City redrafting rules for event permits

Deirdre Newman

After a lawsuit this summer involving a gay pride parade, the city is

updating how it issues special event permits to make the process

clearer and more objective.

City leaders this week got a preview of a proposed ordinance

formalizing the rules on how permits are issued.

The city’s process, which involves review by a committee with the

final decision by the city manager, resulted in a lawsuit in August

by the American Civil Liberties Union. It charged that the city’s

onerous regulations for the Orange County Dyke March violated

free-speech rights.

The proposed rules, drafted by Acting City Atty. Tom Wood and

outside counsel Omar Sandoval, are “content-neutral,” meaning that

permits will no longer be issued on the type of speech that could be

involved with the event. The ordinance is necessary to update the

process based on changes in state law and to make sure all groups

applying for a permit are treated equally, Wood said.

“What we’re doing is putting the standards in black and white in a

resolution so that no one can charge we’re letting some prejudices

creep into the fee-setting process,” Wood said.

The city attorney’s office realized that the special event permit

process needed to be updated during the processing of the Orange

County Dyke March application in the summer of 2002, Wood said.

When march organizers applied for another permit this year, the

city slapped 22 conditions on them to receive their permit. After the

group threatened the city with a lawsuit from the American Civil

Liberties Union, the city yielded a little in its restrictions. But

two days later, march organizers decided to sue anyway, calling the

demonstration requirements “unreasonable” and “unconstitutional” and

criticizing the entire permit process.

Lori Hutson, one of the original organizers of the Dyke March,

said the group will not drop its lawsuit until it is satisfied with

the city’s new rules. Making them content-neutral is a good start,

she said.

“We just want them to rewrite their policy to comply with

everyone’s 1st Amendment rights, and it would have to be

content-neutral to comply,” Hutson said.

The “content-neutral” factor also means that special events taking

place on property owned by churches and other nonprofit groups will

no longer be exempt from permit requirements if their events include

the use of amplified sound, fireworks, animals, amusement rides or

the construction of temporary or permanent structures that would

require fire or building permits.

“Our current policy is discriminatory because it exempts

churches,” Wood said.

The Rev. Joe Robillard of St. Joachim Catholic Church said the

church already gets permits for its annual fundraising carnival. But

Robillard said he is concerned about churches needing permits for

religious events, such as a passion play St. Joachim puts on that

uses amplified sound.

“If we had to get a permit for that, I would feel it would be an

infringement on our constitutional right to free expression of

religion,” Robillard said.

Another change in the proposed rules is that the city would choose

four possible routes for organizers to select for events that require

full or partial street closures. These routes reflect areas where

events have taken place in the past. Only half a block of Harbor

Boulevard, at its southernmost point, would be available, mainly

because any event on Harbor could cause a major interruption to

public transportation, cars and pedestrian traffic.

The proposed ordinance also lays out exactly how applicants will

be charged for employee services, such as police officers, during

events. Now, applicants don’t find out until their application is

reviewed by the special events committee, Wood said.

“The courts force us to ensure that these charges are objectively

reached,” Wood said. “And if it’s just in a meeting, they don’t

figure it’s safe. The cities are safest if they spell all this out

and adopt it ahead of time before any applicant comes around so

[applicants] will know what they will be charged rather than what a

committee happens to tell them.”

Some of the criteria the proposed ordinance uses for denying

permits is if an event has a “significant adverse environmental

impact” or if the applicant has “violated material conditions of a

previous permit issued for the same or similar event.”

Hutson said the city needs to let groups know as soon as they

break a rule. The Dyke March organizers weren’t informed that they

had broken a rule their first year in Costa Mesa until they applied

for another permit a year later, she said.

Hutson also said it’s not fair to blame applicants for

transgressions committed by previous event organizers.

Councilwoman Libby Cowan said some of the factors for denial

seemed subjective, like the “significant” effect.

“Significant is going to be different to me than it is to you,”

Cowan said.

Councilman Chris Steel said he would like the city to be able to

suggest to groups that have held events in Costa Mesa to chose

another city next time.

“I think it would be better if we could encourage groups to have

these things in other cities,” Steel said. “I’m all for freedom of

speech and assembly, but at what point can we say, ‘Why can’t you

apply to other cities? Why are you picking on us?’”

The council is expected to consider the ordinance at its Jan. 20

meeting, Wood said.