20120320 Late Correspondence~""'"I,n"
CO ,.,~IL RULES AND PROCEDURES for 3/20/11",.<~nda..(..",
(Refer to the Rules and Procedures attachment to the Council agenda for 3/20/12 for the content
of the paragraphs referenced below.)
Preamble Line 6 ...change from to form of Gov ...
P 2.2 line 2 change s/he to she/he
P 3.2 on Paragraph beginning "No work session....Agenda posting 72 hours before a meeting
means it can be posted on a weekend.No real time for public review.Agendas should be posted
on the city's web site at the same time they are distributed to the council.Move incomplete
agenda items to the next day at a city facility with TV recording.All meetings be held at a city
facility with TV coverage.
P 3.4 Again 24 hrs.is not adequate notice.See P3.2 above.
P 5 The mayor has the primary authority and responsibility for the agenda,.As such the mayor,
with input from council members and in consultation with the city manager and city attorney,
determines which items will be on the agenda.The mayor should take into account the urgency
of the item,the timeliness of the item the legal requirement for the item and the time duration set
for the council meeting.THEREFORE:
The Mayor,or if the Mayor is not available,the Mayor Pro Tem establishes the agenda which
includes the order and priority of agenda items and the estimates of the time that should be
required for the City Council to review,consider and take action regarding each agenda item.
The citv manager then prepares and publishes the agenda.All other members of the City
Council shall be made aware of tentative agendas for upcoming meetings on a weekly basis.
Care must be exercised so that the items that will be addressed on each Council agenda can be
completed within the designated four-hour time limit for City Council meetings.The City Staff
shall strive to provide staff reports to the City Council with
sound,professional,unbiased recommendations on a course of action for all City issues,to the
maximum extent practical,along with pertinent facts and analysis to enable the City Council to
make an informed decision.
An individual Councilmember may request the mayor,at any time,that an item of concern be
placed on a future agenda.If the Mayor after consulting with the City Manager and,if
necessary,with the city attorney decline~to place the requested item on an upcoming Council
Agenda,the Councilmember may make the request directly to the City Council at a City
Comlcil meeting under the business item entitled "Future Agenda Items"and shall,as a
courtesy,notify the Mayor in advance.Should the mayor decline adding the item,then the
member can move to have the item and getting a majority vote of the council the mayor's
decision is overridden.The City Council also may specify the meeting agenda upon which the
item shall be placed.All agenda itemS shall be accompanied by a report from the council
member in support of the position or by staff.If a Councilmember prepares a report for an
agenda item,it shall be submitted to the City Manager in time for it to be published as part of the
agenda and appear on the city's web site
P 5.3 Post agenda on web at the same time the council gets it.
,-r~J1A #3p.6.1.2 (f)May limit the time for each speaker but no limit the number of speakers.-PI 0 f'-
~---:'-t?'"",'=Fi::'-;-;t-;,;---')
RECEIVED FROM-I:.~:.u~:tO:WC:;;;;;__1
AND MADE A PART OF THE R CORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF 1
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
~6:4 Council dec~sion w(J'her or.not to hear a resident violates t1(;'~'~endment.The time
hmlts shoul~contmue to .a:radJusted to t~e num~er of.speakers."!,..•••
P 6.5 Matenal to be consldel'ed by the councIl that IS receIved,after the agenda IS dlstnbuted,
should either be disallowed or cause that item to be continued to the next meeting.I prefer the
former so as not to provide the opportunity for the process to be used merely to delay action.
With proper notice material should be available along with the agenda to provide both the
council and the public sufficient time to give it due consideration.The latter is subject to abuse
by continuing to submit late data,thereby potentially extending said item indefinitely.(See
Rosenberg's rules intent to achieve finality)
P 7.1 last line add "as may be required by law"
P7.3 The complete proposed ordinance shall be published along with the agenda.
P 7.4 in the parenthesis ...delete "who are present"and replace with "a quorum being present".
P 8.2.2 (see 7.3 above)
P 8.5 (c)The council may also reopen the hearing at the same meeting with sufficient cause.
P 9.2.3 DUTIES:Handcuffs the people.Needs to be totally reworked.They can't do work
themselves and they cannot commit staff time,how can they render any decision?
Commissions are extensions of council and can make binding decisions subject only to an appeal
to the council.If the only group that can do work is the staff,why are commissions and
committees needed?I will be proposing a new process to streamline the work in the near future.
P 10.2 They need to be published in full as part of the agenda.Rules are not stand alone items.
They are a part of the whole and should be integrated with the other rules.
P 11.3 "Silence"Is not acceptable.Each member present must vote aye,nay or abstain.See
Rosenberg's Rules as to how a meeting decision can be affected.An "Abstention"or "Not here
present"while still on the Dias is a NO vote.Again,the objective is to achieve finality.
Ken Dyda
2
",In"
RPV Beach 3/1d~1_r
1'7'"
RPV Beach 3/1J1r~r"
"",.t'i,,,'./',.
Aniuling Tidepool Pictures at Ri'):Beach
RPV Beach 3/17-18
Useable beach area at 5.2
foot high tide and 4-6,foot
surf:
600 ft long by 50 feet
wide (average)=0.7 acre
(includes Forrestal Creek,
which is not useable)
Surf reaching base of cliff at South Point
Forrestal Creek cutting
through middle of beach
from previous night's rain
Surf within 10 feet of base of cliff at Halfway Point
Beach is not large enough for dog usage,especially at high tide and moderate surfl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 20,2012
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached ·are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1
2A
3
Respectfully submitted,
~
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Email from Danielle Weinstock
Email from Bill James
Narrative List of City Council Goals and Priorities
Email from Councilman Knight;Community
Development Director Rojas response to Ken Delong
inquiry
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,March 19,2012**.
W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to ag:lndas\20120320 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:Danielle Weinstock [dlwein@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 20,20129:02 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Harley;Sharon Katz
Subject:Re:DA Hearing -3/22/12 RE:Dog Barking Public Nuisance
One final note.According to Animal Control,the only recommendation that they can make at
the hearing (based on the current ordinance)is for the dog owners to use a barking dog collar;a
solution the has proven time again won't work.
On Mon,Mar 19,2012 at 7:09 PM,Danielle Weinstock <dlwein@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear Mayor Misetich,City Councilmen and Councilwoman,.
My name is Danielle Weinstock and I am a resident at 6529 Verde Ridge Road in Rancho
Palos Verdes.
After numerous complaints (dating back to 2007),the District Attorney is finally taking Eva
Souter (6523 Verde Ridge Road)to court due to unlawful public nuisance.Unfortunately,due
to the ambiguous language of the current barking dog ordinance,there is little the court can do
to help victims like me.
First let me share my experience and the steps I have taken to rectify this situation.For 2 - 8
hours a day,my family and I are forced to listen to two dogs bark and yap at high pitched
frequencies (listen to attached file)without pause.The dogs are left outdoors when the
residents are home and away.The dogs need no provocation,they are clearly distressed and
bark for no reason at all and continue to do so until they are brought back inside.
All attempts at resolution,both verbally and in writing with the dog's owners have failed.
Here are the steps both I and the prior occupant,Stephen Maresch,have taken.
-Complaints filed with Animal Control from 11/07 -1109 including barking logs and audio
files.
-Notice of Abatement sent from Animal Control on 11107/07 which the Souter's ignored.
-Second Notice of Abatement sent 5/11108 which the Souter's ignored.
-Mediation requested by County of LA.The Souter's refused.
-Complaints filed with Animal Control from 3/16/11 -present including barking logs and
audio files.
-Notice of Abatement sent by Animal Control on 3/16/11 which the Souter's ignored.
-Second Notice of Abatement sent 5/9/11 which the Souter's ignored.
-Dpt of Consumer Affairs requested Mediation on 11110/11.Souter's refused.
- A case file was sent to Animal control on 1/10/12 including photos of the dogs,photos of the
properties,letters showing refusal to mediate,6 full discs of samples of barking dogs (listen to
attached example),voice recording log,time and date log,all attempted correspondence with
the dog owners,all materials regarding the 2007-2009 case.
- A similar case file was given to Julie Peterson of Rancho Palos Verdes who told us there was
nothing the city could do.
-Notice of Hearing was sent from District Attorney on 3/12/12.
Can you imagine what it would be like to listen to barking/yapping dogs for hours on end,
every day ...every single day?The only time we get any relief is ifit is raining.Today it went
on for five solid hours (8:30am -1 :30pm).I cannot work in my home office,I cannot enjoy my
backyard,I cannot entertain,my daughter has trouble studying,if we are ill,we cannot rest.It
3/20/2012 I of .;1..
is unbearable!!
And despite the hell we have been through and the unbelievable amount oftime I have dedicated to this case,Mr.
Souter,the dog's owner,has assured me (through verbal threats)that there is nothing that I can do to stop
him because the law is designed to protect him and not me.Sadly,he is right.
All over the country,city's like ours,are finally waking up to the problems excessive dog barking causes.On
November 7th,2011,the city of Los Angeles voted into law a new ordinance that gives law enforcement the tools
they need to combat this problems.
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0922 ord 181930.pdf
This law defines the amount of time a dog may bark (no more than 10 consecutive minutes or 30 non consecutive
minutes over a three hour period.)It stipulates the fines that will be assessed ($250 the first incident,$500 the
second and $1000 the third.)It gives the hearing board the right to hold a hearing even if the respondent doe~n't
show.And it gives animal control the right to terminate a dog license if the owners continually refuse to abide by
the law.
As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1972,I value the peace and serenity the hill has to offer.We cannot
let a few inconsiderate people destroy that for any of us.
I encourage you to use LA City's new ordinance as a template for a tougher and fairer set of rules.
I will be at the city council meeting to speak out on this issue tomorrow,will notify you of the outcome of the
hearing and will continue to do whatever I can to ensure this unfair law in Rancho Palos Verdes is changed.
Sincerely,
Danielle Weinstock
310-541-3388
Danielle Weinstock
3/20/2012
From:William James [billandkathyjames@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 20,2012 12:20 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:carlam@rpv.com;Kathryn Downs
SUbject:Chair of the FAC.
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to remove my name from the list of applicants for the position of
Chair of the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC).Normally,the chair position is
rotated around the members of a committee,but because of some unusual moves
and resignations,I have held this position on FAC for three out of the past four
years.
When we lost our vice-chair to the Council last year,I asked Greg O'Brien (the
next most senior member of FAC)if he would like to apply.He responded that he
would prefer to wait until afuture date because he was going to be serving as the
President of the Palos Verdes Rotary club this year.At that point,I was
concerned that nobody would apply.So,after discussing the matter with Kathryn
Downs,I said that I would be willing to serve again.
I see now,however,that there are three other applicants,so my concern was
unfounded,and I am happy to pass the baton.
I support Willie Wang's application.He has been exposed to the intricacies of
the annual Five-Year Model and the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report,and has experience working with staff.I'm sure that the other two
applicants are well qualified,but there will be plenty of time for them to take a
turn after they have developed a feel for the Committee and its work.
I look forward to serving on the FAC this year,and its new chair,and to
responding to whatever challenges the Council may send our way.
Thank you,Bill James
3/20/2012 I.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
2012 GOALS &PRIORITIES
JANUARY 31,2012
1)PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ISSUES
•Focus on Crime Prevention:Prioritization of "Crime Watch,"notification of the
public,Neighborhood Watch (Score =14)
,...::..:.::::...-=:.:.::..r..:.Consider
m to notify City Staff of public
idelines (Score =5)
te "speed traps"&replace with speed
tic driving related to Marymount College
and awareness,sharing of roadways with motor
•
•Focus on
warning si
(Score =3)
•Review Sheriff's De artment's Alloc
Department's efforts in the City (Sco
•Increase Sheriff:s Presence on South and
cr7ation of Sheriff's Department substation
•For e Closer Cit Relationshi with Sheriff:·
communication with leadership at the Lomita Sheri
•San Ra,»»>n Stabilization:Solicit financial support from the City &County
of Los Angel~.~IEind present financing alternatives (Score =12)
3)CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
•Increase Citizen Involvement in Infrastructure Goal-Setting &Planning:Review
"lessons learned"from past projects,need more direct Staff outreach to residents
and businesses,identify instances and plans to deal with deferred maintenance
of facilities (Score =12)
City Council Goals &Priorities A
Page 1 Of6d
•City Skate Park:Consider location for City skate park (Score =5)
•City Dog Beach:Consider location for City dog beach (Score =4)
•Peninsula-Wide Park Support of City Parks:Conduct outreach to other Peninsula
cities for support of park maintenance &improvement (Score =3)
ring wells
e program,schedule and
pdate of grants and completed projects
•Cell Sites =i=c--:...:~.:.-=c....:..::.~
screening (Scl'e =0)
•Portuguese Bend Landslide:R
(Score =6)
•Infrastructure Funding:Consider a full r
•Cit ide Sewer Maintena
projects (Score =6)
•Evaluate City Recreation Programs:Review the current types of recreation
programs offered to the public (Score =2)
•City Dog Park:Consider location for City dog park
4)PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
•Citywide Street Maintenance:Review street maintenance program (Score =?)
o [Omitted (in error?)from Jan.31 st workshop,but may fit here]
5)GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY,FISCAL CONTROL AND TRANSPARENCY
•Evaluate "Core"City Services:What services do citizens really want from the
City?(Score =11)
City Council Goals &Priorities
Page 2 of 6
•Full Transparency of Financial Information:Improve public access to City
financial information (Score =10)
•Improve Organizational Efficiency:Run a "tight ship,"conduct performance audit
of City staffing &programs,analyze "needs"vs."wants,"consider increased use
of volunteers (Score =10)
lower-level
sistance of the
erience and
he City be
,contracts and consider
ensure that consultant work
core =3)
improve City processes for new
charged for business licenses,sign
ZBB :Consider "hybrid"ZBB and provide other detailed
•Review of Existin
formal bid proc
product is act
•Conduct a Business Survey:Staff to pr
Chamber of Commerce or other
expertise,to assess what the City ca
a better partner with businesses.(Scor
•Council Liaison to Adviso
should have a designated Ci
•Review City Fees:Review all fees charged the
owners and businesses (Score =4)
•Overview of Current Business Environment:Staff to brief City Council on the
current regulatory framework affecting City businesse ermits,fees,zoning,
etc.);tentatively agendized for 3/6/12 meeting (Score
•
•
•Support of Local Businesses:Streamline processes,be more "business friendly"
(Score =1)
•Create a City Business Forum:Include City Council and Staff (Score =1)
•Evaluate View Restoration Process:Re-evaluate ordinance and procedures
(Score =1)
City Council Goals &Priorities
Page 3 of 6
•Evaluate Employee Compensation:Review salary,benefits &pension
(Score =0)
•RPV Chamber of Commerce:Focus on developing RPV businesses,possible
"subset"of existing Peninsula Chamber of Commerce (Score =0)
•Evaluate City Tree Review Process:Re-evaluate ordinance and procedures,try
to preserve existing street trees (Score =0)
arts to resolve
(Score =2)
's list,but
. h the school district to
.tegrate existing Western
nicipal Code and other
AG grant status tentatively
an nltor and evaluate development proposal
on traffic impacts (Score =5)
ouncilman Duhovic's list,but may fit here]
way,"improve aesthetics (Score =7)
d &CIP Reserves:Increase reserves from cost savings
cies to increase future infrastructure funding (Score =9)
•Eastview School District Issue:Consi
disenfranchisement of Eastview resid
o [Identified as a separate item
may fit here]
•Shared Use of PVPUSD &City Facilities:Coo
share active recreation facilities (Score =11)
7)WESTERN AVENUE CORRID ,<
6)PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
•SCE Infrastructure Safety &Reliability:Confer with SCE to ensure the safety of
electrical lines (Score =9)
10)CITY TRAIL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
•Trail System Enhancement:In coordination with the Land Conservancy
(Score =9)
City Council Goals &Priorities
Page 4 of 6
ITEMS DELETED UNDER PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
•Civic Center Master Plan:Staff to present all information about the Civic Center
project prepared to date to the City Council and the public within 60 days;City
Council may then refer to PC and/or FAC for recommendations;tentatively
agendized for 2/21/12 meeting
t on City's
of City Hall for off-site
rovide City Council overview of status of
randview,Abalone Cove grant,ADA
clin Grant Pro ram:Reinstate the Beautification
ram,review City policy,consider disbursement on basis of
Iy focus on Hawthorne Boulevard or other major corridors;
for 4/17/12 meeting
•
•Review Fire Protection Services:En
open space properties
•Rancho LPG Butane Tankstlr'1'
tanks?
•Terranea
parking
•Monitor Traffic Safety Commission Activity:Revi
flashing lights at crosswalks
•Animal Control:Review contract with
wild/nuisance animals and road-kill disp
•Sheriff's Department Community Outreach:Consider Deputies'attendance at
HOA meetings
•Tem ora Commercial Banner Pro ram:Re-evaluate aesthetics of current
banner sign "backdrops"
•Aircraft Noise Impacts:Monitor FAA airspace proposal for Long Beach airport,
monitor helicopter flight paths from Torrance airport
•Re-Evaluate "No Solicitation"Ordinance:Review solicitation regulations and
alternatives;tentatively agendized for 4/3/12 meeting
City Council Goals &Priorities
Page 5 of 6
•Public Feedback via City Website:Revise City website to provide enhance
opportunities for public feedback,opinion surveys,etc.
•Town Hall Meetings:Consider establishing a regular schedule of "town hall"-style
meetings
•Regular City Council Meetings:Reduce duration of meetings,length of Staff
reports
M:\Policy Issues\2012 Council Goals &Priorities\City Council Goals &Priorities Matrix (January 2012LNarrative.doc
City Council Goals &Priorities
Page 6 of 6
From:Carolyn Lehr [clehr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 20,2012 8:02 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:'Carla Morreale'
SUbject:FW:Late Correspondence Agenda item 3
Mr.Mayor and Council Members,
At Councilman Knight's request,I am forwarding to you his comments and suggested
revisions to the draft Rules of Procedure and Protocol.He already covered his
questions with staff yesterday afternoon,which was most helpful.Please see his
comments below.
Thank you,
Ccurolyvv L~
City Manager
~City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
clehr@rpv.com -(310)544-5202
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be
privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the
individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If
you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:Jim Knight [mailto:knightjim33@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,March 19,2012 11:40 PM
To:Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Agenda item 3
Carolyn,
I have a few comments on the new Rules and Procedures (Agenda item 3)for the meeting on the
20th .Please share them with the Mayor and other council members so they have an opportunity
to review them in advance in an effort to assist in moving the meeting along that night rather
than me taking the time on the 20th .
First,I wish to thank both Councilwoman Brooks and the Mayor for all of the time they have
put into researching and putting together this draft set of rules.I think it will help all of us better
understand a mutually acceptable set of protocols.My comments are intended as constructive
and in the spirit of contributing to making the draft even better.
~P.3-17 Sec.5
-Reverse the paragraphs.The second paragraph describing the process for a Council member
generating an agenda item should be first.Then the document can describe how the CM and
Mayor will set the agenda items depending upon staff time,urgency,etc.This will help with
3/20/2012 3.
public perception that Council membt0"''U"e actively part of the genesis of agentnitems.
~~::~.::::-\<:;::
~P.3-25 Sec.9.2
-Maybe instead of "serve at pleasure of Council",we could say"At any time,on a case by case basis,the Council
may reconsider any appointment."
~P 3-25 Sec.9.2.3
-No need to repeat "not authorized to make policy decisions"in the 3rd sentence.It has been stated in the first
sentence.
-"Have not authority to commit staff time,city resources ...and members are "not expected to take the place of City
staff or do work that is more appropriately handled by City Staff."
I want to make sure that we don't give our committee or commission members the idea that they cannot contribute
to the subject matter before them.We are blessed with some very talented,intelligent members and they may have
expertise and/or research material that can be helpful in the committee's analysis of an issue before them.
Maybe we can add at the beginning of the second paragraph,"Although the City welcomes input from the members
and questions of staff,City Boards,Commissions and Committees should not commit City resources ...."
~P.3-26 Sec.9.3
-On the second to last sentence I recommend adding "recommendations",i.e.,"Subcommittee Report
recommendations_will be conveyed to ..."This is for clarification,that these Reports are recommendations,not
directives of the subcommittee.
~P.3-49 Sec.III,A,2,8,etc.
-Uniformly apply parenthesis (or not)when referring to Commission or Committees.
~P.3-50 Sec.l6
-Sometimes Council,Committee or Commissioner members need to immediately respond to blasts in a newspaper,
blog or e-mail attacking the member under their title.How is a member to respond without having to use their title,
which "represents their city"?Need some clarification here.
-Sec.17 - I am not sure why a member of one committee cannot testify at another RPV committee or commission
and let that body know what position they hold.Our constituents have a right to know who is testifying,even if the
committee or commission receiving the testimony may already know.
It agree that is a different matter when testifying in another city where,unauthorized,it could be misinterpreted as
a representation of an official position of RPV at that other city's meeting.
Thank you and I look forward to a productive meeting on Tuesday.
Jim Knight
RPV City Council member
Jim Knight
RPV City Council
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,CA 90275
310/544-5207
3/20/2012
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,March 19,20121:05 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'leza Mikhail';'Carolyn lehr'
Subject:RE:Council Direction
Dear Council members
Given this email,I thought I would provide a little background and explanation about this issue.
At the request of the Golden Cove Shopping Center property owner (not Staff),a code amendment
initiation request was taken to the City Council on June 21,2011 to consider amending the code to allow
some limited ancillary residential uses on commercial properties.The basis for the Golden Cove center
owner's proposal was to make up for lost revenue on units that were not ideal for commercial tenants and
to minimize the commutes of some of the center tenant's owners and/or employees.The City Council
agreed with Staff that the proposal had merit and thus initiated the code amendment process directing
Staff and the Planning Commission to work on an ordinance and a recommendation to the City Council.
On January 24,2012,the PC considered the issue and recommended that the proposed code
amendment not be pursued.In reviewing the matter,the PC raised a concern with imposing the
residential allowance on several commercial properties throughout the City when only one commercial
property owner seemed to support it.As a result,last month,Staff mailed a one-page survey to 41
commercial property owners in the City to obtain feedback on the proposal.This information will assist
Staff in making its recommendation to the City Council.This item is scheduled to be considered by the
City Council at its upcoming April 3rd meeting.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Joel
From:Ken Delong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent:Monday,March 19,2012 10:54 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Don Reeves;Ron Stankey;Barry Hildebrand;Ray Mathys
Subject:Council Direction
All,
I believe the message below is a matter (Staff's decision to solicit community opinions or initiate projects
that take staff resources)that needs further dialogue and perhaps might be added to the "Rules &
Procedures"discussion.The issue is the roles /authority of staff with /without Council direction.While
probably smaller in scale than Annenberg,there are similarities in staff direction and intent.
Question,should not the Planning Commission,as directed by the Council,approve this /these type of
ventures before the staff goes forward? There are similarities in other departments as well.Contained
within the revised "Rules &Procedures"package is reference to RPV's Council/City Manager form of
government and the attempt to draw a hard line between Council and City Manager authority.The
present Council/City Manager form of government,as is being currently interpreted,limits the
functionality of the Council and has not been working well for RPV taxpayers.We urge a greater public
discussion of these concerns and offer our assistance when desired.
Ken Delong
From:Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 18,2012 9:09 PM
To:ken delong
Subject:RE:
Hi Ken,Mabe it was in the Peninsula News last Thursday,not the DB.Connie
311912012 lot c2.3
From:ken.delong@verizon.net
To:bconmast@msn.com
Subject:RE:
Date:Sun,18 Mar 2012 20:27:09 -0700
Connie,was unaware but will direct to CC for further action
From:Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 18,2012 4:58 PM
To:ken delong
Subject:
Hi Ken,Last week,in the Daily Breeze,there was a public notice from Joel Rojas re a zone amendment
allowing residential apartments in all of RPV's CL Commercial Limited,CN Commercial Neighborhood
and CG Commercial General zones.
My bet is this in response to the owner of Golden Coves request last year to allow "employees"to live in
his vacant retail slots (vacant for 15 years.)He pleaded that employees,including Terranea's,need to
live close to work.
Is this the "camel's nose"in the tent?
Why wasn't this in your newsletter?
Connie
3/19/2012
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 19,2012
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,March 20,2012 City Council meeting:
Item No.
3
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
letter from Jeff lewis;Emails from:Paul Tetreault;Thomas
D.long;Ken Delong;Tom Redfield;Email exchange
between Mark Wells and City Attorney lynch
~~
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendaS20120319 additions revisions to agenda through Tuesday afternoon.doc
JEFFREY LEWIS
(609 Deep V.ldliley Ddve,Suilte 200,RolllUlllg IfHIl1ls E~tate§90214
March 12,2012
Hon.Anthony M.Misetich,Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Ran.cho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mayor Misetich,
I am writing this letter concerning the proposed changes to the city council procedures
and adoption of a code of ethics that was recently scheduled to be heard during an
adjourned,off~site,non~televisedcity council meeting on Wednesday March 14.I
understand that the meeting regarding this matter is going to be rescheduled.
Nonetheless,I believe the below comments will have applicability to the proposed
changes and would ask that you consider them.To be clear,I write this letter in my
individual capacity as a resident of our city and not on behalf of any person,
organization or commission.
The staff report for the March 14 1 meeting contemplates profound changes to the
manner in which council meeting agendas are set,proposes restrictions on how
council members and commission2 members may interact with city staff and the city
attorney and,if adopted,wold subject commissioners to "immediate dismissal"for
violation of a vaguely defined set of code of "values~basedethics."In order to maximize
public participation and notice,these changes should be debated and voted on during a
regularly noticed and televised session of city council at the normal Hesse Park
location and not at a Wednesday evening meeting at the Salvation Army.While I
personally favor some of the proposed changes (such as the implementation of a "two~
hour"or "one~hour"rule for council member inquiries of staff),hearing the matter as
presently set would undermine the legitimacy of any changes you made.Ironically,the
J Although this matter will likely be continued to another day,all references herein to
"staff report"are to the original March 14 report.
2 For brevity1s sake,all references herein to commissions and commissioners include
city committees and committee members,respectively.
3
date initially set for this meeting falls in the middle of Sunshine Week3 -a national
event that promotes the public's right to know what it's government is doing and why.
In the interest of open government,I recommend that the matter initially set for March
14 be continued to a regularly scheduled meeting.
I also have some concerns regarding the following specific changes recommended by
staff:.
First,section five would vest exclusive authority in the city manager to set the agenda
for all council meetings.My reading of the proposed rules is that even if all five council
members wanted to set an agenda item,they could not do so without the city manager's
consent.I also understand that the proposed rules would preclude the city council
from ever altering this rule back to its current state without the city manager's
consent.4 If I have misread the rules,perhaps a clarification should be added to ensure
that.future councils and/or city managers do not misread the effect of the proposed
rules as I have.
Under the first of four alternative section 5.10 provisions,a city council member could
not set a matter on the the agenda.This shift in power from the council to the city
manager eliminates an important power previously exercised by the city council.I
would urge the council to reject this first alternative and adopt alternative two,three or
four for section 5.1 O.
Second,Section 9.2 would prohibit a commission from adding a matter to the agenda
without a vote by city council.For example,if the planning commission wanted to
study the issue of lighting at Point Vicente or the implementation of our conceptual
trails,it could not be placed on an agenda without a council vote.If the planning
commission wanted to study the issue of the dangerous butane tanks on our city
border,a city council vote would be required first.This would seem to deprive the
council of a valuable resource for new ideas.
Third,I would suggest that section 8.3 be modified to indicate that one public speaker
may not (without mayor approval)assign their three minutes to another speaker.This
avoids a situation where,for example,five speakers come in and assign all of their time
(15 minutes)to another speaker.
Fourth,Section 13 is troubling.Historically,the four year appointment of
commissioners allowed them to vote independently and without fear of reprisal by the
3 For more information about Sunshine Week see http://www.sunshineweek.org/
About.aspx
4 I have the greatest respect for our city manager.The comments in this letter should
not be construed as a question of her integrity or intentions.Rather,these comments
are designed to ensure that our local government has an important check on city staff
now and in the future.
city council.The introduction of a provision for "immediate dismissal"for disloyal
conduct would undermine that independence.The rules do not indicate whether city
council vote is required for "immediate dismissal"or if the city manager and/or mayor
could simply act to dismiss a commissioner.And what conduct would violate this
policy?Consider the below scenarios:
•If a commissioner speaks at a public hearing of a sister city against a public project
would that action violate the code of conduct as drafted and result in immediate
dismissal?
•If a commissioner wrote a letter criticizing a state or federal project occurring within
city limits (such as a federally funded repair of a landslide),would that letter violate
the code?
•If -a commissioner made a public records request of our city or a sister city or the
State of California and one or more council members deemed that request
"disrespectful"or disloyal,would that be a violation of the code?
•If a commissioner supported a candidate for public office through endorsements or
other conduct,and one or more council members deemed that request "disrespectful"
or disloyal,would that be a violation of the code?
•If a commissioner wrote a letter that criticized the current council for proposing
changes to the rules of procedure or the adoption of a code of conduct,would
sending that letter be a violation of the code?
I would urge the council to reject this ill-defined code of conduct.If implemented,the
immediate dismissal clause will be abused in violation of commissioners I First
Amendment rights to speak and petition their government.If the council is set on
adopting a code of conduct,I would urge the council to review Rule 10 of the City of
Rolling Hills Estates on page 28 of the staff report.(without the reference to
lIimmediate dismissal II)is a good model.
Fifth,Section 13 would appear to preclude a city council member from speaking with
the city attorney and effectively make the city attorney report to the city manger and
not the council.Suppose a city council member was threatened with a lawsuit or was
concerned with the legality of proposed city action?Section 13 would preclude
consultation with the city attorney.What problem is the council attempting to fix here?
Is the problem one particular council member using too much city attorney time?If
so,a little transparency (reporting to the public of council member time usage)may be
the solution rather than outright preclusion of the ability to consult.
Sixth.the council rules or ethics code should include a statement regarding the
obligation of confidentiality over information obtained in closed session or from the
city attorney.See for example Rule 7 of the City of Rolling Hills Estates on page 28 of
the staff report.
Thank you for your service to our city.I know that you each have the best of
intentions and will make appropriate choices for our city.Each of you campaigned on
a platform of more transparency of decision making.This is a wonderful opportunity
to fulfill those promises.
Respectfully submitted,
~~.
Jeffrey Lewis
From:Paul TetreaUlt [paul.rpv@gmail.com]
Sent:Saturday,March 17,2012 12:07 AM
To:'Paul Tetreault';cc@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Rules of Procedure and Council and Commission/Committee Protocol
Hon.Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Ironically,at the end of my just-submitted email to you (reprinted below),having identified myself as
the chair of the Planning Commission,I did not make it clear that I was communicating with you as a
private citizen,not as a representative ofthe Planning Commission.My mistake,but immediately
corrected.
Paul Tetreault
From:Paul Tetreault [mailto:paul.rpv@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday,March 16,2012 11:59 PM
To:'cc@rpv.com';'c1ehr@rpv.com'
Subject:Rules of Procedure and Council and Commission/Committee Protocol
Hon.Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I have reviewed the proposed Protocol for Elected Officials and Appointed Commission and Committee
Members.I appreciate the many changes that have been made since the drafting of the proposed Code
of Conduct.Most of my concerns have been adequately addressed but I offer a few comments for your
consideration.I present these to you in this form because the Council's hearings on this matter are set
during the time that I and several members of the Planning Commission will be in Fresno attending the
annual Planners Institute conducted by the League of California Cities.
Sec.IIIA17.(p.3-50 of Staff Report)directs members of RPV Commissions and Committees to never
identify themselves as members of such organizations when testifying at hearings before other
administrative bodies of RPV or before administrative bodies of other governmental agencies without
first getting permission from their Commission or Committee,or the City Council.This goes beyond the
clear intent of Sec.III.A.16.which prohibits Members from making statements or other communications
that purport to represent the City without prior authorization.Sec.III.A.16.is a fair and prudent
mandate.However,Sec.IIIA17.forbids Members from disclosing their official position with the City
when the Member testifies in our City or before a governmental agencies of another city.In so doing,
the public is deprived of information abol,Jt the speaker which could reveal bias,influence or relevant
expertise.Similarly,the governmental agency before whom the Member is testifying is deprived of vital
information about the Member's potential bias and expertise if they do not know the Member's elected
or appointed capacity.
For example:The chairperson on the Traffic Safety Commission testifies at a Planning Commission
hearing and expresses concerns about traffic and circulation relating to a proposed development,and
he does not disclose that he is the Traffic Safety Commission chair.Many of the Planning
Commissioners would likely recognize the speaker and know his official capacity.However,most
members of the public would not know this fact.Those on the Planning Commission who know the
speaker may be influenced by his expertise,yet this factor would be undisclosed to the public.If the
decision of the Planning Commission follows the urging of the Traffic Safety Commission chair it could
appear to the public later on that something untoward had taken place because this significant fact had
been hidden from the public.
Another example:Assume that the Director of Parks and Recreation for the County of Los Angeles lives
in Palos Verdes and spoke before the RPV City Council in opposition to a proposed skate park in RPV.
3/19/2012 3
Further assume that the County of Los Ar"""'Ies was also considering the creation of sV~I"a park that would charge the public
to use the facility which would be built W'rtHIn a short distance from RPV's proposed fh.._park.Finally,the speaker does not
disclose who he or she is.Because of the speaker's expertise in the area of parks in general and skate parks in particular,he
or she makes a great presentation and is very convincing.But the withholding of that information also hides a tremendous
bias that person has against the free park which would compete with the County's fee-based park.Under this example I
believe that members of our City Council would feel that the speaker purposely hid his or her bias and had an undisclosed
conflict of interest,something that all elected and appointed government officials are to avoid.
The Preamble to the Council's proposed revised Rules of Procedure speaks of transparency in government.This element of
the proposed Protocol mandates opacity,not transparency.Rather,the Protocol should require that all Members ofthe
Council,Commissions and Committees always identify who they are and their official city position followed by this
statement: "I am speaking,however,as a private citizen and not as a representative of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes."
Unless,of course,that person is on official business authorized by the City Council to speak for the City.
Full disclosure of all relevant information is the fail-safe for good government.Although perhaps not the intent of the
Council,Sec.IIIA17.hides information from the public.Doing so must be carefully considered,for compelling reasons and
extremely limited in scope.I do not see the need for Sec.IIIA17.To the contrary,full disclosure of all facts that could
reveal bias or influence should be mandated.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Tetreault
Chair,Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
3/19/2012
From:Paul Tetreault [paul@agajanianlaw.com]
Sent:Monday,March 12,20125:18 PM
To:'cc@rpv.com';'Carolyn Lehr'
SUbject:Proposed Code of Conduct
Hon.Mayor and Members of the City Council
I have reviewed the draft additions to the City Council's Rules of Procedure and offer the following
comments.
1.The proposed added section 9.2.3 regarding the Duties of Citizen Boards,Commissions,and
Committees:It states that Boards,Commissions and Committees are advisory to the CC,cannot commit
City resources,provide resident's prespectives and filter information from staff.However,the Planning
Commission is not merely advisory.It regularly performs a quasi-judicial function deciding matters such
as applications for development code variances,determining matters involving~view restoration and
preservation,neighborhood compatability and the like,which are binding upon residents in the absence of
an appeal to the CC.The Municipal Code sets forth the specific function and duties of the PC and its
members (RPVMC sec.2.20,et sec.)The PC regularly directs staff to conduct research,inspections and
reviews of properties relating to matters that are on the PC agenda.This proposed new section states
that we cannot do so.It is suggested that appropriate changes be made to distinguish the PC from other
municipal bodies that do not perform functions
mandated by the Municipal Code.
2.The proposed added section 13 Code of Conduct opening paragraph:There is reference to a
"'values-based ethics policy'"that the CC,PC and other city bodies are to adhere to.The term "values-
based ethics policy"is in quotes but the term is not defined.If the City is expecting people on the affected
bodies to conduct themselves in accordance with a system or philosophy,it needs to be defined.There
are many "values"that could affect conduct.Are these personal or cultural?Are they idealized (lacking
in exceptions)or realized (exceptions are expected to avoid contradictions between theory and practice)?
Religious or secular?It is suggested that the reference to "values-based ethics policy"be deleted.
3.The proposed added section 13 Code of Conduct opening paragraph:The proposed Code of
Conduct seeks to obtain from each Council,Committee and Commission members a pledge to respect,
support and work to improve relationships between our city and other governmental entities.Failure to do
so is grounds for immediate dismissal (except for Council members who are elected).In my opinion this
language violates the First Amendment rights of free speech under the U.S.Constitution.I believe we all
recognize certain forms of "disrespect"and prefer not to see such during our official duties for the City.
But "respect"is a vague term upon which to consider dismissal."Respect"is defined by Websters,in its
verb form,as "to consider worthy of esteem;to regard with honor."In the noun form it is defined as
"esteem;regard;consideration;honor."Are members of Council,Commissions and Committees not
allowed to question the policies or actions of not only those that govern RPV but sister cities on the Hill,
the County of Los Angeles,State of California and federal government?Is it an act of disrespect to
criticize City staff when they act or fail to act in a certain way?Am I not allowed to be critical and engage
in the national debate over health care,immigration or public education?The proposed Code makes no
exceptions for actions as a private citizen rather than as a City official.On its face it chills free speech,
not only as to "respect"but with regard to "support"as well.Will a member of the PC be SUbject to
dismissal if he or she,while running for City Council,criticizes an incumbant opponent or is critical of the
City Manager?This could be both a failure of respect as well as support.This language and the call for a
pledge should be removed from the proposed Code of Conduct.Rather than a pledge,it can be a
directive.
Finally,it this the appropriate place to put this Code of Conduct?The document itself is the City Council
Rules of Procedure.That may not be the most logical place to put a Code of Conduct pertaining to
Committees and Commissions.As an alternative it could be included in the Advisory Board Handbooks.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the above.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L.Tetreault
3/19/2012
3
From:Long,Thomas D.[tlong@nossaman.com]
Sent:Saturday,March 17,20124:23 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:pc@rpv.com;Lehr Carolyn;Carolynn Petru
Subject:RE:Comment on Proposed Changes to the City's Rules
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners:
I just learned after submitting the comments below that there is now a more recent
report written by Councilmember Brooks and Mayor Misetich that contains a revised
proposal for amendments to the rules.In addition to my comments below I make the
following additional comments:
(1)The March 20-21 Report indicates that the ad hoc committee was appointed by the
Mayor with "no objection"by the rest of the council.This is a new procedure in itself.
Past practice has been for the Mayor to make appointments but for those appointments
to be ratified by a vote of the council as a whole,often with discussion.
(2)Section 5 effectively eliminates the ability of individual councilmembers to add items
to the agenda.While I agree that individual members should not be allowed to direct
the agenda of the council,I think this issue warrants careful consideration.The rule as
written would prevent two members from placing an item on the agenda as well.The
proposed rule is sUbject to abuse as written.It could be used by a council majority to
stifle significant dissent.
(3)Section 5.2 reduces the availability of agenda packets for members and the public
by one day from the Wednesday prior to the meeting to Thursday.This is a significant
degradation in open government and in proper meeting preparation.Prior councils and
the public complained that Thursday was not good enough.The need for this approach
would seem to be less given the two week advance notice now required for new agenda
items and the elimination of the ability of individual members to place items on the
agenda.For councilmembers and constituents who don't work the loss of time may not
be significant,but for others it is.(Ironically it appears that this staff report itself violates
existing policy if,as I think was the case,it was not available this past Wednesday.If
there is one place where we should respect procedure it is in the procedure we use
for adopting new procedures.)
(4)Section 9.2(2)provides that all commission and committee members serve at the
pleasure of the council.Legally this is likely correct.In practice,however,past councils
have sought to encourage independent advice and the tenure of members has been
respected.This addition,especially coming when it does in the context of actions by a
councilmember to suppress dissent and the otherwise somewhat antidemocratic
character of these proposed rules,sends a poor message to the public.
(5)Section 9.3 has things backwards.Ad hoc committees gather information and
formulate proposals for consideration by the council,not the other way around.Nor is it
clear how councilmembers can provide input to ad hoc committees while the work of
those committees is ongoing.It often will not be practical to provide that input at council
meetings but doing it in any other way violates the Brown Act.
The Amended proposal eliminates Section 13,a proposed ethics code,and replaces it
with a proposed Protocol,which appears to be quite different.While the proposed
Protocol removes the earlier explicit threat of "immediate dismissal"of dissenters,its
3/19/2012 I fi)f 3 3
character is as bad as the originaI6{)posal.Generally it seems that it "'¢ltallow a council majority to
stifle dissent and to prevent the distHosure of undefined "confidential"in(t,,;nation that might be used to
question the council majority's decisions.It bears resemblance to the approach our school board
previously had of insisting that once the board took a vote on an issue,no further dissent
was allowed.Vladimir Lenin originated this approach,which he called "Democratic Centralism,"to
cement his hold on the USSR.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic centralism
My specific comments on the proposed Protocol are as follows:
(1)Section A(6)appears to require concealment of information "received confidentially."This is subject
to much abuse unless very narrowly defined.As far as I am aware only very limited items are required to
be kept from the public such as attorney-client privileged communications and certain limited personnel
and contracting matters.As written,the rule will allow a council majority to stifle dissent and conceal
information from the public that the city does not enjoy the legal right to withhold.The Brown Act allows
limited information to be kept confidential and councilmembers must already respect the city's legitimate
privileges under the Brown Act.There is no need to try to supplant state law.
(2)Section A(14)is unduly intrusive.Councilmembers and commission and committee members do not
need staff "minders!'when they meet with the public.This does not appear to be a good use of limited
staff time and taxpayer money.
(3)Section A(16)misstates the law.Nothing but actions of the city council can "bind the city."Hence no
comments by commission or committee members or by individual councilmembers are comments that
could bind the city.This language serves no legitimate purpose.It's only discernable purpose is to
provide another mechanism for the council majority to stifle dissent.
(4)Section A(17)is unnecessary.Our elected and appointed officials always make it clear that they are
speaking as individuals when they are doing so.Moreover,only a resolution of the council can constitute
an official position of the city.Again the language has no legitimate purpose other than to stifle dissent.
(5)Section A(18)is very poorly written.In those cases where Government Code Section 1090 actually
applies,disqualifying oneself from the vote is not always sufficient.Moreover,financial conflicts go way
beyond that class of conflicts governed by Section 1090.The city's ordinances cannot change state law.
They can,however,augment state law.It is not clear what is meant by this provision.It needs more
analysis.
(6)Section A(20)is very unclear.There is likely state law on this point which the city cannot change.
This too needs more analysis.
The entire manner in which this has been handled calls into question its purpose.Why was there no
public outreach?Why was there no input from the committees and commissions as to what protocols
they might suggest for their own operation?Surely the committee and commission members know the
functioning of their bodies as well if not better than the councilmembers do.Prior proposed procedure
changes were vetted by the city attorney.Was this one?It does not look as though it was.At least
some of the provisions appear to raise First Amendment issues.
I would encourage the council to defer adoption of the proposed rule changes and Protocol until it
obtains and considers more input from the public and from commission and committee members.
Tom Long
3/19/2012
From:Long,Thomas D.
Sent:Saturday,March 17,2012 12:29 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:'pc@rpv.com';Lehr Carolyn;Carolynn Petru
Subject:Comment on Proposed Changes to the City's Rules
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commission Members:
I have reviewed the March 14th staff report and the proposed rule changes described above and offer the following as my
personal comments.Many of the proposed changes reflect conforming the rules to past practice of the council.I support
such changes.I also support the concept that the use of staff resources should be controlled by the council as a whole and
(under the council's direction)the city manager,and not by individual council members.The proposed changes to the rules
(other than the code of conduct)appear to be consistent with these goals.However,you may wish to make it clear that the
final arbiter of what is on the council's agenda is the council itself.Staff should never be placed in the position of being able to
prevent a majority of the council from hearing an item it chooses to hear.You may wish to consider the proposal I made some
time ago that any two council members should be able to place an item on the agenda on the rationale that a full hearing might
persuade one more member.This is how the Supreme Court functions~~any 4'justices may request a full hearing even though
they are not a majority.
In sum,the changes in the first 12 sections appear to be largely useful improvements.I have no significant objection to any
of the proposed changes other than the new proposed Section 13 at page 6-25.That section,by threatening committee and
commission members with "immediate dismissal"if the council dislikes their conduct undermines the independence of the
city's advisory boards.This is particularly harmful in the case of the planning commission which is a quasi judicial institution
that is supposed to independently and objectively apply the city's ordinances.Reducing the planning commission's
independence may subject its decisions to more vigorous (and perhaps even more meritorious)legal challenges in the future.
As for other advisory boards,the council can choose to reduce their independence if it wishes.But that calls into question
their value.Spending limited city resources and using volunteer time to produce advice to the city council that is not
independent serves little purpose.If there is a concern that advisory boards are not performing well,the council should simply
abolish them.That has been done in the past.
Preventing council members and committee and commission members from consulting directly with the city attorney (see
section 13(6»will create more problems as well by depriving these volunteers of legal advice they need to properly serve the
city and preventing the city attorney from independently gathering facts she needs to properly advise her client.Read literally,
section 13(6)would require that the city manager attend planning commission meetings so as to relay questions from
commissioners to the representative of the city attorney's office who attends those meetings (at least attorney attendance at
meetings was the practice when I was on the planning commission)or would require the city to leave the planning commission
without legal counsel at its meetings.Neither approach seems wise.The city attorney's client is the city itself as represented
by the council (and on issues before the planning commission that commission)and not the city manager.Indeed the city
attorney is the only city official other than the city manager who answers directly to the council.The council should not be
surrendering control of the attorney-client relationship to the city manager or any other members of city staff.If there is a
concern that too much time is being spent by the city attorney's office,that needs to be addressed in a manner that does not
require the council to abdicate its control.
Also troubling is that the code of conduct appears to apply to matters unrelated to the city and to mere differences of political
opinion.If applied in that manner,the code is undUly harsh and could be an infringement of First Amendment rights.RPV
has a tradition of vigorous discussion of issues.While some aspects of that discussion may be unpleasant at times,the
damage done to democratic government by muzzling dissent would be far worse.There have already been some actions
by some current council members that seem designed to punish dissent and reward sycophancy.I won't recount those here
but will simply suggest that the council may wish to counter the perception that may be emerging in the community by
avoiding the adoption of a code of conduct that has the look and feel of creating a loyalty oath.
Thomas D.Long
Attorney at Law
NOSSAMAN LLP
777 South Figueroa Street,34th Floor
Los Angeles,CA 90017
tlong@nossaman.com
T 213.612.7800 F 213.612.7801
D 213.612.7871 M 213.718.4484
Please note our new address.
3/19/2012
From:Ken Delong [ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent:Monday,March 19,201210:54 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Don Reeves;Ron Stankey;Barry Hildebrand;Ray Mathys
SUbject:Council Direction
All,
I believe the message below is a matter (Staffs decision to solicit community opinions or initiate projects
that take staff resources)that needs further dialogue and perhaps might be added to the "Rules &
Procedures"discussion.The issue is the roles /authority of staff with /without Council direction.While
probably smaller in scale than Annenberg,there are similarities in staff direction and intent.
Question,should not the Planning Commission,as directed by the Council,approve this /these type of
ventures before the staff goes forward?There are similarities in other departments as well.Contained
within the revised "Rules &Procedures"package is reference to RPV's Council /City Manager form of
government and the attempt to draw a hard line between Council and City Manager authority.The
present Council/City Manager form of government,as is being currently interpreted,limits the
functionality of the Council and has not been working well for RPV taxpayers.We urge a greater public
discussion of these concerns and offer our assistance when desired.
Ken Delong
._---"--_._---,,-_.__._--,,
From:Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 18,2012 9:09 PM
To:ken delong
Subject:RE:
Hi Ken,Mabe it was in the Peninsula News last Thursday,not the DB.Connie
From:ken.delong@verizon.net
To:bconmast@msn.com
Subject:RE:
Date:Sun,18 Mar 2012 20:27:09 -0700
Connie,was unaware but will direct to CC for further action
From:Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 18,2012 4:58 PM
To:ken delong
Subject:
Hi Ken,Last week,in the Daily Breeze,there was a public notice from Joel Rojas re a
zone amendment allowing residential apartments in all of RPV's CL Commercial
Limited,CN Commercial Neighborhood and CG Commercial General zones.
My bet is this in response to the owner of Golden Coves request last year to allow
"employees"to live in his vacant retail slots (vacant for 15 years.)He pleaded that
employees,including Terranea's,need to live close to work.
Is this the "camel's nose"in the tent?
Why wasn't this in your newsletter?
Connie
3/19/2012 3
From:Tom Redfield [tmredfield@cox.net]
Sent:Saturday,March 17,20123:36 PM
To:'Paul Tetreault'
Cc:cc@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Rules of Procedure and Council and Commission/Committee Protocol
Paul:
I also have reviewed the entire revised Protocol and Rules of Procedure ..What a terrific improvement!
Overall,I am appreciative of the hard work that the two member council committee,the city mgr.and staff
have contributed to refining their original rough draft.I hope you agree that their latest reiteration is
worthy of a starting point for the public and council to make meaningful suggestions during the upcoming
March 20th .City Council Meeting.I plan to encourage all concerned residents to carefully stUdy the latest
draft and appear before council at this meeting,prepared to offer any refinements like you have just
done.Bottom Line:It appears the crisis has passed and I hope all of us can contribute not just our
support but any final suggestions we might have.Thanks for your strong leadership on this issue ...
thanks for sharing your comments below ...particularly since you will not be able to attend.Sincerely,
Tom R.
From:Paul Tetreault [mailto:paul.rpv@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday,March 16,2012 11:59 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;c1ehr@rpv.com
Subject:Rules of Procedure and Council and Commission/Committee Protocol
Hon.Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I have reviewed the proposed Protocol for Elected Officials and Appointed Commission and Committee
Members.I appreciate the many changes that have been made since the drafting of the proposed Code
of Conduct.Most of my concerns have been adequately addressed but I offer a few comments for your
consideration.I present these to you in this form because the Council's hearings on this matter are set
during the time that I and several members of the Planning Commission will be in Fresno attending the
annual Planners Institute conducted by the League of California Cities.
Sec.11I.A.17.(p.3-50 of Staff Report)directs members of RPV Commissions and Committees to never
identify themselves as members of such organizations when testifying at hearings before other
administrative bodies of RPV or before administrative bodies of other governmental agencies without
first getting permission from their Commission or Committee,or the City Council.This goes beyond the
clear intent of Sec.III.A.16.which prohibits Members from making statements or other communications
that purport to represent the City without prior authorization.Sec.III.A.16.is a fair and prudent
mandate.However,Sec.11I.A.17.forbids Members from disclosing their official position with the City
when the Member testifies in our City or before a governmental agencies of another city.In so doing,
the public is deprived of information about the speaker which could reveal bias,influence or relevant
expertise.Similarly,the governmental agency before whom the Member is testifying is deprived of vital
information about the Member's potential bias and expertise if they do not know the Member's elected
or appointed capacity.
For example:The chairperson on the Traffic Safety Commission testifies at a Planning Commission
hearing and expresses concerns about traffic and circulation relating to a proposed development,and
he does not disclose that he is the Traffic Safety Commission chair.Many of the Planning
Commissioners would likely recognize the speaker and know his official capacity.However,most
members of the public would not know this fact.Those on the Planning Commission who know the
speaker may be influenced by his expertise,yet this factor would be undisclosed to the public.If the
decision of the Planning Commission follows the urging of the Traffic Safety Commission chair it could
appear to the public later on that something untoward had taken place because this significant fact had
3/19/2012 loftf9...3
been hidden from the public.
Another example:Assume that the Director of Parks and Recreation for the County of Los Angeles lives in Palos Verdes and
spoke before the RPV City Council in opposition to a proposed skate park in RPV.Further assume that the County of Los
Angeles was also considering the creation of such a park that would charge the public to use the facility which would be built
within a short distance from RPV's proposed free park.Finally,the speaker does not disclose who he or she is.Because of
the speaker's expertise in the area of parks in general and skate parks in particular,he or she makes a great presentation
and is very convincing.But the withholding of that information also hides a tremendous bias that person has against the
free park which would compete with the County's fee-based park.Under this example I believe that members of our City
Council would feel that the speaker purposely hid his or her bias and had an undisclosed conflict of interest,something that
all elected and appointed government officials are to avoid.
The Preamble to the Council's proposed revised Rules of Procedure speaks of transparency in government.This element of
the proposed Protocol mandates opacity,not transparency.Rather,the Protocol should require that all Members of the
Council,Commissions and Committees always identify who they are and their official city position followed by this
statement:"I am speaking,however,as a private citizen and not as a representative of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes."
Unless,of course,that person is on official business authorized by the City Council to speak for the City.
Full disclosure of all relevant information is the fail-safe for good government.Although perhaps not the intent of the
Council,Sec.IIIAl7.hides information from the public.Doing so must be carefully considered,for compelling reasons and
extremely limited in scope.I do not see the need for Sec.III.A.17.To the contrary,full disclosure of all facts that could
reveal bias or influence should be mandated.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Tetreault
Chair,Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
3/19/2012
From:Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent:Saturday,March 17,20129:35 PM
To:RPV City Council;Carol W.Lynch
Subject:RE:Wednesday's meeting?
Thank you for your reply.
I did talk to an attorney who confirmed to me that there was no violation of The Brown Act in
posting the link to the Report on the Agenda for the Tuesday meeting,after 6:00 P.M.,on Friday
March 16,2012.I was informed that 'weekends count'.
Regards,
Mark Wells.
---On Sat,3/17/12,Carol W.Lynch <CLynch@nvglaw.com>wrote:
From:Carol W.Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com>
Subject:RE:Wednesday's meeting?
To:"'Mark R Wells'"<mtwells@pacbell.net>,"RPV City Council"<CC@rpv.com>
Date:Saturday,March 17,2012,8:25 PM
Dear Mr.Wells:
I write to address a point that you have made about the requirements of the Brown Act
(lithe Act"),with respect to when an agenda must be posted for a Council meeting.The
requirements of the Act are that the agenda for a regular Council meeting must be
posted 72 hours prior to the meeting (Government Code Section 54954.2).Thus,for a
meeting that is scheduled to commence at 6:00 p.m.on a Tuesday evening,it would be
legally permissible to post the agenda anytime prior to 6:00 p.m.on the preceding
Saturday.This is not what typically occurs,since City Hall is closed on Saturdays.
The primary purpose of the meeting on Wednesday evening is to discuss several items
in closed session,which are listed on that agenda.Because of the concern that the
Council might not have time to address the proposed revisions to the Council's rules
and to discuss the proposed Council Protocol on Tuesday evening within the 4-hour
meeting time limit,so that the Council might continue that item to the next evening,this
item also was listed on the agenda for the Council meeting on Wednesday.By so
doing,the public received notice in advance of that possibility.Under the Act,the
Council actually can continue an item that is listed on a posted agenda for a Council
meeting to another Council meeting occurring within 5 calendar days of the first meeting
without having to list the item on the agenda of the second meeting.(Government Code
Section 54954.2(b)(3).)So,if this item is discussed on Wednesday evening,the City
provided more notice to the public than is required by the Act.
I hope that this email addresses your concern regarding the City's compliance with the
3119/2012 I of 1 3
Act with respect to the agendas tha~",c·'fe posted on Friday for the meetings r~'Tuesday
and Wednesday evenings.I::\:.:
Regards,
Carol Lynch
From:Mark R Wells [mailto:mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent:Friday,March 16,20129:52 PM
To:RPV City Council
Subject:Wednesday's meeting?
Hello to all.
First off,it appears that the public publication of the agenda for the Tuesday March 20
meeting WAS CHANGED AFTER THE LEGAL TIME LIMIT FOR
PUBLICATION!!!
When I first looked at our city's Web site and downloaded the Tuesday March 20
meeting agenda,the March 16 Report WAS NOT LISTED and I looked at that agenda
AFTER 5:30 P.M.on Friday March 16,2012.
When I brought up the agenda again,at about 9:30 P.M.,the Report NOT LISTED on
Tuesday's agenda,earlier,now appears.
This may be a violation of The Brown Act and I think I can get documentation to prove
that I was called via a cellular devise and it was confirmed to me that the report had not
been made public prior to the legal time limit.
Now,back to what I was originally writing about.
3/19/2012
I am concerned about having a C.C.("'eting on Wednesday March 21 wherei("'here is
only one 'Regular New Business'itembn the agenda.\,
I have read both the most recent DRAFT document and the 'current Rules of Procedure'
and apart from the one new section concerning the new methods whereby a City Council
member can have an issue added to a future agenda,there does not appear to be much
difference between the two documents.
Additionally,the DRAFT Protocol that would be discussed seem to be what has been
expected from all who serve our city as a volunteer or an employee,without having it
mentioned in city-wide documentation.
I can certainly find many differences between the DRAFT Rules of Procedure that was
suggested for a March 14 discussion and the NEW DRAFT dated March 16,2012.
I can also understand that since the March 16 document was not publicily published
prior to 5:00 P.M.on Friday March 16,it could not be dealt with at the Regular Meeting
on March 15,even though there is an agenda item listed for it,at that meeting.
Also there is a very troubling aspect to why a Wednesday March 21 meeting is
necessary,apart from the obvious timing of the NEW DRAFT.
The Council took action on February 12,2012 dealing with the emergency repairs of the
Abalone Cove Sewer Pumping Station,as you all know.
The suggestion that it cannot be included in the "New Business"agenda item for the
Tuesday March 20 meeting seems to create the impression in me that this item was
created or added to the Wednesday March 21 agenda just to bring more justification to
having that Wednesday meeting.
Now I come to find out that the agenda for the March 20 meeting appears to include the
March 16 Report when it did not have it listed earlier,after 5:30 P.M.brings more issues
into the fray.
I strongly urge Mayor Misetich,the City Manager,the City Attorney and the rest of the
Council members to cancel the March 21 meeting and investigate why the public
3/19/2012
publication of the March 16 Report,('>listed on the March 20 agenda until AT""'ER
5:30 PM on Friday March 16,appearSto create the possibility ofa true Browrl:c:t'1.ct
Violation.
Regards.
Mark Wells
NOTICE:This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication,or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient,please advise the
sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
copying or disclosing the contents.Thank you.
3/19/2012