CC MINS 20120508 JNTApproved by PC
June 26, 2012
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 81 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present: Council members Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, Mayor Misetich.
Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman
Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault.
Absent: None
Also present were City Manager Lehr, City Attorney Lynch, City Clerk Morreale, Community
Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Seeraty.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was unanimously approved as presented.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their May 1St meeting the City Council directed that the Planning
Commission develop a permit process to allow hedges over 42 inches in height in the front yard
setback.
Director Rojas distributed several items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and four
letters of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non - agenda items):
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Discussion of the City Council Rules of Procedure and proposed Commission
protocol
Director Rojas presented the staff report, giving a brief background of how this joint meeting
came about and the materials provided in the staff report.
Mayor Misetich stated the items being discussed will be the Rules of Procedure and the
proposed Commission and Committee protocols, and that the subcommittee is looking for
feedback and input from the Commission and the public. He noted that it has been questioned
as to why the City Council is looking at the Rules of Procedure and Protocol and he explained
that, unlike other cities, this City has never had any type of code of conduct for its Council,
commission, and committee members. He felt it was good practice to have guidelines for
conduct of a person holding a position in the City. In regards to the Rules of Procedure, he
explained how the current rules do not address the volume of any given agenda and how
agendas will be prepared. Mayor Misetich continued his discussion by saying that the other
issue that came up earlier in the year is that a Councilmember submitted 10 items and tried to
get all on one agenda; Some had merit while others did not. The biggest issue was trying to get
the meeting done in time while doing this. The concerns was that if Councilmember A says he
wants 10 items on one agenda, why not Councilmember B? Our Rules did not provide
management of how best to deal with this issue. The Committee looked at how other cities
managed such an issue. Since Council had already approved a new agenda item called
"Future Agenda Items," much could be alleviated but the Rules still had to be changed,
regardless. He noted that the subcommittee has already received feedback from the public and
the Commission and much of what they have heard is worthwhile to consider. He also
mentioned that Councilman Duhovic has suggested taking the time normally allotted for a
closed session and utilize that time to discuss future agenda items. This meeting would be open
to the public and would allow the Council to decide the priority of agenda items that should be
on the agendas. Mayor Misetich explained that he would like to now ask the Commission for
their feedback, starting with the protocols and specifically item No. 17 which seems to be the
Commission's biggest concern.
Commissioner Nelson began by reading No. 17. He felt that the way No. 17 is currently worded
is basically a gag order and did not know where it fits into the freedom of speech. He felt City
Attorney advice is needed. He also noted that there are some Commission or Committee
members who have a profession of speaking before other bodies, and at times noting what they
do for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is part of that speech. He did not think it would be a
good use of City Council time to have to authorize perhaps seven or eight of these allowances
to speak every time the Council meets.
Commissioner Leon agreed with Commissioner Nelson, adding that item No. 17 overstates
what we need as a City. He felt that perhaps having others not represent themselves in a
comment as representing the majority of the City would be a better statement, but to actually
withhold the information that one is on a Commission or Committee is overzealous.
Commissioner Gerstner explained that it is part of his profession to regularly speak to senior
people in other cities. He felt that the protocol, while well intentioned, over accomplishes what
the Council is trying to accomplish. He felt the Council may be trying to make sure there is no
perception by the other people that one is representing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He
did not think the solution is to specifically require a certain statement or the lack of a statement
in order to accomplish that. He felt it was important to have a rule with common sense
enforcement such that it doesn't gag those who are trying to not misrepresent themselves as
members of the City and representing City ideas, but by the same token allow one to speak to
these people in a manner that doesn't make one seem like a fool. He stated it would be very
inappropriate and unprofessional if every time he spoke to a client he had to make the
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 2 of 15
disclaimer. He would support a rule that could be enforced and more based in a common sense
solution.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated his service to the City is done out of a love for the City and an
opportunity to serve its citizens. He acknowledged that he serves at the will of the City Council,
and that general guidelines are a good thing. However, he had concerns with item Nos. 14, 161
and 17 and their interpretation. In item No. 14 he questioned if staff is needed to follow the
Commissioners around at various community meetings. In item No. 16 he questioned if there is
really a chance an individual member can make commitments that will bind the City to some
action. As an example, he questioned if members of the Commissions or Committees actually
give up their right to write a letter to the editor about issues of concern to them. In regards to
item No. 17, he questioned if members of the Commissions or Committees forgo the right to
make presentations to other bodies and to mention their service with the City, and also
questioned what impact that would have on the professionals who serve on the Commissions
and Committees.
Chairman Tetreault began by stating his understanding of No. 17 was in response to a
complaint from a member of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council after a member of this City's
Traffic Commission offered a comment at the Rolling Hills Estates Traffic and Safety Committee
meeting. He asked what the perceived problem was with that and how does the proposed
protocol correct that situation.
Mayor Misetich felt it was an explanation of clarity. However, he felt the way the rule is written it
could restrict people from having the ability to speak to outside agencies as an individual. He
also felt that many of the comments from the Commission in regards to this have merit and he
agrees with them. He noted the Chairman has made suggestions on how it may be better
written, and that is why the Council is here for that feedback. The City Council certainly does
not want to restrict your free speech rights, and that was not the intent. The recommendations
on how that may be better written are certainly welcome
Councilman Knight stated that to help answer the question, the City Council did receive a letter
from the City in question on the particular incident being talked about that specifically asked us,
did this individual represent the position of the City or not. So it's not a perceived, it wasn't a,
could this happen or could it not, we got a letter from them asking us that, so it's was a real
situation.
Councilwoman Brooks thanked the Commission for their input. As a fellow subcommittee
member along with the Mayor she pointed out the following: The feedback that we have gotten,
both from you, other members of the Commission, members of the public, members from other
committees has really been a very positive force for us to produce a document, that I believe in
the end, we did not intend for it to become something of the magnitude that it is turning out to
be. But I do believe that in the end we'll probably have a stellar document that can be a
prototype for other cities to follow. So, this is a learning experience for all of us and we are
looking for your feedback, your critique, your input and, Chairman Tetreault, you have submitted
a number of suggestions that the subcommittee has been looking at and the wording is and the
way you address these is very well put and we will be taking all this testimony and be able to
present something to the Council and work together with the Council and we really appreciate
your input. But I did just want to point out that the letter concerning, it was as Councilman
Knight pointed out, this was a letter from somebody in Palos Verdes Estates not Rolling Hills
Estates. The Rolling Hills Estates issue was something else. But the Palos Verdes Estates
issue had to do with a member of the Traffic and Safety Commission from the Mayor, it is letter
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 3 of 15
from the Mayor so it is a matter of public record, bringing it to our attention, and actually the goal
here really was to be discrete about this in a professional manner so that we could really move
forth because all these individuals are, we believe they're good at the job they do, and the
problem is that now it has been brought to this level so it makes us have to point out specific
examples. But, this individual had appeared three times before the Palos Verdes Estates Traffic
and Safety Committee within the last year and at two of those appearances identified himself as
a member of the RPV Traffic and Safety Commission. So, reading from the letter, they say
while PV Estates certainly respects the right of every citizen to address the Council or our
Committees and Commissions in any matter of concern I believe it is inappropriate for an
individual to refer to his position within another jurisdiction. Such reference could be interpreted
as representing an official position of that City, or could imply by virtue of his position, that his
comments should be given greater weight than other members of the public. He goes on to say
that he assumes this member was acting on his own without the knowledge and approval of our
Council and if he's mistaken then a communication to their government pursuant to our
direction, please let him know. This is where we as Council members, gentlemen, it's a little
different than it might be for you in the Planning Commission role, but as City officials
representing an elected body we have to represent all the cities on the hill. Together we work,
we comingle funds through transportation agencies, we work with the PV Transit with Palos
Verdes Estates, we work with the regional sheriff on three of our cities, so we do have a variety
of issues that sort of put us sometimes in a compromising situation that we might not otherwise
be in. And because we share the same school district, we share the same library, we share the
same land mass, there is a venue in which we need to, the request is to have an underlying
respect for each others rules of government. And so, that is the basis for this.
Mayor ProTem Campbell asked Councilwoman Brooks if there was any detailed information as
he was a little bit at a loss as to exactly what was said by this person in front of the Palos
Verdes Estates Committee. He stated the following: I mean do we know exactly what was
said. And number two, was there any other comment or response back from an official of that
City besides that one letter. And was he acting on behalf of their entire City Council or just as
an individual.
Councilwoman Brooks answered that to her knowledge he was. She stated the following: His
name is signed here and I know that the City Manager and the City Manager's city government
they work well together, they have to work well together because very often we as Council
members, some of us here, you know work in other jobs outside and do not have the time to
attend all these activities and meetings. But this is actually an example but the point here is to
have an underlying respect and that's what we're seeking to do, but I do think that the wording
that Commissioner that Chairman Tetreault has provided gives us a good basis by which to
follow. Plus, there are several other people who have stepped forward with cumulative verbiage
as well as Commissioner Lewis. So I do think that this is a learning experience for all of us and
I would like for us to look at it that way.
Mayor Misetich really appreciated Chairman Tetreault's recommendation. Not only was he able
to critique the item but he was able to provide his recommendation, which is most helpful.
Chairman Tetreault stated that the Mayor made kind of an example of something he might do,
such as go himself to the Harbor Commission and provide some public comment before the
Harbor Commission. He stated the following: The issue was whether or not he should identify
himself as being mayor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes when he did so. I dare say, you are
probably recognizable at the Harbor Commission as being the Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes
as so, but that illustrates a point. They may know, on the Commission, that you are the Mayor
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 4 of 15
for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the other people in the audience perhaps may not know
that. And so, if you don't disclose who you are, and they don't acknowledge who you are, and
then there is something going on there. There is a lack of communication and a lack of
transparency in the room. And so, I believe that, especially in an era where we're looking for
the greatest level of transparency that the idea that we are not going to be transparent about
something, that we are going to be restricted from being able to disclose a fact about ourselves
and perhaps about our background and about our experience. You know, our Traffic Safety
Commissioner that we're speaking of, the former Chair, knows his stuff. He's been on our
Traffic Safety Commission for a number of years. He probably had some very good input to
give to the people who were addressing an issue regarding traffic safety in the city of Palos
Verdes Estates. For him not to say that, for him not to say he has that experience, for them not
to know that about him really waters down the weight of his comments. I think everyone is well
served in the room when we have these public forums like this to have as much information as
possible as long as its germane, it isn't violating any issues regarding confidentiality, it isn't a
violation of the public trust, it does not harm anyone, and it's made very, very clear the person is
speaking as a private citizen, I think the burden is very high upon any governmental entity to try
to restrict speech in this matter. That is why I made the recommendation that I did which has
been given to you, has been passed out to you as part of late correspondence. Actually, not
late correspondence but it is addition to the revisions and amendments to the agenda.
Mayor Misetich felt the Chairman's comments were well taken. He stated the following: I think
that if Rancho Palos Verdes adopts a protocol that allows an individual to go ahead and identify
themselves and also state whether they are there in an official capacity or not, or as an
individual, I think we have a document then to point to for our fellow government bodies that
somebody may appear in front of. That way we can say, look the person is acting within our
guidelines that we have, and that's the way it is. Of course we want to be as fair as possible on
this. The comments are well taken, and thank you for those.
Councilman Knight asked Chairman Tetreault for clarification. He stated the following: You
make an argument that maybe that the Committee and Commission members should always
mention who they are so the audience could understand their position or authority or whatever.
I want to make sure I understand, is that your intention or if they were to mention they were part
of the committee then they need to say they are speaking as an individual.
Chairman Tetreault felt there was a time and place for that. He stated the following: If I were to
appear before the Palos Verdes Estates Traffic and Safety Committee and to talk to them about
a traffic safety issue, my position on the Planning Commission is of no relevance to that at all.
But if I were to go to one of the other, like Rolling Hills Estates or PV Estates and they wanted to
revive the issue of having a European Village concept up at Peninsula Center and I wanted to
speak to them from a planning standpoint, well then my position as being a Planning
Commissioner would be relevant.
Councilman Knight asked the Chairman if he was comfortable with disclosure being at the
discretion of the individual. He stated the following: You don't want to put it into the rules that
they always have to mention it, you just are saying if they were mention it then they need to
declare they are speaking as an individual unless otherwise authorized.
Chairman Tetreault stated a certain amount of discretion is required here. He stated the
following: If I were to go to some governmental agency and testify regarding something that has
nothing to do with my experience as being on a Planning Commission, for me to gratuitously
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 5 of 15
state that I'm on the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be
inappropriate.
Councilman Knight wanted to be clear that Chairman Tetreault's recommendation is not to
always require that in terms of the rules, but just leave it at the discretion, but if they do mention
that, then to be clear as to whether they are authorized or not to speak.
Chairman Tetreault stated that was correct.
Councilwoman Brooks asked the Chairman to read his suggested wording for item No. 17.
Chairman Tetreault stated his recommendation was to replace protocol No. 17 with the
following: If a member of a City Commission or Committee who testifies before an
administrative body of a governmental agency outside the City identifies himself or herself as a
member of a City Commission or Committee, that member must also state the he or she is not
appearing or testifying in any official capacity or is representing the views or opinions of the City
unless that member is providing such testimony as an official representative of the City as
authorized by the City Council. He questioned if this should then be expanded to apply to the
City Council.
Mayor Misetich stated it would apply to the City Council as well.
Commissioner Lewis agreed with the proposed revisions by Chairman Tetreault. He wanted to
throw a couple of items out there on this point. He stated the following: Item 1, there has been
a discussion about another issue involving a sister city. There's been a lot of discussion about
what, why these rules came into being and why we're here at this point. One of the reasons is
my understanding is that my law firm filed a lawsuit representing a party who wanted to sue a
sister city on the hill, and I was informed by a member of City Council that was inconsistent and
incompatible with my services on Planning Commission and I was pressured to, pressure was
put on me concerning my filing of that law suit. I believe that is one of the reasons we are here
today adopting these rules. That said, I'm happy with what Commissioner Tetreault has
proposed for rule No. 17. 1 don't think, as he's put it, that would impinge on my right to
represent clients. I think it's important that our City Council adhere to many of the campaign
promises that were made in terms of encouraging citizen involvement. And if you want to
encourage citizens to come up here and volunteer their time, volunteers need to know that the
City Council and the City has the volunteers' back and that they're not going to be surrendering
their First Amendment right, they're not going to be surrendering their right to make a living, and
they're not going to be pressured inappropriately if activities that do not affect their services on a
Commission are conducted. One other issue, I do not know, but I suspect that there's more
than just a letter about our Chair from the Traffic Commission coming to speak. I imagine there
were phone calls, there were discussions, there was pressure put to bear on each of the five of
you. For my part, if my law suit increased that pressure, I'm sorry and I apologize for that. But,
one possible solution to that pressure that you all felt, that discomfort, is instead of putting in a
new rule, is to turn around and look at that mayor or that council member from another
jurisdiction and say, look I'm proud of the residents of my City. I'm proud of the volunteers and
the diversity of thought of the people who come up and volunteer and serve in our City. And
perhaps there needs to be a little less sensitivity from the sister cities, a little less, my gosh is
Jeff Lewis representing the city of RPV when he's filing a law suit or is it just Jeff Lewis making
a living and representing a client who had a case. So, I would encourage each of you, when it
comes time to vote on item No. 17, when you're thinking about possible solutions instead of just
looking at the rules maybe consider in the way you interact with sister cities, acting in a way that
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 6 of 15
will build the public trust and encourage those sister cities to maybe back off a little bit and have
a little more respect for individuals who come up and volunteer their time.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell was troubled hearing that Commissioner Lewis was pressured by a
Council person in Rancho Palos Verdes regarding what he does for a living. He stated the
following: That shouldn't happen. My own opinion is that when you volunteer to serve on one
of our Commissions or Committees that you should be encouraged to be active out in the
community, you should be encouraged to speak in front of Homeowners Associations and other
professional groups, we should be proud and we should support and encourage free speech
and a diversity of opinions when they're out there. I'm also troubled about what I heard
regarding the former Traffic Safety Chairman and what was supposedly said according to one
letter which we still haven't heard from a former sister city mayor as to whether or not he was
writing that letter. I think it is on their City letterhead. Is he writing that letter I presume then on
behalf of their entire City Council or is he writing it as an individual? If so much has been made
out of this testimony in front of a sister city Traffic Safety Committee we should know more
details about that before we just throw one of our citizens under the bus and just assume that
the hearsay and gossip that we hear is necessarily true. That's the only example I have heard
that's the driver behind this entire protocol process that has eaten so much of our time and effort
and has caused so much consternation amongst our valuable volunteers in the community and
as each day goes by more and more regular citizens are becoming aware of this. So I think as
a Council we have to be very respectful, very careful as to just how many rules that we try to
burden our residents, particularly those most valuable ones when it comes to the ones that want
to volunteer to help the City be a better place, as all of you have and as all of the Council
members have.
Mayor Misetich stated to Commissioner Lewis that it certainly is not the committee's intent to
ostracize somebody for how they make their living. He stated the following: I mean, you can
make your living however you want to as long as, I guess it's legal. I mean, that is not the intent
of the protocols. The protocols are, as I mentioned to Chairman Tetreault, some guidelines that
we can point to to our fellow cities and in fact, do as you say. We're proud of our citizens for
doing what they do, we're proud of our citizens for speaking out, we have a set of guidelines,
they're within the guidelines, and it is not infringing on their free speech rights or doing anything
that is illegal in your jurisdiction. They have a right to come and speak at any public body and
there should be no problem with that. At least it sends a communication that we do have our
Commissioners acting within the guidelines. And so, certainly again, there is no reference to
how someone would make their living.
Councilman Duhovic stated he would like to ask something. He stated the following:
Something is troubling me and I was debating whether or not to bring it up, but I've heard it from
more than one individual, and I'm not one to usually jump into the fray with respect to rumor
mills, gossip, etc. etc. But there was a pretty significant accusation made with respect to the
Mayor's letter from Palos Verdes Estates, and I heard it from more than one person, and I want
the record to be clear for the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes. The insinuation is that a Rancho
Palos Verdes City Council person asked for that letter. Very troubling to me. This is a very
serious accusation and I for one am going to go on record that I did not ask for that and I think it
would be appropriate for every person that didn't ask for it to go on record with that so we can
move forward and dispel with that rumor.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell stated he did not ask for it.
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 7 of 15
Mayor Misetich stated that he also did not ask for the letter. He stated the following: The letter
was sent forth, it was a communication between their Mayor to our City Council. I mean, every
one of you got a copy of it, did you not?
Councilman Duhovic stated he got a copy of it. The question to him is what was the genesis of
the letter and the timing of the letter.
Councilwoman Brooks interjected. She stated the following: We broached this issue as a result
of challenges that this new Council was facing, and as I mentioned earlier we have neighboring
cities that we have to work with. There may be some dissention on this Council with this issue,
and there is a subcommittee addressing this issue, I'm not sure that this is the proper venue for
us to be addressing this, but these members knowing that we were on this subcommittee
together came forward to our City through the City Managers and through each other, and
contacted me and contacted the City Manager and they let us know that this was taking place.
This placed them, they felt, in a precarious position of trying to exert influence. Now the
question is this, you Mr. Lewis do not abridge, your First Amendment rights are not abridged in
your right to step forward and sue the city of Rolling Hills Estates on their EIR. That is your right
to do so. And your website prominently displays that you are a member, have been on the
Traffic Commission and are now on the Planning Commission. The issue that came before the
members of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council concerning input, since you're bringing this up,
had to do primarily with the fact that you have every First Amendment right to speak as you
wish, but asking this City Council when there are so many people who are so qualified to do
these jobs that come before and step forward in the public, do we look at that, do we want to
look at that as an asset or a liability. And so that's an issue that we're addressing. Many cities
address this issue in a code of conduct. The City of Rolling Hills Estates ten years ago was
faced with, I would say what they would identify now as a rogue council member and it created
the need for a lot of research to go into creating what they now have as their code of conduct.
We the subcommittee looked at various cities, starting with Santa Ana with protocols, and we
came back looking at Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates. And Rolling Hills Estates
did a lot of work, but the work that you gentlemen are doing to help to make this better, helps to
make this a better document. But the politicizing of this event, I believe, is completely out of line
because this Council needs to make this decision about how we're going to address this issue.
This is a Council issue.
Councilman Duhovic stated that he felt this was a pretty important question and it's being
dismissed. He stated the following: With all due respect to Councilwoman Brooks, she doesn't
think this is an important question, I think it is an important question and is the appropriate
forum. When a letter is presented, I'd like to know for the record if somebody asked for the
letter. I think the question is germane and if people don't want to answer that's fine, let the
record reflect that people didn't answer, that's fine.
Councilwoman Brooks stated the following: If Councilman Duhovic is asking this question I will
point out that yes, I did speak with the Mayor and I did hear from other people and they came to
me first.
Councilman Duhovic stated the following: The question was did you ask for a letter?
Councilwoman Brooks stated the following: When this individual told me about this I said are
you interested in putting this in writing. He said yes I will put this in writing gladly. That is your
answer.
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 8 of 15
Commissioner Tomblin echoed the rest of the Commissioners and thought what the Chair put
forward in terms of his writings he fully agreed with. He also agreed with Councilman Duhovic's
comments.
Chairman Tetreault asked the members of the subcommittee if it was their intent, through any of
the proposed protocols, to prevent a member of any Commission or Committee from
representing the interest of a client that has a claim against a neighboring city. He stated he
couldn't see anything that specifically addressed that and nothing spoke to it specifically, but he
could make, as a lawyer and he was paid to do so, he could play with protocol Nos. 4 and 15.
He stated No. 4 represents work for the common good of the City and not for any private
interest or personal gain and No. 15, is to support and when necessary work to improve
intergovernmental relationships between this City and other neighboring cities, the City of Los
Angeles, the State of California, and the Federal Government. He stated the following: One
could argue that representing the interests of a client while suing one of our neighboring cities
may violate one of those two protocols. My question is, is it the intent of the ad hoc
subcommittee to prevent or to somehow sanction any member of a Committee or Commission
of the City if they do engage in that type of professional work.
Mayor Misetich felt he already answered that question when he was speaking to Commissioner
Lewis. He stated that: It's not the intent of the subcommittee to chastise somebody on how
they make their living, as long as they make it legally.
Councilwoman Brooks stated that with a lot of the submissions made by Chairman Tetreault,
that those very may well end up as part of the document, including the removal of the
termination word, because the Municipal Code addresses how people serve. She stated the
following: The Mayor serves at the pleasure of the Council and every Committee and
Commission serves at the pleasure of the Council. There are a lot of redundancies and I have
to say that when Councilman Duhovic submitted a compilation including his own, they gave a
good bare bones document to work with.
Mayor Pro Tern Campbell asked Chairman Tetreault the following: If something happens such
as what we're talking about tonight where a former chair of the Traffic Safety Commission
irritated a member of City Council in the neighboring city, do you think it's appropriate, just going
forward, do you think it's appropriate that the City Council get involved in this or would it be
more appropriate for that Commission or Committees own leadership to take a look at this first.
My own viewpoint is, these Commissions and Committees have got Chairmen and Vice
Chairmen, and unless you ask for our input on an individual situation that allegedly happened,
that we should respect that leadership and for whatever reason you want our input afterwards or
the Council always has that ability to step in. But I'm of the opinion that we should respect that
leadership and let them settle this internally amongst themselves rather than reach out to other
city officials and ask for letters and make such a public issue out of something when we still
don't know what happened or what was said, or whether or not this former mayor of a
neighboring city was acting on his own or if he was acting on behalf of the whole City Council.
Chairman Tetreault answered the following: The Mayor Pro -Tem being a veteran of the military,
it has to basically with your pay grade. If a member of City Council makes a complaint to our
City Council, I do not think a member of the City Council would make a complaint to me directly
regarding the conduct of another Commissioner if a Commissioner went before that City
Council. But if that were to happen, I would probably give a call to our City Manager as well as
to our Mayor and ask for some advice as to what to do with that, only because I'm jumping
levels. But if a Planning Commissioner went before another Planning Commission and that
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 9 of 15
Chair had issue with what it was one of the Commissioners did and called me up, well then yes,
we would probably take care of it within ourselves I would think. But with full disclosure, I would
always disclose this information and the communication I had with another city official with staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell replied as follows: Being he is a former military officer, but as an
example and to use the military, not that we are but as a comparable example, it this came to
me about one of my subordinate units where something happened, I would turn it over to that
subordinate's leader and ask him to look into it. I wouldn't reach down into every single
situation when something like that came up. It's a different style. Much of what is being
proposed here in these protocols I think is unnecessary. Much of what is proposed, in my
opinion, is not respectful of the position of not just Planning Commissioners, but as leaders in
this community. By definition, you're more than Planning Commissioners, you are leaders.
There are many more qualified people that apply for these positions to volunteer as you have
than we will ever be able to appoint to the Planning Commission. My own personal viewpoint
diverges a bit from the ad hoc Committee of Mayor Misetich and Councilwoman Brooks in that I
am fully supportive of your example language that you put forth out there.
Councilman Knight commented that he felt there should be a chain of command from the top
down when it comes to authorizing any committee or commission member to speak on behalf of
the City, that authorization needs to come from the City Council and not from the Committee or
Commission.
Councilman Duhovic referred to Commissioner Gerstner's comments about making disclosures
during phone conversations with clients in other cities. He did not think this was the intent of the
subcommittee, but asked Commissioner Gerstner if he was disinclined to give a disclaimer
when speaking at a public venue.
Commissioner Gerstner answered that he agreed with Chairman Tetreault's comment that to
the extent that you represent yourself as a Commission member of Rancho Palos Verdes, it is
important to state under what pretense you are giving your testimony. He stated the following:
However, if you don't stand there and represent that you're that I don't think it's necessary to
have a disclaimer. If the City is Beverly Hills or Mill Valley or Newport Beach or something like
that and I'm representing a client in a Planning Commission situation, I normally wouldn't
represent myself as a member of this Planning Commission and therefore wouldn't look to have
a disclaimer. With regards to phone calls and other things like that, I see how things
sometimes start as small pieces and they grow. You all are still working on these rules and
what I was trying to encourage was that it not grow into something like that. I was speculating
that was a possibility. But with regard to representing myself or other clients in front of other
cities, I don't have a problem with the disclaimer but I would prefer to restrict it to when I
represent myself as a member of this Commission not just because I was standing there.
Councilman Duhovic asked if is the purpose of the disclaimer to state that you're not
representing yourself as a member of the Commission.
Commissioner Gerstner responded with the following: The disclaimer is that if you say I'm a
member of the Planning Commission it's then to be clear under what capacity you're speaking.
But if you just don't bring that up and the people listening don't know, then I don't know if it's all
that necessary to have the disclaimer. In certain cities you're so distant from it, it would be like
testifying in front of congress in Washington and making a point that you're a member of the
Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes and at the same time saying you're not speaking
for that government body, like they would care. And so, I think there is a time and place for it
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 10 of 15
and a certain amount of discretion is necessary, and I think that just by being here we've earned
a certain amount of that discretion and trust and respect, and if I misstep I expect to be
reprimanded. But I expect to be given that latitude to fail as part of the trust that I get just by
having the position.
Mayor Misetich then moved on to the proposed Rules of Procedure. He noted that No. 5 has
received much attention, and asked the Planning Commissioners for their input on the item. He
also asked for input on the question of whether or not to allow a public speaker to donate their
time to another speaker.
Commissioner Nelson spoke on item No. 5, and strongly suggested the City Council guarantee
the rights of the minority. He noted that for years the City Council has had 3 -2 votes on items,
and he did not think the two dissenting votes never seem to be truly represented. He urged the
Council to make sure the minority has the opportunity to put something on the agenda without
the approval of a majority of the City Council.
Mayor Misetich asked Commissioner Nelson if having the ability for two members agreeing to
put an item a future agenda during the Future Agenda Items section of the agenda be sufficient.
Commissioner Nelson felt that was sensible.
With respect to the agenda, Commissioner Leon felt there are two premises that one needs to
make; the first being there is full transparency associated with putting items on the agenda, and
the other that the rights of the minority be maintained. Having two members propose an agenda
item would tend to bring up issues that are relevant and possible of full Council support. He
cautioned that could bring up Brown Act issues, in that one Councilmember may want to put an
item on the agenda, speak to another Councilmember about the item that may not support it,
and then not be allowed to speaker to another Councilmember about that possible item. He
supported the idea of having a standing agenda item of discussing future agenda items in an
open forum, as it would allow an avenue to discuss a minority item openly with all of the Council
members. With respect to public speakers, having a general guideline of three minutes is good.
However, he felt at times it is very appropriate for public speakers to band together and have a
single presentation which may take more than three minutes in order to be effective. In such
instances, the Mayor or Chairman may listen to the arguments and rationales and make a
decision, as opposed to having a fixed guideline which binds the speaker to three minutes.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed that having a general three minute rule works well, with the
Mayor or Chairman having the discretion to make a determination on how extra time will be
given. In regards to setting the agendas, he agreed that discussing future agenda items in a
public forum definitely makes a big difference, and needs to public. He also felt the minority
needs to be supported and any two people should be able to put something on the agenda. If
the concern is that two people tend to put something on the agenda meeting after meeting, that
will be a self correcting problem. Either the people trying to put something on the agenda will
begin to look foolish for trying to put something foolish on the agenda over and over, or the
three who take it off the agenda week and week for having done that. He did not think the City
Manager, or any person that was not elected, should have the power to veto anything that goes
on the agenda. He added that he was questioning what problem the City Council was trying to
solve by adding this guideline.
Mayor Pro Tern Campbell felt that was a good point, as much has been made about a particular
Council meeting where he placed three items on the agenda by one Council member.
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 11 of 15
However, all three of those items had support from one other Council member. He noted that
nothing that he is aware of has ever put on an agenda by a single Council member. He
applauded the Commission for raising the question of what problem is trying to be solved.
Councilman Knight felt that there has been some misunderstanding of the difference between
having the ability to place something on the agenda and actually the practical matter of where it
will go on the agenda. He supported the idea of having at least two Council members
supporting an item to be put on the agenda. In terms of where that item is placed on the
agenda, that is where the City Manager and Mayor come into play.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the City Manager needs to manage that part of the
process.
City Manager Lehr appreciated the comments and noted that she does not consider herself a
gate keeper, but rather an administrator. She noted that several times in the past one Council
member has provided her with a staff report to include in the agenda for the next available
Council meeting, which she has always done.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser had comments regarding No. 5. He felt that, as written, it seems to
give the City Manager, the Mayor, and a majority of the Council members control over which
items can be added to the City's agenda. While he agreed the rights of the minority are
important, he felt the quality of the City's government is driven by the quality of the debate, and
what emerges from the debate should be tempered and strengthened by both the minority and
majority opinion. If only the City Manager, the Mayor, and the majority opinion rules it gives a
watered down version of governance for the City, and we end up with tepid options.
Councilwoman Brooks pointed out that the old rule states only that the agenda shall be
prepared in accordance with the preparation procedure as directed by the City Manager. In
consultation with the Mayor and /or Mayor Pro Tem each agenda item shall include an estimate
of time that should be required for the City Council to review, consider, and take actions
regarding the agenda item. She stated the subcommittee is looking to bring this rule up to date
and is getting good feedback on the issue.
Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Gerstner ris comments in regards to public
speakers time, noting that it has worked very well for the Planning Commission over the eight
years he has served and it has been very fair to the public. In regards to No. 5 he felt that,
whether it was its intention or not, it does create the position of gatekeeper in the City Manager.
If a Council member wishes to place an item on the agenda there is a procedure to do so, which
is to go through the Mayor or City Manager. However, both have the ability to decline. In that
case, it will go to a vote with the full City Council and needs a majority vote to be placed on a
future agenda. He felt this procedure does shut out the minority. He stated that he was in favor
of language stating any City Council member can put an item on a future agenda without the
need of a second. He felt that the ability to put an item on an agenda could possibility be the
most powerful and important role a City Council member could have. He felt that the solution to
the problem is not preventing individual members of the City Council placing items on an
agenda, but rather to stage these items on agendas as appropriate with the proper staff reports
and priority.
Commissioner Lewis stated he distributed in advance of the meeting a list of questions that he
felt have been mooted, in a large part, by comments made by the Mayor. He had concerns
about the minority not being able to have issues agendized, however it sounds as if the
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 12 of 15
subcommittee have taken to heart some of the comments from the public and the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Misetich asked Commissioner Lewis if he was in favor of two Council members having
the ability to put an item on a future agenda.
Commissioner Lewis stated that staff has a finite amount of time and resources, and as long as
there is a permanent place on the agenda where any council member can ask for a second he
is satisfied. He did not think staff should be using their time to prepare staff reports for items on
agenda that could not get a second. He also felt that if a Council member is bearing staff with
ten silly, nonsense items, or ten meritorious items that he is insisting be put on a single agenda
with minimum notice, the public should know about this. He encouraged the City Council to
review the last three or four meetings under this new section No. 5 and compare what has been
agendized to the City Council's goals and see how it has been working.
Commissioner Tomblin discussed the speakers three minute rule, noting that when he was
Chairman of the Planning Commission it was helpful to have the discretion to expand that public
speakers time when appropriate. In regards to setting agenda items, he read from the Palos
Verdes School Board protocol on the subject, which says the agenda shall be set only with the
approval of the Board President and the Superintendent. Because of the problems he felt this
caused, he was very passionate in his opinion that the City Council would want to embrace the
idea of allowing at least a minority of two have the ability to place an item on the agenda.
Mark Wells stated the current City Council adopted a set of rules of procedure on December 20,
2012. In March 2012 the City Council adopted another set of rules of procedure. Now in May
the City Council is looking to adopt another set of rules of procedure. He felt that City Council
members and Commission and Committee members are very intelligent volunteers and know
what they should and should not say and how they represents the residents of the City. He
asked what is so wrong with the wheels of government in the City that Council members feel
they need to reinvent the wheel so often. He felt that the Council got it right in March and it is
time to move along to other more important items.
David Kramer stated he has served six years on the Traffic Safety Commission, three of those
years as Chairman of that Commission. He stated that he mentioned his title and background
because he thought it had relevance and he hoped it provides a sense to the City Council about
his background, and that perhaps he has a bit more knowledge about some of the issues being
discussed. He explained that early this year he went to the city of Palos Verdes Estates and
spoke to their Traffic Safety Committee. On two occasions he identified himself by name and
position in the City, and made it very clear that he was speaking as an individual. He stated
there was no way anyone present in that room could have construed that he was in any way
representing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. With all due respect, he felt the former mayor of
Palos Verdes Estates was very much out of line when he wrote the letter to the City. He stated
the former Mayor was not at the meeting, and he felt the letter was an attempt to bully him, to
quiet him, and to prevent him from speaking to the city on a topic he feels he knows something
about. He stated that he used all due respect when he spoke to the Traffic Safety Committee,
and he makes no apologies for what he said. He respectfully requested that item No. 17 of the
protocol be stricken and be replaced with the language that was proposed by Chairman
Tetreault.
Mayor Pro Tern Campbell thanked Mr. Kramer for his years of service to the City, adding that he
thought what happened to him was deplorable and unfair. He applauded him for going before a
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 13 of 15
public hearing and speaking what he knew to be the truth. He felt that the City Council should
defend their citizens in such situations.
Mayor Misetich was encouraged that Mr. Kramer wants to embrace the changes suggested by
Chairman Tetreault. He felt the language would make a big difference to many people and
would be important for other jurisdictions to know the City has a set of protocols and the
Commissioners and Committee members are operating within those protocols.
Councilwoman Brooks also thanked Mr. Kramer for stepping forward, noting that she did
everything she could not to say his name. She stated Mr. Kramer has done an outstanding job
on the Traffic and Safety Committee. However, the City was faced with this issue and challenge
and she felt they're reaching a consensus on how to address it in the future.
Ken DeLong commented on No. 5 of the rules of procedure. He felt that whatever may have
been done in the past, it is the elected officials that need to be in charge. He therefore
supported the changes suggested by Councilman Duhovic. However, he felt the protocol
however needed quite a bit of work. He pointed to Section C of the protocol, and stated that the
responsibility outlined in that section belongs to the voters.
Joe Locascio stated he is the current Chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission, and would like
to address some comments as the Chairman and some comments as an individual resident of
the City. He stated that the Traffic Safety Commission has a meeting scheduled for May 21St at
which time they plan to discuss the protocol and rules of procedure and return their comments
to the City Council. He commended the Planning Commission for their review of the
documents. He was extremely concerned about any elected official that would abrogate their
responsibilities to the City Manager or other non - elected employee. He stated that giving the
City Manager responsibility and authority that should be maintained within the elected City
Council is a travesty and misuse of the trust placed in the Council by the City. Finally, as a
Commission member, he found it a violation of his First Amendment right with regard to any
attempt to curtail or restrict his speaking, identifying his credentials, or earned experience in
addressing an issue that pertains to area of expertise.
Lowell Wedemeyer was happy to see the suggestion for additional ways a single Council
member can place an item on an upcoming agenda and applauded having a future agenda item
category on the agenda. He asked if it would be feasible to allow each City Council member to
submit to the City Manager a list of requested future agenda items, which could then be
transmitted as part of the meeting protocol in advance.
City Attorney Lynch commented that there would be no Brown Act violation with such a
procedure, as the full City Council would be receiving the information as part of the Future
Agenda Item portion of the agenda or as part of the study session idea. She noted that any
study session would be a fully noticed public meeting open to all, just like any other Council
meeting.
George Zu smith stated he is the Vice President of the Mediterranea HOA, but is speaking as
an individual. He did not understand what the City Council was trying to accomplish. He felt
that the City has something in place that has worked for 40 years, and he has never heard of a
rogue elected or appointed official in this city that has ever claimed to be speaking on behalf of
the City when in fact he wasn't. He felt it was more important to spend time on issues affecting
the City rather than on these issues. Lastly, he agreed with the individuals who have suggested
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 14 of 15
that no one but an elected official be vested with the authority, jurisdiction, or power to control
an agenda.
The Mayor thanked the Planning Commission and members of the public for their comments.
Councilman Duhovic moved that the City Council adjourn, seconded by Councilman
Knight.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell asked if he could first asked a question of the Chairman, however the
Mayor noted that there had already been a motion and second to adjourn.
The City Council adjourned at 9:34 p.m. by a vote of (3 -2) with Council members Duhovic
and Campbell dissenting.
Attest:
pkP%Jk(SJ ity Clerk
WACity Council Minutes\2012\201t0508 CC & PC JNT MTG .doc
CAI
Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Page 15 of 15