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.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.