A “lease” includes a lease renewal or renegotiation. The purpose is to grant authority to the legislative body’s negotiator on price and terms of payment.22 Caution should be exercised to limit discussion to price and terms of payment without straying to other related issues such as site design, architecture, or other aspects of the project for which the transaction is contemplated.23
Q. May other terms of a real estate transaction, aside from price and terms of payment, be addressed in closed session?
A. No. However, there are differing opinions over the scope of the phrase “price and terms of payment” in connection with real estate closed sessions. Many agency attorneys argue that any term that directly affects the economic value of the transaction falls within the ambit of “price and terms of payment.” Others take a narrower, more literal view of the phrase.

The agency’s negotiator may be a member of the legislative body itself. Prior to the closed session, or on the agenda, the legislative body must identify its negotiators, the real property that the negotiations may concern24 and the names of the parties with whom its negotiator may negotiate.25 After real estate negotiations are concluded, the approval and substance of the agreement must be publicly reported. If its own approval makes the agreement

Revision 3 46 July 2023
final, the body must report in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. If final approval rests with another party, the local agency must report the approval and the substance of the agreement upon inquiry by any person, as soon as the agency is informed of it.26 “Our population is exploding, and we have to think about new school sites,” said Board Member Jefferson.
“Not only that,” interjected Board Member Tanaka, “we need to get rid of a couple of our older facilities.”
“Well, obviously the place to do that is in a closed session,” said Board Member O’Reilly. “Otherwise we’re going to set off land speculation. And if we even mention closing a school, parents are going to be in an uproar.”
A closed session to discuss potential sites is not authorized by the Brown Act. The exception is limited to meeting with its negotiator over specific sites — which must be identified at an open and public meeting.

PRACTICE TIP: Discussions of who to appoint to an advisory body and whether or not to censure a fellow member of the legislative body must be held in the open.

Public employment
The Brown Act authorizes a closed session “to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee.”27 The purpose of this exception — commonly referred to as the “personnel exception” — is to avoid undue publicity or embarrassment for an employee or applicant for employment and to allow full and candid discussion by the legislative body; thus, it is restricted to discussing individuals, not general personnel policies.28 The body must possess the power to appoint, evaluate, or dismiss the employee to hold a closed session under this exception.29 That authority may be delegated to a subsidiary appointed body.30 An employee must be given at least 24 hours’ notice of any closed session convened to hear specific complaints or charges against him or her. This occurs when the legislative body is reviewing evidence, which could include live testimony, and adjudicating conflicting testimony offered as evidence. A legislative body may examine (or exclude) witnesses,31 and the California Attorney General has opined that, when an affected employee and advocate have an official or essential role to play, they may be permitted to participate in the closed session.32 The employee has the right to have the specific complaints and charges discussed in a public session rather than closed session.33 If the employee is not given the 24-hour prior notice, any disciplinary action is null and void.34
However, an employee is not entitled to notice and a hearing where the purpose of the closed session is to consider a performance evaluation. The Attorney General and the courts have determined that personnel performance evaluations do not constitute complaints and charges, which are more akin to accusations made against a person.35
Q. Must 24 hours’ notice be given to an employee whose negative performance evaluation is to be

Revision 3 47 July 2023
considered by the legislative body in closed session?
A. No, the notice is reserved for situations where the body is to hear complaints and charges from witnesses.

Correct labeling of the closed session on the agenda is critical. A closed session agenda that identified discussion of an employment contract was not sufficient to allow dismissal of an employee.36 An incorrect agenda description can result in invalidation of an action and much embarrassment.

For purposes of the personnel exception, “employee” specifically includes an officer or an independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee. Examples of the former include a city manager, district general manager or superintendent. Examples of the latter Include a legal counsel or engineer hired on contract to act as local agency attorney or chief engineer.

Elected officials, appointees to the governing body or subsidiary bodies, and independent contractors other than those discussed above are not employees for purposes of the personnel exception.37 Action on individuals who are not “employees” must also be public — including discussing and voting on appointees to committees, or debating the merits of independent contractors, or considering a complaint against a member of the legislative body itself.

The personnel exception specifically prohibits discussion or action on proposed compensation in closed session, except for a disciplinary reduction in pay. Among other things, that means there can be no personnel closed sessions on a salary change (other than a disciplinary reduction) between any unrepresented individual and the legislative body. However, a legislative body may address the compensation of an unrepresented individual, such as a city manager, in a closed session as part of a labor negotiation (discussed later in this chapter), yet another example of the importance of using correct agenda descriptions.

Reclassification of a job must be public, but an employee’s ability to fill that job may be considered in closed session.

Any closed session action to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee must be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. That report must identify the title of the position, but not the names of all persons considered for an employment position.38 However, a report on a dismissal or non-renewal of an employment contract must be deferred until administrative remedies, if any, are exhausted.39 “I have some important news to announce,” said Mayor Garcia. “We’ve decided to terminate the contract of the city manager, effective immediately. The council has met in closed session and we’ve negotiated six months’ severance pay.”
“Unfortunately, that has some serious budget consequences, so we’ve had to delay phase two of the East Area Project.”
This may be an improper use of the personnel closed session if the council agenda described the item as the city manager’s evaluation. In addition, other than labor negotiations, any action on individual compensation must be taken in open session.

Caution should be exercised to not discuss in closed session issues, such as budget impacts in this hypothetical, beyond the scope of the posted closed session notice.

Revision 3 48 July 2023
Labor negotiations
The Brown Act allows closed sessions for some aspects of labor negotiations. Different provisions (discussed below) apply to school and community college districts.

A legislative body may meet in closed session to instruct its bargaining representatives, which may be one or more of its members,40 on employee salaries and fringe benefits for both represented (“union”) and non-represented employees. For represented employees, it may also consider working conditions that by law require negotiation. For the purpose of labor negotiation closed sessions, an “employee” includes an officer or an independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee, but independent contractors who do not serve in the capacity of an officer or employee are not covered by this closed session exception.41 These closed sessions may take place before or during negotiations with employee representatives. Prior to the closed session, the legislative body must hold an open and public session in which it identifies its designated representatives.

PRACTICE TIP: The personnel exception specifically prohibits discussion or action on proposed compensation in closed session except for a disciplinary reduction in pay.

PRACTICE TIP: Prior to the closed session, the legislative body must hold an open and public session in which it identifies its designated representatives.

PRACTICE TIP: Attendance by the entire legislative body before a grand jury would not constitute a closed session meeting under the Brown Act.

During its discussions with representatives on salaries and fringe benefits, the legislative body may also discuss available funds and funding priorities, but only to instruct its representative. The body may also meet in closed session with a conciliator who has intervened in negotiations.42 The approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations with represented employees must be reported after the agreement is final and has been accepted or ratified by the other party. The report must identify the item approved and the other party or parties to the negotiation.43 The labor closed sessions specifically cannot include final action on proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees.

Labor negotiations — school and community college districts Employee relations for school districts and community college districts are governed by the Rodda Act, where different meeting and special notice provisions apply. The entire board, for example, may negotiate in closed sessions.

Four types of meetings are exempted from compliance with the Rodda Act:

1. A negotiating session with a recognized or certified employee organization;

2. A meeting of a mediator with either side;

3. A hearing or meeting held by a fact finder or arbitrator; and

Revision 3 49 July 2023

4. A session between the board and its bargaining agent, or the board alone, to discuss its position regarding employee working conditions and instruct its agent.44 Public participation under the Rodda Act also takes another form.45 All initial proposals of both sides must be presented at public meetings and are public records. The public must be given reasonable time to inform itself and to express its views before the district may adopt its initial proposal. In addition, new topics of negotiations must be made public within 24 hours. Any votes on such a topic must be followed within 24 hours by public disclosure of the vote of each member.46 The final vote must be in public.

Other Education Code Exceptions
The Education Code governs student disciplinary meetings by boards of school districts and community college districts. District boards may hold a closed session to consider the suspension or discipline of a student, if a public hearing would reveal personal, disciplinary, or academic information about the student contrary to state and federal pupil privacy law. The student’s parent or guardian may request an open meeting.47
Community college districts may also hold closed sessions to discuss some student disciplinary matters, awarding of honorary degrees, or gifts from donors who prefer to remain anonymous.48 Kindergarten through 12th grade districts may also meet in closed session to review the contents of the statewide assessment instrument.49
Joint Powers Authorities
The legislative body of a joint powers authority may adopt a policy regarding limitations on disclosure of confidential information obtained in closed session, and may meet in closed session to discuss information that is subject to the policy.50
License applicants with criminal records
A closed session is permitted when an applicant, who has a criminal record, applies for a license or license renewal and the legislative body wishes to discuss whether the applicant is sufficiently rehabilitated to receive the license. The applicant and the applicant’s attorney are authorized to attend the closed session meeting. If the body decides to deny the license, the applicant may withdraw the application. If the applicant does not withdraw, the body must deny the license in public, immediately or at its next meeting. No information from the closed session can be revealed without consent of the applicant, unless the applicant takes action to challenge the denial.51
Public security
Legislative bodies may meet in closed session to discuss matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings, essential public services, including water, sewer, gas, or electric service, or to the public’s right of access to public services or facilities over which the legislative body has jurisdiction.

Closed session meetings for these purposes must be held with designated security or law enforcement officials including the Governor, Attorney General, district attorney, agency attorney, sheriff or chief of police, or their deputies or agency security consultant or security operations manager.52 Action taken in closed session with respect to such public security issues is not reportable action.

Revision 3 50 July 2023
Multijurisdictional law enforcement agency
A joint powers agency formed to provide law enforcement services (involving drugs; gangs; sex crimes; firearms trafficking; felony possession of a firearm; high technology, computer, or identity theft; human trafficking; or vehicle theft) to multiple jurisdictions may hold closed sessions to discuss case records of an on-going criminal investigation, to hear testimony from persons involved in the investigation, and to discuss courses of action in particular cases.53 The exception applies to the legislative body of the joint powers’ agency and to anybody advisory to it. The purpose is to prevent impairment of investigations, to protect witnesses and informants, and to permit discussion of effective courses of action.54
Hospital
peer review
and trade
secrets
Two specific
kinds of
closed
sessions are
allowed for
district
hospitals
and
municipal hospitals,
under other
provisions of law.55

1. A meeting to hear reports of
hospital medical audit or quality assurance committees, or for related deliberations. However, an applicant or medical staff member whose staff privileges are the direct subject of a hearing may request a public hearing.

2. A meeting to discuss “reports involving trade secrets” — provided no action is taken.

A “trade secret” is defined as information which is not generally known to the public or competitors and which: 1) “derives independent economic value, actual or potential” by virtue of its restricted knowledge; 2) is necessary to initiate a new hospital service or program or facility; and 3) would, if prematurely disclosed, create a substantial probability of depriving the hospital of a substantial economic benefit.

The provision prohibits use of closed sessions to discuss transitions in ownership or management, or the district’s dissolution.56
Other legislative bases for closed session
Since any closed session meeting of a legislative body must be authorized by the Legislature, it is important to carefully review the Brown Act to determine if there is a provision that authorizes a closed session for a particular subject matter. There are some less frequently encountered topics that are

Revision 3 51 July 2023
authorized to be discussed by a legislative body in closed session under the Brown Act, including: a response to a confidential final draft audit report from the Bureau of State Audits,57 consideration of the purchase or sale of particular pension fund investments by a legislative body of a local agency that invests pension funds,58 hearing a charge or complaint from a member enrolled in a health plan by a legislative body of a local agency that provides Medi-Cal services,59 discussions by a county board of supervisors that governs a health plan licensed pursuant to the Knox-Keene Health Care Services Plan Act related to trade secrets or contract negotiations concerning rates of payment,60 and discussions by an insurance pooling joint powers agency related to a claim filed against, or liability of, the agency or a member of the agency.61
PRACTICE TIP: Meetings are either open or closed. There is nothing “in between.”62 Who may attend closed sessions
Meetings of a legislative body are either fully open or fully closed; there is nothing in between.

Therefore, local agency officials and employees must pay particular attention to the authorized attendees for the particular type of closed session. As summarized above, the authorized attendees may differ based on the topic of the closed session. Closed sessions may involve only the members of the legislative body and only agency counsel, management and support staff, and consultants necessary for consideration of the matter that is the subject of closed session, with very limited exceptions for adversaries or witnesses with official roles in particular types of hearings (e.g., personnel disciplinary hearings and license hearings). In any case, individuals who do not have an official role in the closed session subject matters must be excluded from closed sessions.63 Q. May the lawyer for someone suing the agency attend a closed session in order to explain to the legislative body why it should accept a settlement offer? A. No, attendance in closed sessions is reserved exclusively for the agency’s advisors.

The confidentiality of closed session discussions
The Brown Act explicitly prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information acquired in a closed session by any person present, and offers various remedies to address breaches of confidentiality.64 It is incumbent upon all those attending lawful closed sessions to protect the confidentiality of those discussions. One court has held that members of a legislative body cannot be compelled to divulge the content of closed session discussions through the discovery process.65 Only the legislative body acting as a body may agree to divulge confidential closed session information; regarding attorney/client privileged communications, the entire body is the holder of the privilege and only the entire body can decide to waive the privilege.66 Before adoption of the Brown Act provision specifically prohibiting disclosure of closed session communications, agency attorneys and the Attorney General long opined that officials have a fiduciary duty to protect the confidentiality of closed session discussions. The Attorney General issued an opinion that it is “improper” for officials to disclose information received during a closed session regarding pending litigation,67 though the Attorney General has also concluded that a local agency is preempted from adopting an ordinance criminalizing public disclosure of closed session discussions.68 In any event, in 2002, the Brown Act was amended to prescribe particular remedies for breaches of confidentiality. These remedies include injunctive relief; and, if the breach is a willful disclosure of confidential information, the remedies include disciplinary action against an employee,

Revision 3 52 July 2023
and referral of a member of the legislative body to the grand jury.69 The duty of maintaining confidentiality, of course, must give way to the responsibility to disclose improper matters or discussions that may come up in closed sessions. In recognition of this public policy, under the Brown Act, a local agency may not penalize a disclosure of information learned during a closed session if the disclosure: 1) is made in confidence to the district attorney or the grand jury due to a perceived violation of law; 2) is an expression of opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal action; or 3) is information that is not confidential.70 The interplay between these possible sanctions and an official’s first amendment rights is complex and beyond the scope of this guide. Suffice it to say that this is a matter of great sensitivity and controversy.
“I want the press to know that I voted in closed session against filing the eminent domain action,” said Council Member Chang.
“Don’t settle too soon,” reveals Council Member Watson to the property owner, over coffee. “The city’s offer coming your way is not our bottom line.”
The first comment to the press may be appropriate if it is a part of an action taken by the City Council in closed session that must be reported publicly.71 The second comment to the property owner is not — disclosure of confidential information acquired in closed session is expressly prohibited and harmful to the agency.

PRACTICE TIP: There is a strong interest in protecting the confidentiality of proper and lawful closed sessions.

ENDNOTES:
1 California Government Code section 54962
2 California Constitution, Art. 1, section 3
3 61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 220 (1978); but see California Government Code section 54957.8 (multijurisdictional law enforcement agencies are authorized to meet in closed session to discuss the case records of ongoing criminal investigations, and other related matters). 4 California Government Code section 54957.1
5 California Government Code section 54954.5
6 California Government Code section 54954.2
7 California Government Code section 54954.5
8 California Government Code sections 54956.9 and 54957.7 9 California Government Code section 54957.1(a)
10 California Government Code section 54957.1(b)

Revision 3 53 July 2023
11 California Government Code section 54957.2
12 Hamilton v. Town of Los Gatos (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1050; 2 Cal.Code Regs. section 18707 13 Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363
14 California Government Code section 54956.9; Shapiro v. Board of Directors of Center City Development Corp. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 170 (agency must be a party to the litigation). 15 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 29 (1999)
16 Page v. Miracosta Community College District (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 471 17 “The Brown Act,” California Attorney General (2003), p. 40 18 California Government Code section 54956.9(g)
19 Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172 20 Government Code section 54956.9(e)
21 California Government Code section 54957.1
22 California Government Code section 54956.8
23 Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904; see also 93 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 51 (2010) (redevelopment agency may not convene a closed session to discuss rehabilitation loan for a property already subleased to a loan recipient, even if the loan Incorporates some of the sublease terms and includes an operating covenant governing the property); 94 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 82 (2011) (real estate closed session may address form, manner and timing of consideration and other items that cannot be disclosed without revealing price and terms). 24 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (1990)
25 California Government Code sections 54956.8 and 54954.5(b) 26 California Government Code section 54957.1(a)(1)
27 California Government Code section 54957(b)
28 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 153 (1980); but see Duvall v. Board of Trustees (2000) 93 Cal.App.4th 902 (board may discuss personnel evaluation criteria, process and other preliminary matters in closed session but only if related to the evaluation of a particular employee).
29 Gillespie v. San Francisco Public Library Commission (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1165; 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 77 (2002)
30 Gillespie v. San Francisco Public Library Commission (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1165; 80 Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 308 (1997). Interviews of candidates to fill a vacant staff position conducted by a temporary committee appointed by the governing body may be done in closed session.
31 California Government Code section 54957(b)(3)
32 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 16 (2005)
33 Morrison v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 860 34 California Government Code section 54957(b); but see Bollinger v. San Diego Civil Service Commission (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 568 (notice not required for closed session deliberations regarding complaints or charges, when there was a public evidentiary hearing prior to closed session).

Revision 3 54 July 2023
35 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 218 (1995); Bell v. Vista Unified School District (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672; Furtado v. Sierra Community College (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 876; Fischer v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 87 36 Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 17
37 California Government Code section 54957
38 Gillespie v. San Francisco Public Library Commission (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1165 39 California Government Code section 54957.1(a)(5)
40 California Government Code section 54957.6
41 California Government Code section 54957.6(b); see also 98 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 41 (2015) (a project labor agreement between a community college district and workers hired by contractors or subcontractors is not a proper subject of closed session for labor negotiations because the workers are not “employees” of the district).
42 California Government Code section 54957.6; and 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 201 (1968) 43 California Government Code section 54957.1(a)(6) 4
4 California Government Code section 3549.1
45 California Government Code section 3540
46 California Government Code section 3547
47 California Education Code section 48918; but see Rim of the World Unified School District v. Superior Court (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1393 (Section 48918 preempted by the Federal Family Educational Right and Privacy Act in regard to expulsion proceedings). 48 California Education Code section 72122
49 California Education Code section 60617
50 California Government Code section 54956.96
51 California Government Code section 54956.7
52 California Government Code section 54957
53 McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal. App.4th 354
54 California Government Code section 54957.8
55 California Government Code section 54962
56 California Health and Safety Code section 32106
57 California Government Code section 54956.75
58 California Government Code section 54956.81
59 California Government Code section 54956.86
60 California Government Code section 54956.87
61 California Government Code section 54956.95
62 46 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34 (1965)
63 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 29 (1999)
64 Government Code section 54963
65 Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324, 327; see also California Government Code section 54963.

Revision 3 55 July 2023
66 Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363
67 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 231 (1997)
68 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 289 (1993)
69 California Government Code section 54963
70 California Government Code section 54963
71 California Government Code section 54957.1
Updates to this publication responding to changes in the Brown Act or new court interpretations are available at www.cacities.org/opengovernment. A current version of the Brown Act may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov

Revision 3 56 July 2023
Chapter 6

REMEDIES
Certain violations of the Brown Act are designated as misdemeanors, although by far the most commonly used enforcement provisions are those that authorize civil actions to invalidate specified actions taken in violation of the Brown Act and to stop or prevent future violations. Still, despite all the
safeguards and remedies to enforce them, it is
ultimately impossible for the public to monitor every
aspect of public officials’ interactions. Compliance
ultimately results from regular training and a good
measure of self-regulation on the part of public
officials. This chapter discusses the remedies available to the public when that self-regulation is ineffective.

Invalidation
Any interested person, including the district attorney, may seek to invalidate certain actions of a legislative body on the ground that they violate the Brown Act.1
Violations of the Brown Act, however, cannot be
invalidated if they involve the following types of
actions:

Those taken in substantial compliance with the law. No Brown Act violation is found when the given notice substantially complies with the Brown Act, even when the notice erroneously cites to the wrong Brown Act section, but adequately advises the public that the Board will meet with legal counsel to discuss potential litigation in closed session;2 Those involving the sale or issuance of notes, bonds or other indebtedness, or any related contracts or agreements;
Those creating a contractual obligation, including a contract awarded by competitive bid for other than compensation for professional services, upon which a party has in good faith relied to its detriment;
Those connected with the collection of any tax; or
Those in which the complaining party had actual notice at least 72 hours prior to the regular meeting or 24 hours prior to the special meeting, as the case may be, at which the action is taken.

Before filing a court action seeking invalidation, a person who believes that a violation has occurred must send a written “cure or correct” demand to the legislative body. This demand must clearly describe the challenged action and the nature of the claimed violation. This demand must be sent within 90 days of the alleged violation or 30 days if the action was taken in open session but in violation of Section 54954.2, which requires (subject to specific exceptions) that only properly agendized items are acted on by the governing body during a meeting.3 The legislative body then has up to 30 days to cure and correct its action. If it does not act, any lawsuit must be filed within the next 15 days. The purpose of this requirement is to offer the body an opportunity to consider whether a violation has occurred and to weigh its options before litigation is filed.

Although just about anyone has standing to bring an action for invalidation,4 the challenger must show prejudice as a result of the alleged violation.5 An action to invalidate fails to state a cause of action against the agency if the body deliberated but did not take an action.6

Revision 3 57 July 2023
Applicability to Past Actions
Any interested person, including the district attorney, may file a civil action to determine whether past actions of a legislative body occurring on or after January 1, 2013 constitute violations of the Brown Act and are subject to a mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief action.7 Before filing an action, the interested person must, within nine months of the alleged violation of the Brown Act, submit a “cease and desist” letter to the legislative body, clearly describing the past action and the nature of the alleged violation.8 The legislative body has 30 days after receipt of the letter to provide an unconditional commitment to cease and desist from the past action.9 If the body fails to take any action within the 30-day period or takes an action other than an unconditional commitment, a lawsuit may be filed within 60 days.10 The legislative body’s unconditional commitment must be approved at a regular or special meeting as a separate item of business and not on the consent calendar.11 The unconditional commitment must be substantially in the form set forth in the Brown Act.12 No legal action may thereafter be commenced regarding the past action.13 However, an action of the legislative body in violation of its unconditional commitment constitutes an independent violation of the Brown Act and a legal action consequently may be commenced without following the procedural requirements for challenging past actions.14
The legislative body may rescind its prior unconditional commitment by a majority vote of its membership at a regular meeting as a separate item of business not on the consent calendar. At least 30 days written notice of the intended rescission must be given to each person to whom the unconditional commitment was made and to the district attorney. Upon rescission, any interested person may commence a legal action regarding the past actions without following the procedural requirements for challenging past actions.15
Civil action to prevent future violations
The district attorney or any interested person can file a civil action asking the court to:

Stop or prevent violations or threatened violations of the Brown Act by members of the legislative body of a local agency;
Determine the applicability of the Brown Act to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body;
Determine whether any rule or action by the legislative body to penalize or otherwise discourage the expression of one or more of its members is valid under state or federal law; or
Compel the legislative body to tape record its closed sessions.

PRACTICE TIP: A lawsuit to invalidate must be preceded
by a demand to cure and correct the challenged action in order to give the legislative body an opportunity to consider its options. The Brown Act does not specify how to cure or correct a violation; the best method is to rescind the action being complained of and start over, or reaffirm the action if the local agency relied on the action and rescinding the action would prejudice the local agency.

Revision 3 58 July 2023
PRACTICE TIP: Attorney’s fees will likely be awarded if a violation of the Brown Act is proven.

Costs and attorney’s fees
Someone who successfully invalidates an action taken in violation of the Brown Act or who successfully enforces one of the Brown Act’s civil remedies may seek court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. Courts have held that attorney’s fees must be awarded to a successful plaintiff unless special circumstances exist that would make a fee award against the public agency unjust.18 When evaluating how to respond to assertions that the Brown Act has been violated, elected officials and their lawyers should assume that attorney’s fees will be awarded against the agency if a violation of the Act is proven.

An attorney’s fee award may only be directed against the local agency and not the individual members of the legislative body. If the local agency prevails, it may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees if the court finds the lawsuit was clearly frivolous and lacking in merit.19 Criminal complaints
A violation of the Brown Act by a member of the legislative body who acts with the improper intent described below is punishable as a misdemeanor.20
A criminal violation has two components. The first is that there must be an overt act — a member of a legislative body must attend a meeting at which action is taken in violation of the Brown Act.21 “Action taken” is not only an actual vote, but also a collective decision, commitment or promise by a majority of the legislative body to make a positive or negative decision.22 If the meeting involves mere deliberation without the taking of action, there can be no misdemeanor penalty.

A violation occurs for a tentative as well as final decision.23 In fact, criminal liability is triggered by a member’s participation in a meeting in violation of the Brown Act — not whether that member has voted with the majority or minority, or has voted at all.

It is not necessary for a challenger to prove a past
pattern or practice of violations by the local agency in order to obtain injunctive relief. A court may presume
when issuing an injunction that a single violation will continue in the future where the public agency refuses
to admit to the alleged violation or to renounce or
curtail the practice.16 Note, however, that a court may not compel elected officials to disclose their
recollections of what transpired in a closed session.17 Upon finding a violation of the Brown Act pertaining to closed sessions, a court may compel the legislative body to tape record its future closed sessions. In a subsequent lawsuit to enforce the Brown Act alleging a violation
occurring in closed session, a court may upon motion of the plaintiff review the tapes if there is good cause to think the Brown Act has been violated, and make public
the relevant portion of the closed session recording.

Revision 3 59 July 2023
The second component of a criminal violation is that action is taken with the intent of a member “to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled” by the Brown Act.24
As with other misdemeanors, the filing of a complaint is up to the district attorney. Although criminal prosecutions of the Brown Act are uncommon, district attorneys in some counties aggressively monitor public agencies’ adherence to the requirements of the law.

Some attorneys and district attorneys take the position that a Brown Act violation may be pursued criminally under Government Code section 1222.25 There is no case law to support this view; if anything, the existence of an express criminal remedy within the Brown Act would suggest otherwise.26
Voluntary resolution
Arguments over Brown Act issues often become emotional on all sides.

Newspapers trumpet relatively minor violations, unhappy residents fume over an action, and legislative bodies clam up about information better discussed in public. Hard lines are drawn and rational discussion breaks down. The district attorney or even the grand jury occasionally becomes involved. Publicity surrounding alleged violations of the Brown Act can result in a loss of confidence by constituents in the legislative body. There are times when it may be preferable to consider re-noticing and rehearing, rather than litigating, an item of significant public interest, particularly when there is any doubt about whether the open meeting requirements were satisfied.

At bottom, agencies that regularly train their officials and pay close attention to the requirements of the Brown Act will have little reason to
worry about enforcement.

ENDNOTES:
1 California Government Code section
54960.1. Invalidation is limited to actions
that violate the following sections of the
Brown Act: section 54953 (the basic open
meeting provision); sections 54954.2 and
54954.5 (notice and agenda requirements
for regular meetings and closed
sessions); 54954.6 (tax hearings); 54956
(special meetings); and 54596.5
(emergency situations). Violations of
sections not listed above cannot give rise
to invalidation actions, but are subject to
the other remedies listed in section
54960.1.
2 Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Newhall
County Water District (2015) 238
Cal.App.4th 1196, 1198
3 3 California Government Code section
54960.1 (b) and (c)(1)
4 McKee v. Orange Unified School District (2003) 110 Cal.

App.4th 1310, 1318-1319

Revision 3 60 July 2023
5 Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 556, 561 6 Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116-17, 1118 7 Government Code Section 54960.2(a); Senate Bill No. 1003, Section 4 (2011-2012 Session) 8 Government Code Sections 54960.2(a)(1), (2)
9 Government Code Section 54960.2(b)
10 Government Code Section 54960.2(a)(4)
11 Government Code Section 54960.2(c)(2)
12 Government Code Section 54960.2(c)(1)
13 Government Code Section 54960.2(c)(3)
14 Government Code Section 54960.2(d)
15 Government Code Section 54960.2(e)
16 California Alliance for Utility Safety and Education (CAUSE) v. City of San Diego (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1024; Common Cause v. Stirling (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 518, 524; Accord Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 904, 916 & fn.6
17 Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324, 334-36 18 Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (2003) 112 Cal. App.4th 1313, 1327-29 and cases cited therein
19 California Government Code section 54960.5
20 California Government Code section 54959. A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to six months in county jail, or both. California Penal Code section 19. Employees of the agency who participate in violations of the Brown Act cannot be punished criminally under section 54959. However, at least one district attorney instituted criminal action against employees based on the theory that they criminally conspired with the members of the legislative body to commit a crime under section 54949.
21 California Government Code section 54959
22 California Government Code section 54952.6
23 61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.283 (1978)
24 California Government Code section 54959
25 California Government Code section 1222 provides that “[e]very willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law upon any public officer, or person holding any public trust or employment, where no special provision is made for the punishment of such delinquency, is punishable as a misdemeanor.” 26 The principle of statutory construction known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius supports the view that section 54959 is the exclusive basis for criminal liability under the Brown Act.

Updates to this publication responding to changes in the Brown Act or new court interpretations are available at www.cacities.org/opengovernment. A current version of the Brown Act may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Revision 3 61 July 2023
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento,
CA 95814 Phone: (916) 658-8200 | Fax:
(916) 658-8240 www.cacities.org |
www.cacities.org/events |
www.westerncity.com

Revision 3 62 July 2023
RESOLUTION 2021- 24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY

OF LOS ANGELES, ADOPTING THE CITY'S COMMISSION HANDBOOK WHEREAS, The City of San Dimas maintains a Commission Handbook governing the policies, procedures and practices of the City's Boards, Commissions, and Committees; and WHEREAS, the Commission Handbook has been recently reviewed and revised as a whole and is intended to supersede previous Handbooks, policies and procedures applying to Boards, Commissions, and Committees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council met during several meetings to consider and revise the Commission Handbook.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that:

Section 1. A Commission Handbook (Exhibit A) is hereby approved and adopted as amended.

Section 2. Any previous Commission Handbook is rescinding, and this Commission Handbook will supersede other resolutions, policies, or practices which conflict with this Commission Handbook.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2021.

Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:

Debra Black, City Clerk

Revision 3 63 July 2023
Resolution 2021-24
Boards Commissions and Committee's Handbook April 27th, 2021 I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2021-24 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of April 27, 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: Badar, Bertone, Ebiner, Vienna, Weber
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Debra Black, City Clerk

Revision 3 64 July 2023
RESOLUTION 2023-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY

OF LOS ANGELES, AMENDING THE CITY'S BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES

HANDBOOK
WHEREAS, The City of San Dimas maintains a Commission Handbook governing the policies, procedures and practices of the City's Boards, Commissions, and Committees; and WHEREAS, the Commission Handbook has been recently reviewed and revised as a whole and is intended to supersede previous Handbooks, policies and procedures applying to Boards, Commissions, and Committees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council last met on February 4, 2023 and March 14, 2023 to consider and revise the Commission Handbook.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that:

SECTION 1. The Commission Handbook (Exhibit A) is hereby approved and adopted as amended.

SECTION 2. Any previous Commission Handbook is rescinded, and this Commission Handbook will supersede other resolutions, policies, or practices which conflict with this Commission Handbook.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2023.

Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:

Debra Black, City Clerk

Revision 3 65 July 2023
Resolution 2023-14 2
Boards Commissions and Committee's Handbook
July 11, 2023
l, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2023-14 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of July 11, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Badar, Nakano, Vienna, Weber
NOES: Ebiner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Debra Black, City Clerk

Revision 3 66 July 2023
Revisions
March 19, 2014
• clearer outline of the Commissions and
Committees purposes
• expansion on Ethics Training, Brown
Act, Political Reform Act
• meeting frequencies
October 2017 Reprint
May 2021 Revisions
• Broaden input and consideration of Commission, Committee, and Board perspectives
• DPRB –
i. revised number of public members
ii. replaced Assistant City Manager to City Manager
• Parks and Recreation – clarification for Youth Commissioner • Planning
i. Update meeting day
ii. Staff Liaison change
• Public Safety
i. Composition change from 9 members to five with attrition • Appointment of Employees’ Relative
i. Add brothers/sisters’ spouse
• Appointment of Relatives of City Council or City Manager i. Add City Manager
ii. Add brother/sister spouse
iii. Add cousin, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece
• Resignation – clarify notification staff
• Attendance – language added to ratified Council’s authority to remove • Benefits – added amount
• Ethics and other Training – added Rosenberg and Sexual Harassment • Special Meetings – clarification of authority to call • Agenda – clarification of process to add items
• Interaction with Staff – add language defining limits for staff support • Interaction with City Council – identify members authorized to speak on behalf of Commission
• Interaction with the Public – language added outlining commissioner’s

Revision 3 67 July 2023
approach to representation, positions and views
• Approvals and Modifications – added section
June 2023 Revisions
Equestrian, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, Senior Commission, Planning Commissions composition changed to five
Section II B - Add City Manager is an ex officio member of all Commissions, Committee or Boards created by the City Council or
established by state law, with the right to participate in all deliberations or actions by such Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section II B - changed staff liaison from Assistant City Manager to Director of Parks and Recreation
Section II B - to five Commissioners
Section II B - deleted Youth Commissioner language
Section II E - added designee
Section II F - update to five members
Section III - Add Each Commission shall have a nonvoting position for any interested student applicant who is a resident in the City of San Dimas starting at age 16 but under the age of 21. They will serve one-year term increments from the date of appointment and will be selected by City Staff in collaboration with the local schools.

Section III B - Change three full to two full consecutive terms.

Section III B - Change Assistant City Manager to Director of Parks and Recreation.

Section III C - third paragraph first sentence - Change seven to five Commissioners; replace six with all, who with whom, three to two full terms.

Section III C - third paragraph – delete second and third sentence Section III E - third paragraph second sentence – change three to two, add including appointees from the Civilian Advisory Board and designee.

Section III F - third paragraph – change nine to five members and three to Two full consecutive terms.

Section IV A - changed to include nominations from each Councilmember Section IV A - added voter registration requirement
Section IV B - changed terms of office to two full terms for all Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section IV B - added term language for DPRB
Section IV D - Appointment of Employee’s Relative added parent Section IV G - updated title to Resignation and Removal Section IV G - added vote requirement for removal
Section IV H - changed unexcused absences to two

Revision 3 68 July 2023
Section IV H - added attendance report requirement
Section IV J - added must be included in budget and pre-approved Section IV K - added AB1234 and AB1661 language
Section IV L - updated to Rosenberg’s Rules
Section V K - deleted requirement to have attended meeting to approve minutes
Section V K - added except for clerical errors
Section VI B - deleted Councilmember Liaison
Section VI B - added requirement for Chairs to present an annual report to City Council
Section VII B - added language public not required to identify themselves

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Debra Black, City Clerk
Subject: Approval to Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Renew the Agenda Management Software Agreement with Granicus for 3-years in an Amount of $31,315.52 with an Option for Annual Automatic Renewals Thereafter ____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
This request is for approval to renew the agenda management software services agreement (PrimeGov) with Granicus.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the three-year agreement with automatic annual renewal options.

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed contract for the agenda management software system with Granicus is $31,315.53 for 3-years. The FY 2024-25 City budget includes an appropriation of this amount in the proposed Computer Professional Services, account number 101.4190.035.000, and City staff will continue to budget for future annual renewals in the annual budget process. The agreement is for $9,740.75 for year 1 and increases 7% each year for the three-year period.

BACKGROUND
In May of 2022 Staff contracted with Granicus, formerly PrimeGov, to leverage technology in assisting with the preparation of agenda materials for all of the City’s legislative bodies. The software has significantly improved the City’s ability to compile and prepare City Council and Commission agenda packages, while also improving public access to specific items on an agenda.

Consideration and Approval to Renew the Agenda Management Software Agreement with Granicus for 3-years Page 2
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
The City previously entered into low dollar annual contracts and desires to continue to procure and utilize Granicus as its agenda management system. As such, the City would consider a three-year agreement with provisions for such agreement to renew annually thereafter. This will eliminate the annual or periodic necessity to bring an agreement back to City Council for a low annual cost software service we intend to continue utilizing. City staff will still annually budget for this item in the annual budgets, and if the item is not funded, the City would not renew the agreement.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Before implementing Granicus, staff utilized Word, Adobe, SharePoint and One Drive to assemble staff reports for the agenda packets. Managing several software products to create a document was extremely cumbersome and presented challenges throughout the process. These included issues like saving and naming documents which resulted in losing compiled information, formatting errors, programs freezing up when attempting to transfer a document from one program to another or software upgrades that changed the way a file or document was handled.

The Granicus product has helped to optimize and digitize our agenda management process by increasing accuracy, reducing document review time, increased efficiency with a single secure platform and creates collaborative partnerships between departments with the setup and creation processes. All City Staff has been able to utilize the software to prepare the necessary records and documents for their perspective meetings, this includes City Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees. Additionally, this software integrates with existing software staff is using and provides scalable solutions for future needs.

ALTERNATIVES
If Council does not approve future renewals, staff will go back to experiencing difficulties with the technology element of the process. This involves utilizing Word, Adobe, SharePoint and OneDrive to put together our reports for the agenda packets. Managing several software products to create a document is extremely cumbersome and presents challenges and more errors throughout the process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
Debra Black
City Clerk
Attachments:

1. Granicus Terms and Conditions with Pricing

THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE Order Form
Prepared for
San Dimas, CA
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared: 16 Apr 2024

Granicus Proposal for San Dimas, CA

ORDER DETAILS
Prepared By: Korgbae Freeman
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared On: 16 Apr 2024
Expires On: 15 May 2024
Currency: USD
Payment Terms: Net 30 (Payments for subscriptions are due at the beginning of the period of performance.)
Period of Performance: 16 May 2024 - 15 May 2025

ORDER TERMS
Current Subscription
End Date:

Initial Order Term End
Date:
15 May 2024
15 May 2027

ATTACHMENT

Order Form
San Dimas, CA
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared: 16 Apr 2024

PRICING SUMMARY
The pricing and terms within this Proposal are specific to the products and volumes contained within this Proposal.

Renewing Subscription Fees
Solution Billing
Frequency Quantity/Unit Annual Fee
Agenda Automation - Tier 1 Annual 1 Each $9,740.75
SUBTOTAL: $9,740.75

Order Form
San Dimas, CA
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared: 16 Apr 2024

FUTURE YEAR PRICING
Period of Performance
Solution(s)
16 May 2025 - 15 May 2026 16 May 2026 - 15 May 2027
Agenda Automation - Tier 1 $10,422.60 $11,152.18
SUBTOTAL: $10,422.60 $11,152.18

Order Form
San Dimas, CA
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared: 16 Apr 2024

PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS
Solution Description
Agenda Automation - Tier 1 Agenda Automation - Tier 1Includes: 2 workflows, 1 post workflow, 2 forms and up to 4 meeting types

Order Form
San Dimas, CA
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared: 16 Apr 2024

TERMS & CONDITIONS
• This quote, and all products and services delivered hereunder are governed by the terms located at https://granicus.com/legal/licensing, including any product-specific terms included therein (the “License Agreement”). If your organization and Granicus has entered into a separate agreement or is utilizing a contract vehicle for this transaction, the terms of the License Agreement are incorporated into such separate agreement or contract vehicle by reference, with any directly conflicting terms and conditions being resolved in favor of the separate agreement or contract vehicle to the extent applicable. • If submitting a Purchase Order, please include the following language: The pricing, terms and conditions of quote Q-327222 dated 16 Apr 2024 are incorporated into this Purchase Order by reference and shall take precedence over any terms and conditions included in this Purchase Order. • This quote is exclusive of applicable state, local, and federal taxes, which, if any, will be included in the invoice. It is the responsibility of San Dimas, CA to provide applicable exemption certificate(s). • Any lapse in payment may result in suspension of service and will require the payment of a setup fee to reinstate the subscription.

Order Form
San Dimas, CA
Order #: Q-327222
Prepared: 16 Apr 2024

BILLING INFORMATION
Billing Contact: Purchase Order
Required?
[ ] - No
[ ] - Yes
Billing Address: PO Number:

If PO required
Billing Email: Billing Phone:

If submitting a Purchase Order, please include the following language:

The pricing, terms, and conditions of quote Q-327222 dated 16 Apr 2024 are incorporated into this Purchase Order by reference and shall take precedence over any terms and conditions included in this Purchase Order.

AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE
By signing this document, the undersigned certifies they have authority to enter the agreement. The undersigned also understands the services and terms.

San Dimas, CA
Signature:
\s1\
Name:
\n1\
Title:
\t1\
Date:
\d1\

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Michael O'Brien, Director of Administrative Services Subject: Adopt Resolution 2024-31 to Continue the Public Access Fee for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Annual request to approve a 1% PEG fee assessed to all video subscribers, to help offset operation and equipment costs for the City’s public access channel.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Approve the public access fee in the amount of 1% for the fiscal year 2024-25 by adoption of Resolution 2024-31.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the PEG fee is estimated to generate $70,000 of revenue to help offset $98,000 of contracted costs for the University of La Verne (KWST) to operate and provide content for the public access channel.

BACKGROUND
In September 2006, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) law went into effect which allowed video service providers to obtain a State issued franchise to provide video services in a local community. DIVCA establishes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as the sole franchising authority for video service providers’ statewide; however, it delegated certain limited rights to local authorities. Those rights needed to be established by a local ordinance to be enforced on state video franchised holders. In October 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1183 establishing San Dimas rights under DIVCA.

Among other things DIVCA allowed the City to adopt an up to 1% PEG fee to be paid by all video

Adopt Resolution To Continue the Public Access Fee for Fiscal Year 2024-25. Page 2 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
subscribers to fund public access. The fee requires customers to pay up to 1% of the cable portion of their bill. The fee can only be used for capital expenses associated with public access and not operating expenses, such as personnel. The fee is only imposed on video subscribers who have the PEG channel available to them. Residents who do not subscribe to Frontier or Spectrum Communications, and therefore, do not have the channel available to them are not impacted by the fee.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The authorization for the City to collect the up to 1% public access fee was adopted by the City Council and became effective in 2009. The enabling Ordinance requires the City Council to set the amount of the fee annually. The City Council has the option of imposing the full 1%, something less than 1% or not imposing the fee at all in any given year. The City Council has approved the imposition of the full 1% fee for each year since 2009.

The City currently has a contract with the University of La Verne for the management of the City’s public access channel. The current amount of the contract is not to exceed $98,000. The contract includes expenses for contracts, rent, equipment associated with the operations of access channel and filming of City Council meetings and other programs.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council could elect to not approve the Resolution and forfeit the PEG fee revenues that help support the cost of providing content for the channel. If Council does not approve the fee, then the full cost of the contract would be funded from the City’s General Fund in order to continue filming and production activity on the public access channel.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael O'Brien
Director of Administrative Services
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-31

ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION 2024-31

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SETTING THE PUBLIC ACCESS FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 TO BE USED FOR PEG PURPOSES.

WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance 1183 adding Section 5.60.80 to the San Dimas Municipal Code establishing franchise and PEG fees and customer service penalties for state franchise holder providing video service within the City of San Dimas, and WHEREAS, Ordinance 1183 states that for any state video franchise holder operating within the boundaries of the City of San Dimas, there shall be a fee paid to the City equal to up to percent of the gross revenue of the state video franchise holder, which fee shall be used by the City of PEG purpose consistent with State or Federal law, and WHEREAS, Ordinance 1183 requires the percentage amount of the fee to be set annually by the City Council, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that: for Fiscal Year 2024-25 the percentage amount of the PEG fee shall be 1%.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2024. ____________________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2024-31 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of 14th, May, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Steven Barragan, Engineering Manager
Subject: Approve Parcel Map No. 83411 (TMPM 21-0003; PROJ-21-0071) for SB 9 Subdivision Purposes
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
The property owner of 349 W Gladstone Street is requesting approval of the Parcel Map No.83411 (TMPM 21-0003; PROJ-21-0071) to subdivide the property into two (2) parcels under SB 9.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Approve Parcel Map No. 83411 for SB 9 subdivision purposes as approved by the City Engineer.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action.

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed into law by the state in September 2021 and went into effect January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires local agencies to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split for residential development within a single-family zone. SB 9 limits the requirements and development standards the City may impose. The City may not require the construction of off-site improvements as a condition of approving a lot split under this law. In addition, the City cannot require the applicant to enter into a subdivision agreement with corresponding bonds as a condition of approving such lot split under SB 9.

Approve Parcel Map No. 83411 (TMPM 21-0003; PROJ-21-0071) for SB 9 Subdivision Purposes Page 2
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
Staff received a request to split an existing 49,712 square foot lot with an existing dwelling unit and develop both proposed parcels pursuant to SB 9 on the property located at 349 W Gladstone Street (APN 8392-015-030) within the SF-A16000 zone.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed and processed the urban lot split pursuant to SB 9. Adhering to the SB 9 regulations and limitations, staff generated conditions of approval (see Attachment 1).

The Parcel Map (see Attachment 2) has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and complies with all set requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act, SB 9, and City requirements.

The City’s Building Official did not determine any findings that would prevent the subdivision under SB 9 and approves of the lot split.

ALTERNATIVES
This map falls under the SB 9 requirement for ministerial approval. The City Council may deny the proposed split under SB 9 if the building official makes a written finding based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined by Government Code Section 665589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Denial of the Map without the Building Official findings would conflict with state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines, Title 14, Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15300.1. Relation to Ministerial Projects.

Respectfully submitted,
Steven Barragan
Engineering Manager
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Parcel Map 83411

Director of
Administrative Services
Michael O’Brien
Director of Community
Development
Henry K. Noh
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Scott Wasserman
Director of Public Works
Shari Garwick
City Council
Emmett Badar, Mayor
John Ebiner, Mayor Pro Tem -
District 3
Ryan A. Vienna - District 4
Eric Weber - District 1
Eric Nakano - District 2
City Manager Chris Constantin
Assistant City Manager
Brad McKinney
City Attorney
Jeff Malawy
September 16, 2022 VIA EMAIL
Development 1 Group, Inc.

Attn: Stan Stringfellow
2001 E. Financial Way, Ste. 101
Glendora, CA 91741
Re: COMPLETE LETTER for TPM 21-0003 and TRP 21-0047
Associated Case No. Accela PROJ-21-0071
A request to divide an existing 1.14 acres site into two parcels through an SB 9 Urban Lot Split, develop the newly created second parcel for a new 6,296 square-foot two-story single-family residence with a three-car garage and a 672 square-foot detached ADU, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove up to 32 mature trees located at 349 W. Gladstone Ave. within the Single-Family Agriculture 16,000 (SF-A16000) Zone (APN 8392-015-030).

Dear Mr. Stringfellow
The Planning Division is in receipt of your proposed SB 9 Urban Lot Split Tentative Parcel Map 83411 plans and materials, which were resubmitted on September 13, 2022. Planning Staff has reviewed the materials submitted and have deemed the applications complete. You may move forward with your project by submitting the following items directly to the Building & Safety Division:

Grading Submittal
3 sets of grading plans with erosion control
2 sets of soils reports
2 sets of LID, Hydrology, SWPPP (whichever applies)
House Plan Submittal
3 sets of building plans (must include, architectural, structural, mech, elect, plumb, energy, green code, recycling)
2 sets of energy calcs
2 sets of structural calcs
2 sets of soils
Retaining Wall Submittal (if applicable)
3 sets of retaining wall plans
2 sets of structural calcs
2 sets of soils
ATTACHMENT 1

Complete Letter For TPM 21-0003, TRP 21-0047 Page 2
349 W. Gladstone Street
September 16, 2022
Please make note that the above items are considered as three (3) separate submittal packages, but would need to be submitted simultaneously.

Additionally, certain conditions/comments have been included as part of this complete letter. Any questions regarding specific conditions should be directed to the appropriate department representative:
☐ Anne Nguyen, Associate Planner, Planning Division (909)394-6255 ☐ Eric Beilstein, Building & Safety Manager, Building Division (909)394-6260 ☐ Shari Garwick, Director of Public Works, Public Works (909)394-6247 Please ensure that the items below are addressed at the time of building plan check submittal.

General

1. The Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed landscape plan for the entire property prepared by a State registered Landscape Architect, in addition to a $2,500 deposit for review of the plans.

Installation of new landscape is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). Water efficient landscapes shall be implemented in all new and rehabilitated landscaping in single-family and multi-family projects, and in private development projects that require a grading permit, building permit or use permit, as required by Chapter 18.14 of the San Dimas Municipal Code.

Please feel free to contact me at (909) 394-6255 or [email protected] if you have any questions regarding the incomplete items or if you’d like to discuss anything further.

Sincerely,
Anne Nguyen
Associate Planner
Enc: 1. Building & Safety Comments

2. Public Works Comments
Cc: Mr. Francisco Clemente, 416 Cody Road, San Dimas, CA 91773

From: Eric Beilstein
To: Anne Nguyen
Subject: 349 W Gladstone DPRB Case No. 22- Draft conditions Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:49:53 AM
BUILDING DIVISION – (909) 394-6260
07/08/22

1. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted edition of the codes as adopted by reference by the City of San Dimas: California Green Building Standards Code, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and California Electrical Code.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Energy requirements for all new lighting, insulation, photovoltaic, and mechanical equipment and submit calculations at time of initial plan review.

3. The Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Building Division of the City of San Dimas plans to be forwarded for review by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Plans may include access, fire sprinklers, mechanical ventilation, and any other applicable items regulated under the Fire Code.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the latest disabled access regulations as found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Accessible items shall include, but not be limited to: parking, accessible pedestrian routes, bathrooms, service counters etc.

5.Phased occupancy shall not be granted until all improvements required as part of the approval have been completed in full for each phase, and approved or finalized by the appropriate department. A phasing plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits.

6.The Applicant/Developer shall submit a Drainage Plan for the proposed development to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official.

7.The Applicant/Developer shall submit a Precise Grading Plan for the proposed development to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Development Services.

Plans shall include utility locations and paving.

8. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit an updated Engineering Geology/Soils Report that includes an accurate description of the geology of the site and conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the geologic conditions on the proposed development and include a discussion of the expansiveness of the soils and recommended measures for foundations and slabs on grade to resist volumetric changes of the soil. This report shall also include recommendations for surcharge setback requirements in the area of ungraded slopes steeper than five horizontal to one vertical.

9. Building foundation inspections shall not be performed until a rough grading certification, survey stakes in place, and a final soils report has been filed with the City and approved. All

drainage facilities must be operable.

10.Prior to the inspection of the foundation, , the Applicant/Developer shall submit a footing bottom compaction certification by a licensed soils tech.

11. Construction calculations, including lateral analysis, shall be required at the time plans are submitted for plan check.

12. Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing plans are required to be submitted at time of initial plan submittal. Electrical schematic and load list and plumbing (drainage, water, gas) schematics will be required before issuance of electrical or plumbing permits.

13. Applicant to expose uninspected work started without Inspector permit for code verification at discretion of Building

14.Any applicable fees shall be paid to Bonita School District in compliance with Government Code Section 65995.

15. The Applicant/Developer shall Contact the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, Environmental Program Division for any required permit or clearance of industrial and hazardous waste disposal.

16.Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and shall be prohibited at any time on Sundays or public holidays, per San Dimas Municipal Code Section

8.36.100.

17. Prior to removing portions of the existing structure on the property, the Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Demolition Permit from the Building and Safety Division.

18.The Applicant/Developer shall submit an Edison plan for all proposed switchgear or transformers (if applicable) to the City for review as soon as possible.

19. The developer shall submit a Construction waste management plan in conformance with CALGreen Section 4.408.2 “Residential Mandatory Measures, Construction waste management plan” Tier 2

20. Any proposed perimeter fencing shall comply with the CA State Pool Safety Act as well as the City of San Dimas Municipal Code requirements.

MEMORANDUM Public Works Department
DATE: June 30, 2022
TO: Anne Nguyen, Project Planner
FROM: Shari Garwick, Director of Public Works
David Gilbertson, Deputy City Engineer
SUBJECT: TPM 21-0003, TRP 21-0047, DPRB 21-0017; 349 W. Gladstone Street Engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for a new 2-lot subdivision on a lot located at 349 W. Gladstone Street and have the following comments:

1. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a signed copy of the City’s certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

2. The Applicant/Developer shall install sanitary sewers to serve the entire development to the specifications of the City Engineer.

3. The Applicant/Developer shall Contact the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for any required annexation, extension, or sewer trunk fee. Proof of payment/clearance is required before the City will issue any sewer permit.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall provide drainage improvements to carry runoff of storm waters in the area proposed to be developed, and for contributory drainage from adjoining properties to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall make a good faith effort to negotiate with the downstream property owner for all required downstream storm drain improvements. The proposed drainage improvements shall be based on a detailed Hydrology Study conforming to the current Los Angeles County methodology. The developed flows outletting into the existing downstream system(s) from this project cannot exceed the pre-existing storm flows.

5. The Applicant/Developer shall provide sewer, drainage Easements for the development to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the Public Works Director and City Engineer.

6. For all non-exempt projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, Applicant/Developer must submit a signed certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Additionally, all projects within this category will require the preparation and submittal by the Applicant/Developer a local Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan. The project proponent is ultimately responsible to comply with all requirements of the MS4 permit, which the City of San Dimas enforces. The City of San Dimas has the authority to enter the project site, review the local SWPPP/WWECP and require modifications and subsequent implementation to the local SWPPP/WWECP in order to prevent polluted runoff from leaving the project site onto private or public property. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site:
a. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site. (BMP SE-2, Sedimentation Basin)
b. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter, or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle, or other method approved by the enforcing agency. (BMPs SE-1, Silt Fence; SE-5, Fiber Rolls; SE-6, Gravel Bag Berm)

7. The Applicant/Developer shall provide mailboxes per City of San Dimas standards.

Mailbox locations are subject to the approval of the local postmaster and the City Engineer.

8. The Applicant/Developer shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

9. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any repairs within the limits of the development, including but not limited to streets and paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and street lights as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.

10. All work adjacent to or within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director and the work shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the City of San Dimas; i.e. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and further that the construction equipment ingress and egress be controlled by a plan approved by Public Works.

11. For all projects subject to Low Impact Development (LID) regulations, Applicant/Developer must submit a site-specific drainage concept and stormwater quality plan to implement LID design principles.

12. A fully executed “Maintenance Covenant for LID Requirements” shall be recorded with the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Covenant documents shall be required to Page 288 – 929 include an exhibit that details the installed treatment control devices as well as any site design or source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for post construction. The information to be provided on this exhibit shall include, but not be limited to:
a. 8 ½” x 11” exhibits with record property owner information. b. Types of BMPs (i.e., site design, source control and/or treatment control) to ensure modifications to the site are not conducted without the property owner being aware of the ramifications to BMP implementation. c. Clear depiction of location of BMPs, especially those located below ground. d. A matrix depicting the types of BMPs, frequency of inspection, type of maintenance required, and if proprietary BMPs, the company information to perform the necessary maintenance.
e. Calculations to support the sizing of the BMPs employed on the project shall be included in the report. These calculations shall correlate directly with the minimum treatment requirements of the current MS4 permit. In the case of implementing infiltration BMPs, a percolation test of the affected soil shall be performed and submitted for review by the City Engineer. f. This document shall be reviewed by and concurred with Public Works to ensure the covenant complies with the MS4 Permit.

13. A Final Map prepared by or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder.

14. All easements existing at the time of the Final Map approval must be accounted for on the approved Tentative Map. This includes the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location.

15. Easements for Private Driveways and Fire Lanes, Multi-Use Trails, and all utilities, including water, sewer, and storm drains shall be provided on the Final Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Attorney, and the Director of Development Services.

16. All site, grading, landscape & irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to the issuance of any permits.

17. A preliminary title report and guarantee is required and such document shall show all fee interest holders; all interest holders whose interest could ripen into a fee; all trust deeds, together with the name of the trustee; and all easement holders. The account for this title report should remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.

18. Construction parking and material storage to be confined to the site. No construction related parking or material storage will be allowed on the surrounding streets.

19. The applicant shall remove reference to “vesting” from the tentative map and shall reference that the subdivision is under SB-9 provisions.

20. The applicant shall provide the name of the civil engineer preparing the tentative map and the engineer shall stamp and sign the tentative map.

21. The applicant shall verify legal access to the common driveway for Parcel Map No. 65790 (Cody Lane). (provided)

22. The applicant shall verify the right to connect to the existing utilities for Parcel Map No. 65790 (Cody Lane). (provided)

23. The applicant shall provide a current Title Report for the property. (provided)

24. The applicant shall provide the location of the existing/proposed sewer lateral for Parcel 1. (provided)

25. The applicant shall connect both properties to the City Sewer and pay applicable fees.

26. The applicant shall provide a hydrology and hydraulics report showing that the existing drainage improvements for Parcel Map No. 65790 (Cody Lane) can adequately carry the developed runoff from this property. Provide letter of acceptance of the water from the downstream properties. (provided)

27. The applicant shall verify that the concentrated runoff from the proposed drain outlet/rip-rap will not negatively impact APN 8392-015-035 to the northeast. (provided)

28. Approval from Los Angeles County Fire Department for access will be required.

29. The applicant shall provide a private water easement across Parcel 1 for the Parcel 2 water service.

30. The developer shall provide street improvements to centerline for Gladstone St including street lights and paving per City standards. (Not required for SB-9 subdivisions)

31. The applicant shall underground utilities within the frontage of the proposed subdivision. (Not required for SB-9 subdivisions)

ATTACHMENT 2

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Steven Barragan, Engineering Manager
Subject: Approve Parcel Map No. 83785 (TPM22-0001; PROJ-21-0038) for SB 9 Subdivision Purposes
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
The property owner of 800 N Amelia Avenue requested approval of the Parcel Map No.83785 (TPM22-0001; PROJ-21-0038) to subdivide the property into two (2) parcels under SB 9.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Approve Parcel Map No. 83785 for SB 9 subdivision purposes as approved by the City Engineer.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action.

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed into law by the state in September 2021 and went into effect January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires local agencies to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split for residential development within a single-family zone. SB 9 limits the requirements and development standards the City may impose. The City may not require the construction of off-site improvements as a condition of approving a lot split under this law. In addition, the City cannot require the applicant to enter into a subdivision agreement with corresponding bonds as a condition of approving such lot split under SB 9.

Staff received a request to split an existing 24,747 square foot lot with an existing dwelling unit and develop both proposed parcels pursuant to SB 9 on the property located at 800 N Amelia Avenue (APN 8392-018-009) within the SF-A16000 zone.

Approve Parcel Map No. 83785 Page 2
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed and processed the urban lot split pursuant to SB 9. Adhering to the SB 9 regulations and limitations, staff generated conditions of approval (see Attachment 1).

The Parcel Map (see Attachment 2) has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and complies with all set requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act, SB 9, and City requirements.

The City’s Building Official did not determine any findings that would prevent the subdivision under SB 9 and approved of the lot split.

The map was processed in June of 2023, but per legal counsel’s advice, ALL maps shall be approved by the City Council to comply with State and Local Code.

ALTERNATIVES
This map falls under the SB 9 requirement for ministerial approval. The City Council may deny the proposed split under SB 9 if the building official makes a written finding based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined by Government Code Section 665589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Denial of the Map without the Building Official findings would conflict with state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines, Title 14, Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15300.1. Relation to Ministerial Projects.

Respectfully submitted,
Steven Barragan
Engineering Manager
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Parcel Map 83785

Director of
Administrative Services
Michael O’Brien
Director of Community
Development
Henry K. Noh
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Scott Wasserman
Director of Public Works
Shari Garwick
City Council
Emmett Badar, Mayor
John Ebiner, Mayor Pro Tem -
District 3
Ryan A. Vienna - District 4
Eric Weber - District 1
Eric Nakano - District 2
City Manager
Chris Constantin
Assistant City Manager
Brad McKinney
City Attorney
Jeff Malawy
August 16, 2022 VIA EMAIL
Amelia Allen LLC
Attn: Mary Chou
423 W. Las Tunas Dr.

San Gabriel, CA 91776
Re: COMPLETE LETTER for TPM 22-0001 and TRP 22-0021
Associated Case No. Accela PROJ-21-0038
A request to split an existing 24,747 sq. ft. lot with an existing dwelling unit and develop both parcels pursuant to SB 9. The project consists of demolishing the existing 1,020 sq. ft. one-story single-family house and detached garage, removal of three mature significant trees, and constructing a total of four units; two units on each parcel that are two-story in height and measure 2,016 sq. ft. in size with an attached 562 sq. ft. two-car garage for each on the property located at 800 N. Amelia Ave. within the Single-Family Agriculture 16,000 (SF-A16000) Zone (APN 8392-018-009).

Dear Applicant,
The Planning Division is in receipt of your proposed SB 9 Urban Lot Split Tentative Parcel Map 83785 plans and materials, which were resubmitted on July 18, 2022. Planning staff has reviewed the materials submitted and have deemed the applications complete. You may move forward with your project by submitting the following items directly to the Building & Safety Division:

Grading Submittal
3 sets of grading plans with erosion control
2 sets of soils reports
2 sets of LID, Hydrology, SWPPP (whichever applies)
House Plan Submittal
3 sets of building plans (must include, architectural, structural, mech, elect, plumb, energy, green code, recycling)
2 sets of energy calcs
2 sets of structural calcs
2 sets of soils
Retaining Wall Submittal (if applicable)
3 sets of retaining wall plans
ATTACHMENT 1

Complete Letter For TPM 22-0001, TRP 22-0021 Page 2
800 N. Amelia Ave.

August 16, 2022
2 sets of structural calcs
2 sets of soils
Please make note that the above items are considered as three (3) separate submittals.

Additionally, certain conditions/comments have been included as part of this complete letter. Any questions regarding specific conditions should be directed to the appropriate department representative:
☐ Anne Nguyen, Associate Planner, Planning Division (909)394-6255 ☐ Eric Beilstein, Building & Safety Manager, Building Division (909)394-6260 ☐ Shari Garwick, Director of Public Works, Public Works (909)394-6247 Please ensure that the items below are addressed at the time of building plan check submittal.

General

1. The manufacturer’s brochures/specification sheets for all exterior design features, including but not limited to, doors, windows and architectural treatments, shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval before issuance of building permits.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed landscape plan for the entire property prepared by a State registered Landscape Architect, in addition to a $2,500 deposit for review of the plans.

Installation of new landscape is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). Water efficient landscapes shall be implemented in all new and rehabilitated landscaping in single-family and multi-family projects, and in private development projects that require a grading permit, building permit or use permit, as required by Chapter 18.14 of the San Dimas Municipal Code.

3. Prior to removing the existing structure on the property, the Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Demolition Permit from the Building and Safety Division.

Please feel free to contact me at (909) 394-6255 or [email protected] if you have any questions regarding the incomplete items or if you’d like to discuss anything further.

Sincerely,
Anne Nguyen
Associate Planner
Enc: 1. Building & Safety Comments 7.21.22

2. Public Works Comments 8.2.22

From: Eric Beilstein
To: Anne Nguyen
Subject: 800 n Amelia TPM 22-0001- Draft conditions
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022 11:21:17 AM
We need to make sure that PW includes a common sewer line to serve at least the back three houses.

BUILDING DIVISION – (909) 394-6260
07/21/22

1. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted edition of the codes as adopted by reference by the City of San Dimas: California Green Building Standards Code, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and California Electrical Code.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Energy requirements for all new lighting, insulation, photovoltaic, and mechanical equipment and submit calculations at time of initial plan review.

3. The Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Building Division of the City of San Dimas plans to be forwarded for review by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Plans may include access, fire sprinklers, mechanical ventilation, and any other applicable items regulated under the Fire Code.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the latest disabled access regulations as found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Accessible items shall include, but not be limited to: parking, accessible pedestrian routes, bathrooms, service counters etc.

5.Phased occupancy shall not be granted until all improvements required as part of the approval have been completed in full for each phase, and approved or finalized by the appropriate department. A phasing plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits.

6.The Applicant/Developer shall submit a Drainage Plan for the proposed development to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official.

7.The Applicant/Developer shall submit a Precise Grading Plan for the proposed development to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Development Services.

Plans shall include utility locations and paving.

8. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit an updated Engineering Geology/Soils Report that includes an accurate description of the geology of the site and conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the geologic conditions on the proposed development and include a discussion of the expansiveness of the soils and recommended measures for foundations and slabs on grade to resist volumetric changes of the soil. This report shall also include recommendations for surcharge setback requirements in the area of ungraded slopes steeper than five horizontal to one vertical.

9. Building or wall foundation inspections shall not be performed until a rough grading certification, survey stakes in place, and a final soils report has been filed with the City and approved. All drainage facilities must be operable.

10. Prior to the inspection of the foundations , the Applicant/Developer shall submit a footing bottom compaction certification by a licensed soils tech.

11. Construction calculations, including lateral analysis, shall be required at the time plans are submitted for plan check.

12. Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing plans are required to be submitted at time of initial plan submittal. Electrical schematic and load list and plumbing (drainage, water, gas) schematics will be required before issuance of electrical or plumbing permits.

13. Applicant to expose uninspected work started without Inspector permit for code verification at discretion of Building

14.Any applicable fees shall be paid to Bonita School District in compliance with Government Code Section 65995.

15. The Applicant/Developer shall Contact the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, Environmental Program Division for any required permit or clearance of industrial and hazardous waste disposal.

16.Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and shall be prohibited at any time on Sundays or public holidays, per San Dimas Municipal Code Section

8.36.100.

17. Prior to removing portions of the existing structure on the property, the Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Demolition Permit from the Building and Safety Division.

18. The Applicant/Developer shall submit an Edison plan for all proposed switchgear or transformers (if applicable) to the City for review as soon as possible.

19. The developer shall submit a Construction waste management plan in conformance with CALGreen Section 4.408.2 “Residential Mandatory Measures, Construction waste management plan” Tier 2

20. Any proposed perimeter fencing shall comply with the CA State Pool Safety Act as well as the City of San Dimas Municipal Code requirements.

MEMORANDUM Public Works Department
DATE: August 2, 2022
TO: Anne Nguyen, Associate Planner
FROM: Shari Garwick, Director of Public Works
David Gilbertson, Deputy City Engineer
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22-0001 (PM 83875) – 800 N. AMELIA AVENUE
Engineering staff has reviewed the plans dated July 18, 2022 to subdivide a 24,747 square foot lot into four (4) SB 9 dwelling units located at 800 N Amelia Avenue. Staff has the following proposed conditions of approval:

1. Prior to the start of construction, a minimum five-foot (5’) high fence composed of chain link or other approved material including a dark green or black view obscuring screen, shall totally enclose the perimeter of the development when vacant, under construction, or under demolition, and said fence shall remain until occupancy is granted.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a signed copy of the City’s certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

3. The Applicant/Developer shall install sanitary sewers to serve the entire development to the specifications of the City Engineer. All four (4) dwelling units shall have separate private 4” laterals connected to a common private 6” sewer lateral within the common driveway and connected to the existing public sewer main in Amelia Avenue.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall Contact the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for any required annexation, extension, or sewer trunk fee. Proof of payment/clearance is required before the City will issue any sewer permit.

5. The subject development is located within an area of Special Flood Hazard as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Applicant/Developer shall meet all conditions and requirements as set forth in Title 15, Chapter 15.60 of the San Dimas Municipal Code.

6. The Applicant/Developer shall provide drainage improvements to carry runoff of storm waters in the area proposed to be developed, and for contributory drainage from adjoining properties to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall make a good faith effort to negotiate with the downstream property owner for all required downstream storm drain improvements. The proposed drainage improvements shall be based on a detailed Hydrology Study conforming to the current Los Angeles County methodology. The developed flows outletting into the existing downstream system(s) from this project cannot exceed the pre-existing storm flows.

7. The Applicant/Developer shall provide sewer, drainage and reciprocal access easements for the development to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the Public Works Director and City Engineer.

8. For all projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil, Applicant/Developer shall submit a temporary erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer and filed with the City and shall be installed and operable at all times.

9. For all non-exempt projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, Applicant/Developer must submit a signed certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Additionally, all projects within this category will require the preparation and submittal by the Applicant/Developer a local Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan.

The project proponent is ultimately responsible to comply with all requirements of the MS4 permit, which the City of San Dimas enforces. The City of San Dimas has the authority to enter the project site, review the local SWPPP/WWECP and require modifications and subsequent implementation to the local SWPPP/WWECP in order to prevent polluted runoff from leaving the project site onto private or public property. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site:
a. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site. (BMP SE-2, Sedimentation Basin)
b. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter, or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle, or other method approved by the enforcing agency. (BMPs SE-1, Silt Fence; SE-5, Fiber Rolls; SE-6, Gravel Bag Berm)

10.The Applicant/Developer shall provide mailboxes per City of San Dimas standards.

Mailbox locations are subject to the approval of the local postmaster and the City Engineer.

11.The Applicant/Developer shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

12.The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any repairs within the limits of the development, including but not limited to streets and paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and street lights as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.

13.All work adjacent to or within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director and the work shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the City of San Dimas; i.e. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and further that the construction equipment ingress and egress be controlled by a plan approved by Public Works.

14.For all projects subject to Low Impact Development (LID) regulations, Applicant/Developer must submit a site-specific drainage concept and stormwater quality plan to implement LID design principles.

15.A fully executed “Maintenance Covenant for LID Requirements” shall be recorded with the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Covenant documents shall be required to include an exhibit that details the installed treatment control devices as well as any site design or source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for post construction. The information to be provided on this exhibit shall include, but not be limited to:
i. 8 ½” x 11” exhibits with record property owner information. ii. Types of BMPs (i.e., site design, source control and/or treatment control) to ensure modifications to the site are not conducted without the property owner being aware of the ramifications to BMP implementation.
iii. Clear depiction of location of BMPs, especially those located below ground.
iv. A matrix depicting the types of BMPs, frequency of inspection, type of maintenance required, and if proprietary BMPs, the company information to perform the necessary maintenance.
v. Calculations to support the sizing of the BMPs employed on the project shall be included in the report. These calculations shall correlate directly with the minimum treatment requirements of the current MS4 permit. In the case of implementing infiltration BMPs, a percolation test of the affected soil shall be performed and submitted for review by the City Engineer.
vi. This document shall be reviewed by and concurred with Public Works to ensure the covenant complies with the MS4 Permit.

16.A Final Map prepared by or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder.

17.All easements existing at the time of the Final Map approval must be accounted for on the approved Tentative Map. This includes the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location.

18.Easements for Private Driveways and Fire Lanes, Multi-Use Trails, and all utilities, including water, sewer, and storm drains shall be provided on the Final Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Attorney, and the Director of Development Services.

19.All site, grading, landscape & irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to the issuance of any permits.

20.A preliminary title report and guarantee is required and such document shall show all fee interest holders; all interest holders whose interest could ripen into a fee; all trust deeds, together with the name of the trustee; and all easement holders. The account for this title report should remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.

21.Construction parking and material storage to be confined to the site. No construction related parking or material storage will be allowed on the surrounding streets.

22.The Applicant/Developer shall record a private common driveway and utility maintenance agreement for all four dwelling units on the property to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

23.The Applicant/Developer shall construct a new drive approach to SPPWC Standards to match the width of the proposed common driveway.

ATTACHMENT 2

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Steven Barragan, Engineering Manager
Subject: Approve Property Owner’s Request to Change Property Access for 200 W Baseline Road (Tract Map 62861, Lot 3) by Abandoning Access off Baseline Road and to Approve Access Off of Alford Street
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
The property owner of 200 W Baseline Road requested approval to change their property access off Alford Street rather than off Baseline Road.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Approve change in access for 200 W Baseline Road (Tract Map 62861, Lot 3) to be off Alford Street and abandon access off Baseline Road

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action. All costs of any required proposed street modifications are the responsibility of the property owner.

BACKGROUND
The property at 200 W Baseline Road is Lot 3 of the Tract Number 62861 which was approved in September of 2007 and recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office in November of 2007. As part of the recorded Tract Map No 62861 (see Attachment 1), all rights to direct vehicular ingress and egress were abandoned from abutting Lots 1 and 2 off Cataract Ave and from abutting Lot 3 off Alford Street.

Approve Change in Access for 200 W Baseline Road Page 2 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
At the time the development for Tract 62861 was processed for approval, the condition to waive access off of Cataract Ave and Alford Street was included to minimize having all of the rear block walls of the development fronting Baseline Road.

Staff has reviewed the property’s proposed improvements and is in support of changing the access off Alford Street. The proposed improvements for this change and abandoning the existing access off Baseline Road are shown on the proposed site plan (see Attachment 2).

Since the subject property is a corner lot, accessing their property off of Alford Street does not cause any major impacts. In fact, the proposed access off Alford Street will be just adjacent to their neighboring property to the south at 165 Alford Street (Lot 4).

ALTERNATIVES
Council may elect to deny this request and the property would remain as is, but the property owner would be limited on proposed improvements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is Categorically Exempt under the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 6, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 operations which consists of the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public or private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

Respectfully submitted,
Steven Barragan
Engineering Manager
Attachments:

1. Tract Map No 62861

2. Proposed Site Plan

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2
158.36'
133.36'

EX SIDEWALK EX SIDEWALK
CL
2''
4'' MIN. 4'' MIN. 4'' MIN.
4'' MIN.

DATE REVISIONS 334 Verdugo Way, Upland, CA. 91786
[email protected]
NEW DETACHED ADU (909)997-1872
200 W. BASELINE RD,
SAN DIMAS, CA. 91773
APN: 8661-009-028

SITE PLAN
THESE PLANS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT AND REQUIRED PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM AGENCIES OF JURISDICTION. CONTACT WMAI IMMEDIATELY IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THESE PLANS (INTERNALLY OR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS) Page 311 – 929 Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Subject: Approve Resolution 2024-32 Authorizing the Acceptance of a $200,000 Public Safety Grant from the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, Appropriate Revenue and Expenditures in the 2023-24 Operating and Capital Budget to Implement the Grant, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents and to Manage the Grant Funds and Performance of the Grant Agreement
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
The City was awarded a $200,000 public safety grant through the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) for public safety initiatives funded through Assembly Bill 106, amendments to the 2023-24 California State Budget Bill. This Resolution would authorize acceptance of the grant, signing the Memorandum of Agreement with the SGVCOG, take such actions to expend City funds in furtherance of the grant and to submit for reimbursement to recover expenditures from the public safety grant. The recommendation also acts to appropriate $200,000 on both the revenue and expenditure side of the City’s 2023-24 Operating and Capital Budget.

RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council to:

• Approve Resolution 2024-32, authorizing the acceptance of public safety grant funds and outlining the terms for the utilization and management of these funds as agreed upon in the Memorandum of Agreement with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.
• Authorize the FY 2023-24 appropriation of $200,000 in revenue and expenditures in accounts 001.358.010 and 001.4210.020.028 to provide the spending authorization for the grant funds on a reimbursement basis.
• Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to manage and utilize the grant funds in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement.

Approve Resolution 2024-32 Authorizing the Acceptance of a $200,000 Public Safety Grant from the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Page 2 For the Meeting of May 14 2024

FISCAL IMPACT
The acceptance of the public safety grant provides $200,000 in funds allocated specifically for public safety enhancements. The funds are to be disbursed based on invoices submitted by the City for eligible expenses, as detailed in the Memorandum of Agreement.

This grant funding does not require matching funds from the City's budget and is intended to enhance public safety services without additional financial burden on local resources. However, as this is a reimbursement grant, the City will first need to expend General Fund resources and then submit for reimbursement through the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG). Thus, the City initially would appropriate funding to expend and then file for reimbursement.

BACKGROUND
The City of San Dimas has been offered a grant by the SGVCOG, facilitated through state legislative measures (Senate Bill No. 104 and Assembly Bill 106). Senator Susan Rubio sponsored and supported this funding being specifically allocated to the City of San Dimas through the SGVCOG. The grant is part of a broader initiative to enhance public safety and homeless services across the region. The City has been identified as a beneficiary of these funds due to its proactive stance and ongoing efforts in public safety and community services.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of San Dimas and the SGVCOG outlines the responsibilities and expectations associated with the allocation of $200,000 in grant funds. These funds are intended to support public safety initiatives that maintain and enhance the safety and quality of life for the residents of San Dimas.

Key points of the agreement include:
• The SGVCOG will reimburse the City for eligible expenses up to the full amount of the grant upon receipt of proper invoicing.
• The City is responsible for ensuring that all expenditures are in line with the stipulations of Assembly Bill 106 and are properly documented.
• The grant period is effective upon the execution of the MOA and continues until the allocated funds are fully reimbursed following the stipulated guidelines.

The approval of this resolution will formalize the City's acceptance of the grant funds and authorize the City Manager to perform all actions necessary for the management and utilization of the funds.

Use of the Grant Funds
The City is working with the San Dimas station to determine the best use to maximize this onetime resource. During the 2024-25 budget process, the Public Safety Commission discussed the opportunity to leverage technology to increase the effectiveness of policing in combating burglaries, as well as to identify other measures which may deter burglaries from occurring. The City has seen success through technology deployed by other communities, and one area of focus will be to enhance such capability in the City.

Approve Resolution 2024-32 Authorizing the Acceptance of a $200,000 Public Safety Grant from the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Page 3 For the Meeting of May 14 2024
While the recommended action would appropriate the grant funds for expenditure, the City will still follow City procurement policies in the specific items acquired through the grant. Further, City staff will be engaging the Public Safety Commission at its May 21, 2024, meeting about the grant.

ALTERNATIVES
The City can reject acceptance of the grant and allow the SGVCOG to reallocate the funding to another City. Given the type of initiatives planned for this funding, rejecting the funding would result in the City incurring the expense for those initiatives through its General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
Chris Constantin
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-32 Acceptance of Public Safety Grant

2. Exhibit A to Resolution - Memorandum of Agreement with SGVCOG

3. Exhibit to Memorandum of Agreement - Assembly Bill 106 Section 19.564 (select sections)

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-32

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS

ANGELES, APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY

OF SAN DIMAS AND THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR

THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO MANAGE THE GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) was established to advocate for regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 104 (2023) and Assembly Bill 106 (2024) have allocated funds specifically for homeless services pilot programs and public safety support; and WHEREAS, the City of San Dimas has been designated to receive a portion of these funds, amounting to $200,000, for public safety initiatives under the terms outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and SGVCOG (“Exhibit A”); and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept these funds and implement the program in accordance with the guidelines provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Dimas that:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of San Dimas hereby approves the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments for the acceptance and distribution of funds for and from the public safety grant in the amount of $200,000 on a reimbursement basis.

SECTION 2. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute the MOA on behalf of the City and to manage the grant funds as specified in the MOA.

SECTION 3. The City Manager or designee is authorized to expend City funds towards performance of the MOA and to submit and accept reimbursement in accordance with the MOA by submitting invoices, handling receipt of reimbursements, and ensuring compliance with the conditions of the grant as specified in the MOA.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall attest and certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2024. __________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2024-32 was approved by vote of the City Council of the City of San Dimas at its regular meeting of May 14, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

1816781.1

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

FUNDING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS

AND THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG) This Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) is by and between the City of San Dimas (City) and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) to be effective as of the date signed by both Parties.

RECITALS:

A. The SGVCOG was established to have a unified voice to maximize resources and advocate for regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley within the jurisdictions of its member cities and its unincorporated areas.

B. Pursuant to Senate Bill No. 104 (2023), Section 19.564 (b)(57), $1,000,000 was allocated to the SGVCOG by the Department of Housing and Community Development for a homeless services pilot program. The scope of this funded was expanded per Assembly Bill 106, Section

19.564(b)(57) (2024) to include public safety support (the “SB 104/AB 106 Funds”).

C. After consultation with State Senator Rubio’s office concerning the distribution of funds, it was agreed that a portion of the funds should be distributed to the City.

E. By way of this MOA, the City and the SGVCOG desire to set forth the terms for distribution of the SB 104/AB 106 Funds (the “Program”).

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the following:

I. TERM:

The term of this MOA shall commence upon execution of the MOA by both Parties and shall continue through the SGVCOG’s reimbursement to the City of eligible expenses.

II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH OF THE PARTIES:

A. SGVCOG

1. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a proper invoice for allowable expenses, reimburse the City up to a not to exceed amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) in SB 104/AB 106 Funds.

2. Coordinate conference calls and/or meetings with City as necessary.

3. Provide any updated point-of-contact described in Section III.B to serve as the SGVCOG’s Project Manager with name, title, and contact information.

B. City

1816781.1

1. Be solely responsible for expending the SB 104/AB 106 Funds for purposes consistent with Assembly Bill 106, Section 19.564(b)(57), which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and as it may be amended.

2. Within 60 days of expenditure of funds for which reimbursement is permitted under this MOA, submit detailed invoices, and further documentation reasonably necessary to insure the funds were expended consistent with Assembly Bill 106.

3. Submit invoices no later than one year from the effective date of this MOA.

4. Respond to SGVCOG requests related to the Program in a timely manner.

5. Maintain membership in the SGVCOG during the entire term of this MOA.

6. Coordinate conference calls and/or meetings with the SGVCOG as necessary.

7. Provide any updated point-of-contact described in Section III.B to serve as the City’s Project Manager with name, title, and contact information.

III. AMENDMENTS:

For any change which affects any term or condition included under this MOA, an amendment to the MOA shall be prepared and executed by the City and by the SGVCOG.

IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT:

A. For purposes of this MOA, the SGVCOG designates the following individual as its Project Manager to which any notices required under this MOA shall be sent:

Caitlin Sims, Manager of Local Programs
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
1333 S. Mayflower Avenue, Ste. 360
Monrovia, CA 91016
[email protected]
B. For purposes of this MOA, the City of San Dimas designates the following individual as its Project Manager to which any notices required under this MOA shall be sent:

Chris Constantin, City Manager
City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
[email protected]
C. Either Party may change its Project Manager or contacts upon written notice to the other Party.

V. TERMINATION:

This MOA may be terminated for cause at any time for a material default by one of the Parties upon written notice to the applicable Project Manager. In the event of termination for cause, termination will be in effect three days after deposit of the

1816781.1
written notice in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, unless otherwise stated at a later time in the written notice.

VI. INDEMNITY:

A. Neither the SGVCOG, its member agencies, or their respective officers, employees, consultants or volunteers (the “SGVCOG Indemnitees), shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or committed to be done by the City or its respective officers, agents, employees, or volunteers under or in connection with the performance of this MOA.

B. Neither the City or its respective officers, employees, consultants, or volunteers (the “City Indemnitees), shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or committed to be done by the SGVCOG Indemnitees under or in connection with the performance of this MOA C. The City shall indemnify, defend and hold the SGVCOG Indemnitees harmless from and against any liability, claims, losses, actions, and expenses, including without limitation, defense costs, any costs or liability on account of expenditure of the funds, bodily injury, death or personal injury of any person or for damage to or loss of use of property, any legal fees and any claims for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of or resulting from the City’s obligations under this MOA, unless caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the SGVCOG Indemnitees.

D. The SGVCOG shall indemnify, defend and hold the City Indemnitees harmless from and against any liability, claims, losses, actions, and expenses, including without limitation, defense costs, any costs or liability on account of bodily injury, death or personal injury of any person or for damage to or loss of use of property, any legal fees and any claims for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of or resulting from the SGVCOG’s obligations under of this MOA, unless caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees.

VII. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

A. In performing this MOA, neither the City nor SGVCOG is a contractor, agent, or employee of the other. Neither the City or SGVCOG shall represent themselves as contractors, agents or employees of the other Party and shall have no powers to bind the other Party in contract or otherwise.

B. This MOA, along with the applicable expenditure requirements of Assembly Bill 106, constitute the entire understanding between the Parties, with respect to the subject matter herein. The MOA shall not be amended except in writing signed by the Parties.

1816781.1
C. Neither Party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by unforeseen causes including acts of God, floods, earthquakes, fires, acts of a public enemy, pandemic, and government acts beyond the control and without fault or negligence of the affected Party. Each Party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any such circumstances claimed to delay, hinder, or prevent performance of any obligations under this MOA.

D. Neither Party shall assign this MOA, or any part thereof, without the prior written consent and prior approval of the other Party, nor any assignment without consent shall be void and unenforceable.

E. This Agreement shall be governed by California law and any applicable federal law.

F. If any provision of this MOA is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

G. The terms of this MOA shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each of the Parties and their respective approved successors and assigns.

In witness whereof, the Parties enter into this MOA on the date of last execution by the Parties.

FOR THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS
By: ___________________________
Chris Constantin
City Manager
Date: __________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ _______________________________ Jeff Malawy Debra Black
City Attorney City Clerk

FOR THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

By: ____________________________
Marisa Creter

1816781.1
Executive Director
Date: __________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
David DeBerry
General Counsel










 
!"# $


%&'&&(!)
*+,-.,-/, &-
%
!0

#
+
%&'&&123
 4$0
4 +56/7
.65'
%
!

, 


 
!"# $


%&'&.(!)
*+5&,.8, 58
%
!0

#
+
%&'&.123
 4$9

+ '/.':''5:'''5,'7/':''5:'''5,'7/':5'5:'''5,'7':5'5:'''5,'8&':'5-:'''5,'8-':''5:.&78,&;&':.'5:'''5,&;-':
-7,..7':-/,.-8':-/,./-':''5:'''5,.7'':''5:'''5,.7-':5'.:'''5,.87':''5:'''5,.87':5'5:'''5,.'':-', .'':-&,.'':-/,.7':''&:'''5,.;':''5:'''5,.;':-/,-&7':5'5:.-&8,-&7':5'5:.-.5,-&7':555:.-&8,-&7/:
''5:'''5,-&7/:-/,/58':--,/58':-/,/&&/:''5:'''5,/&&/:''.:'''5,/&&/:''/:'''5,/&&/:'&5:'''5,;5'':''5:
'''5,;5'':''5:'/88,;./':''5:'''5,;./':''5:.';8,;./':''5:.5/&,;;7':''5:'''5,85&':''&:'''5,85&':5'&:'''5, 8/;':''5:'''5,8/;':-/, 877':-/
%0
4 &6''
%, 4$9

+'/55:-/,'/&5:-;,'7/':-7,'7':-;,./-':
-;,.7-':-7,.;':-8,.8&/:-',.'':-7,..':-7,.7':'5&:'//;,.;':''5:'8',.;':-7,-5;':-7,/58':-7, /&&/:'55:.&/,75&':-/,;5'':-/,;./':-/,;/'&:-/, 8/;':-7

0
4 &6''
%,*)<4$9

+&;-':.'5:'''5,
;./':''&:'''5, 888':-'
%0
4 &6''
%,
 4$0
4 +56/7,56/7-,56/7/,&56'',.65', 6/'
%,
 4$0
4 -6'7

,
!

,*<
4$


!+

2# $
, 
=4$))*
)*4
4 
!*%
*,


=%%
4

4
<3,
2# $
24<<6
>))*
? 23@
?*
*)*4<5/,&'&-6A4< B4
!0*
*3
%0

)*4<5/,&'&-6C
DEFGHDIGJEKLM
HEDNHOGFEHI
"5'7,@2*4<6"# $

+
%&'&& &'&.6
!"# $


%&'&& 
!"# $


%&'&.
 ))*
)*4
4 +%
*
!+#))
*

%+

$
?*

%
*

!&'&&P&. &'&.P&-%4+<3*+6
!4+24<<B
#< 
 
!"# $


%&'&& 
!"# $


%&'&.23
 4$, 4$, *)<4$
4 +
%))*
)*4
4  
=4$

!*!$+6
!4+24<<B
#<  <*
!
4
4+


=%%
4

4
<3+"# $
"4<<6
O
QRS
T

U
V
*4
3))*
)*4
4 U3+A4+<

4 U3+W
<*
$*
U


IXR
IYEZELZDEL[IYEHIIEL[KDG[L\
GOLE
KIH
[LDDL]H^
HEKIGL

0
4 56/7
%
!"# $


%&'&&4+
  

* U
HEK
_
`
(1(51!

#
+))*
)*4
)#*+#



!4++
4

<$4+<
4?)*4
*4
4+6
  



















   





!"
"



#
$
%
%
&'
'($



!   





&$$


)*
+



!


#


,
""
-




.  






"


)*
+/


""0




12  





34



"




,,*'
"


'

$'




'
$


"

5  




$

&




#4
""6
*
"


7  





&
$

"#





6

8


9
43
"


'"



/  





/#



&'

"

#
,"
''

8 



#  





0






/*

*1
""




#$
6'
/

"
/
*$

9  





&!,
"


//*$
&!,
".

'
"*
$-'


/$*


6






%  





#







:!""$,
&
"$
$




$"$


#
/$

7*5




,

8 


4"
'

;'





<
!
"
$
+$*






=  





-



/$><$

'
$
'


&

?$,




@  





'



#

"*


'
,
"

4




6A  





-

-'
**




&B  





'



&



/<

"*

*

3=  





'



0


%

$

"*
$

)  





"
'



9
468


4

-C  





'
68





8


6
.




0B  





&<
*





&<
*


:6
'


<



+

"7
""

'





D
"#


'





D

($









&


D&*



'
'

,$"*"$
"

8

D6'





$



*'

$'





""*

*

'
$

*"

<
'
"'

8 

'"$*
*

E"


D"'
#
$
#
%
E&'


8


"&
$D


$


3




4
'
'"$

'


&









F2  





/4





4

8
$




;
'

GB  





"
,
"
,



,$"
'


$*
0E
'

'
8

"
'
''
**


,



""
'




*


H=  





/
*
'



'
"




"<

6
*
"

G
$



,"",
,""
"


































 








 

















 













































 

















 









!
 



"
#


$
%









&'




 




















(









)










*




#










+'+&,+-

















 


./

 




 






!


!


!



"&'+'+0
 


"&'+'+.

1/

 









!!



(



2

!
&'+'+&





!


3

 









!





4





!

 
!(

2
1

56*

%


%



*














 !










 



!










"

#


$
%








7'


 !
!



!







8



 9
!!


!



:
%






 9
7;++0'''

%
<
2





=

%
><
2





+;7+0''''

%
:
?$


%
:
?$
9%




@
:




&;7+0''''

%
2
?



%
2
?

9%




@
:




-;7+0''''

%






2
A

@
:

%







A

0;0'''''

%
%

%


<?
9


!:





=@

;7''''''

%
%

%


%

%
,"!6



!:




.;7''''''

*
B3
#



A





1;0'''''

%
#


=


2

*






:

6


4;+''''''

%
2



  

2
%
%






%

2%%%



=
*





A
(

7';0'''''

%






%
:
:

77;'''''

%
#


=6$!
@
 
A


7+;+''''''

2


6
B



%

!C B

<






 







 






  
 










!

"
#



  

$  
%$

$ 



  

$  
%$

$ 
&
'
( "
)*)


+

 
,-
 


+

 
. /
0
 $

 

$"
1*


2-



$ 

$$

 


3






$


"
4



 

(




5


2

6
$
 
"
7
3.+8


3.+89

: 
&
'
( "
;*)





&
 &
 





&
 &
 " *4)


 %
<.("


%<=5
$

6 
-(
5
$
0
&
'
( "
*






$ +
-

/
 
(
+


>

$


 &!

$&
'
( "
**)






$ +
-

/
 
(
+


%

9

$




9?

@,


$&
'
( "
*)






$ +
/
 




-(






!
2

( 
&"
*#*



 





8-( 
+-

&
 " *)*





-(
+
0



,-


&
/$"
*14)


+



$








A$ 
(
>!6
(
"
*4



 







 








$(
-

"
*7*)



 






B  :9

(C$ 



- 
"
*;*



 







 



D

 


>-





!



. /
-

 "
1


0
9


(


0
9


(A$ 
(
E9

($//
"
*)
%




 
 0



%




6 

$, E


 
-(



"
*



 
A




 
A
=


2

$(



"
)



 


 



 


 =9

6 2

$(



"
##



 

(!




 

(!
D




/
D9

$

 
-(

0 (




.
-
$"
)#)



&
$ 





&
$ 

"
1*)




+
/
 


$

$ +
-

/
 
 $


( 

 
 



$ 



(
 

/
@//
-

/
  

((




$ /" Page 325 – 929
 



























!  
"







#
$

"


%



&'  


"(




))

#

*

#)











+

,




-'  




%

.


#

*

#)








-,,  
/






*

#)










-'  




0



)#
)

##






-'  





1














)#
*
)



))





23+
*

--'- 



)
4

1

/

#

)##


-, 




5



)#
*
)












-6 
$
)#








)
2
















-, 
3)

)

7
8











#
)








*

#





)



-!!- 




%









)#
*
)

#
$


71

)9

-&,  





"

)


5

+
$

 




:
/





:/1)





*



)




,  
;





:

"
*


:
/














;:":/+

) <


<
=




', , 








.



##

7#





;*








)


*
  




>)#

##




>)#


"
>)#
*
)

+
$

-'  


.2


#








#
$


'  




+








)
##

?




)


+
"






6 




5*








#

*






*5

>





>"




,  


"4
0



4
*
)


##




)


*


#

##


!6  
:
1)
))
(
*

#)







#
)#
*
)








#

#

&  
3



:






#
$

6'  
@



##





#
$

Page 326 – 929







4



#




  





























!









"  

 #
$!%&'

&



 (



)


 


#
$!
**  

 


#
$!



!

!










&
!




!


(&
! (


#
$!
+*"  

 


%&,


,











!
-





!

.
!!

.






!


"+/"  

 


#
$!

0





!

! (





.



)
 
,


1
  

 


0
!





 2

3



/+  

 


4

4

.





 


5.
!



6"  

 


27









 
&8
 
,


9 ::
;6  

 












0.

! 




/ "  

 


,








2

!5.
!



/"  

 


,








 



<


'
=,
$>?


9 )
/  

 










 


$3@

!

 /*"  

 5

$:<




(



 


2 




A

/+"  

 

 $
<.










(

!

.





(

/"  

 











 


<
7
7

@

/"" 
@




 










 
.



7

&



!
//+*" 
 


@

&


&
7






BCDEFGE


;""

 %
!$

 *






H
BCDEIJEKLKE@ 













!

.






 
 

.

,








 



!

 
 
 


 









 
!
 

7 ! 

!

@ 
 


 (










 





 










=

(
 

.
!

(




.





 













(
 

*5
7
 

!
 
7








?


 


.




!





$

+


!7
 


;* 

 
"

9


<
.


"

@


 4
.





9



!7
 


  

<
.




 9(






 



!


(Page 327 – 929 )
 

.

 <




















!" # 
$

%&
 #

!'
(


)
*





(



+







$,

)

(



#
 !-


)




)










)



 

)


)(
)












#
!&$,

)
.



)


)



*






#/)

)



)






$,



































)

 





#/)




)





(0
1


2




%3)



 









4






5




)



#'


1










3%6


)
)




)

 




#
7!8























( 
(

(
0%3
3
*

0%3
37#

!8

















(

(
)4


(%3
3%#,


)
(






)







(


#
9!,








(


(4



/

:;'





#'$,



)

(









(



)0

1


2


#

3!&






(


(!!





()

,

<
(!&(
()$=




<

!>

3 3332)

#
!>
33 333?
)='
#
?6"
)



/

=


5
;
#
%!>% 7
3%)



@(
@=/



"
A



"4
#

!>7 3
333
)
@


)
@
2
=


B*

C
@(
@=A

"#  !>
333
333


=

,

#
!>

333
333
$/"=#
7!>
33 333
/


A(


/





'
#/A/!#

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Luis Torrico, Director of Community Development Subject: Consideration, Discussion, and Introduction of Ordinance 1307 - Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002, a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend Title 18-Zoning of the San Dimas Municipal Code to Create Standards to Regulate Recycling Facilities, Donation Boxes and Non-US Postal Service Mailboxes, and Amend Title 18-Zoning, Chapter 18.08 Definitions to Reflect the Changes Associated with the Proposed Standards.
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
The San Dimas Municipal Code does not regulate recycling facilities. In an effort to regulate these facilities, a policy was created by City Staff in February 2010, and later revised in April 2013 to include donation boxes and non-US postal service mailboxes. The current policy includes location and minimal operation requirements; however, it doesn’t include standards that allow Staff to address ongoing concerns when such facilities are located adjacent to or in close proximity to residential properties.

These concerns were presented to the City Council in 2022 and as result, the City Council initiated a code amendment to include provisions that would allow City Staff to regulate these facilities.

On March 21, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the item and adopted Resolution PC-1675, recommending approval of Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 to the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing to receive public testimony.

2. Read by title and introduce Ordinance 1307 approving Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002, to create standards to regulate recycling facilities, donation boxes and non-US postal service mailboxes, and amend Title 18-Zoning, Chapter 18.08 Definitions to reflect the changes associated with the proposed standards.

Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 Page 2
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action.

BACKGROUND
The San Dimas Municipal Code does not include provisions that regulate recycling facilities.

Therefore, on February 3, 2010, the Director of Development Services created a policy to provide Staff with direction on how to regulate recycling and donation facilities (See Attachment 5). The policy requires that all recycling and donation facilities be subject to a Development Plan review, subject to the approval by the Director of Community Development and include location and operation standards. The policy was revised on April 2, 2013, to include criteria for portable donation facilities and non-United States Postal Service (USPS) mailboxes, and to provide clarification on the submittal and review process (See Attachment 4).

Per the policy, recycling and donation facilities are allowed in Commercial and Industrial Zones, and at churches and schools, and non-USPS mailboxes are allowed in Administrative Professional, Commercial, and Industrial Zones. The policy also includes placement, construction, and operation standards for recycling and donation facilities, including, but not limited to, setbacks, number of facilities per development, hours of operation, and design standards.

Currently, there are two existing recycling facilities that have been approved and constructed per the existing policy. One is located at San Dimas Plaza shopping center located at 845 – 1045 W.

Arrow Hwy. The recycling facility was approved in 2011 and is located along the east property line behind the commercial buildings (Figure 1). This facility is bounded by the 57 freeway to the east and commercial uses to the north, west and south.

Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 Page 3
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
The second facility is located at San Dimas Arrow Plaza located at 1401 – 1455 W. Arrow Hwy.

The recycling facility was approved in 2014 and is located at the rear of the property (see Figure 2). This facility is bounded by residential uses to the north, west, and east, and commercial uses to the south, west, and east.

Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 Page 4
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
City Staff has heard concerns from residents regarding the operation of the recycling facility located at San Dimas Arrow Plaza. This facility differs from the one at San Dimas Plaza in that it is adjacent to residential uses which are more sensitive than commercial and industrial uses.

While the facility was approved per the existing policy, the policy does not include noise standards that would allow Staff to mitigate existing uses, or distance from residential use standards which would prohibit recycling facilities within certain distances of sensitive uses, such as residential.

There are several non-USPS mailboxes located throughout the City and one (1) donation box, that Staff is aware of, located at the 7-11 at the intersection of San Dimas Canyon Road and Foothill Boulevard. Staff is not aware of any complaints associated with the mailboxes or donation box.

On January 25, 2022, the City Council approved the initiation of a municipal code text amendment to codify portions of the policy but also include standards that would address concerns with facilities that are located in close proximity to residential properties (See Attachment 3). The proposed ordinance could result in existing uses becoming nonconforming and potentially be required to discontinue the use. Therefore, Staff worked with the City Attorney’s office to ensure that the proposed ordinance would be in compliance with all applicable laws.

On March 21, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance (See Attachment 2). Public testimony was received from residents impacted by the existing recycling facility located within the San Dimas Arrow Plaza in support of the proposed ordinance, and also from the recycling facility located within the San Dimas Arrow Plaza owner’s and their

Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 Page 5
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
representative against the proposed ordinance. After discussing the item, the Commission voted 4-0-1, with Commissioner Davis absent, to adopt Resolution PC-1675, recommending approval of Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 to the City Council. The recommendation also included a change to the proposed ordinance to extend the operating hours of small recycling facilities from 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM to 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance will strengthen and update the existing policy, specifically including standards such as distance requirements and noise limits for recycling facilities and donation boxes to protect residential and other sensitive uses. The ordinance will also include a Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses section which will require existing recycling facilities, donation boxes and non-USPS mailboxes to comply with the new provisions to avoid becoming nonconforming. Uses that become nonconforming would ultimately need to discontinue the use and operation.

The proposed ordinance would include standards that regulate where they will be allowed, development standards, review process, and a discontinuance of nonconforming uses section.

Where Permitted
Under the new ordinance, recycling facilities, which consist of small collection facilities and selfserving or reverse-vending machines for purposes of this ordinance, and donation boxes will be allowed as incidental uses in the Commercial Highway (CH), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Light Manufacturing (M-1), and Creative Growth zones (CG) and in Specific Plan areas that allow commercial or industrial uses. Recycling facilities will not be allowed in any zone that allows residential uses. Non-USPS mailboxes will be allowed as an incidental use in the Administrative Professional, Commercial Highway, Commercial Neighborhood, Light Manufacturing zones, and Creative Growth zones and in Specific Plan areas that allow commercial or industrial uses.

Development Standards
Development standards will be created that will be applicable to recycling facilities, donation boxes and non-USPS mailboxes. Standards include, but are not limited to, setbacks, size/area, height, quantity, noise, design (applicable to recycling facilities only), proximity to residential uses, and operational standards. It’s important to note that existing uses will have to comply with the proposed standards. If compliance cannot be met, the uses will become nonconforming and subject to discontinuance of use discussed in more detail later in the report.

Review Process
The ordinance also will also outline the review process for these uses. Small collection facilities, which have more of a potential to create impacts, will be subject to a Director’s review. Under a Director’s review, conditions of approval can be included with the approval which can assist in mitigating impacts and create additional oversight. Self-service recycling facilities, donation boxes, and non-USPS mailboxes may be approved administratively by the Director/Staff.

Discontinuation of Use
The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to create standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and mitigate negative impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare

Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 Page 6
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
associated with the operation of recycling facilities, donation boxes and non-USPS mailboxes. If existing uses cannot comply with the requirements of the proposed ordinance, the use would become nonconforming. Nonconforming uses would have to be discontinued as follows:
• Recycling facilities and donation boxes within one (1) year of issuance of notice of nonconformity, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. • Nonconforming non-USPS Mailboxes will not be required to be discontinued, unless they are relocated, expanded or pose a health and safety risk.

As previously mentioned, Staff has received several complaints from residents related to the recycling facility located in the San Dimas Arrow Plaza located at 1401 – 1455 W. Arrow Hwy.

The facility is located at the rear of the center, with single family uses directly across the street to the west and to the north, and to the east of the facility. The proposed ordinance would require that small recycling facilities be located a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from property zoned for residential use or property used for residential use. This facility, located within the San Dimas Arrow Plaza commercial center, would be in violation of the distance requirement, and would therefore, be required to discontinue the use within one year of issuance of a notice of nonconformity. While the proposed ordinance would affect this specific recycling facility, the ordinance was drafted with the purpose of protecting all single-family properties in the City from impacts associated with recycling facilities, donation boxes and non-USPS mailboxes.

The proposed ordinance would apply city-wide; therefore, the noticing requirement is met by noticing the proposed public hearing in the newspaper. However, since this would directly affect existing facilities/uses, postcards were sent directly to the owners of the existing recycling facilities and donation box, and to the property owners where said uses are located. Postcards were not sent to the owners of non-USPS mailboxes or to the property owners where these mailboxes are located as non-USPS mailboxes would not be required to be discontinued, unless they are relocated, expanded or pose a health and safety risk. Staff is not aware of any health and safety risks from existing mailboxes.

ALTERNATIVES
There are no alternatives proposed as part of this request; however, the City Council may propose revisions to the proposed Ordinance or not consider the Ordinance in its entirety.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
Luis Torrico
Director of Community Development
Attachments:

1. Ordinance 1307

2. March 21, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report & Draft Minutes

Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 Page 7
For the Meeting of May 14, 2024

3. January 25, 2022, City Council Staff Report & Action Summary

4. 2013 Recycling and Portable Donation Facilities and Mailbox Policy

5. 2010 Recycling and Donation Facility Policy

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE 1307

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 22-0002, AMENDING TITLE 18-ZONING OF THE SAN DIMAS MUNICIPAL CODE TO

CREATE STANDARDS TO REGULATE RECYCLING FACILITIES, DONATION BOXES AND NON-US POSTAL SERVICE MAILBOXES, AND AMEND TITLE 18-ZONING, CHAPTER 18.08 DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED STANDARDS.

WHEREAS, the City of San Dimas initiated a Municipal Code Text Amendment to Title 18-Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Amendment is described as an amendment to Title 18-Zoning of the San Dimas Municipal Code to create standards to regulate recycling facilities, donation boxes and Non-US postal service mailboxes, and amend Title 18-Zoning, Chapter 18.08 Definitions to reflect the changes associated with the proposed standards; and WHEREAS, the Amendment would be applicable City-wide; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission for the proposed ordinance, at which the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1, with Commissioner Bratt absent, to adopt Resolution PC-1675 recommending approval of Municipal Code Text Amendment 22-0002 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notice was duly given of the public hearing on the matter and that public hearing was held on May 14, 2024 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., with all testimony received being made a part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met for the consideration of whether the project will have a significant effect on the environment. It has been determined that his action is not a project under CEQA, as there will be no direct physical or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF SAN DIMAS, California, does ordain as follows:

Title 18 of the San Dimas Municipal Code Shall be amended as provided for in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

SECTION 1. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdication, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.