20170117 Late CorrespondenceADVANCE PRAISE FOR
0 TE AME ~I;"C~1lRim
·e America, a coyote walked through our backyard. Magic o<:curs
ERRY TEMPEST WILLIAMS, author of The Hour of Land
e, 'When the last man dies, a coyote will be howling over his
ok makes it slear why that's true, and why the persistent, enduring
ble neighbor should give us great delight." -BILL Mc KIBBE N,
author of Wandering Home
tterly fascinating look at the life and range of Canis latrans. It
nmental history with old-fashioned storytelling. Flores is a master
nd a personal hero. A must-read!"-DOU GLAS BRINKLEY,
author of Rightful Heritage
...i ence and history, Flores shows us the coyote as t:flcksrer, survivor,
tion of ourselves. Coyote America paints a vivid and long-overdue
imal. It's a terrific book." -THOR HANSON, author of
The Triumph of Seeds
a as a biography of our continent's m<It~t enigmatic and successful
there. Ir is also a meditation, eloquent :fhd insightful, on our
,. to nature, and even to our national cult ~re. Whe n you've read
ook's praises, you'll howl them." -WILLIAM DEBUYS,
author of The Last Unicorn
$27.50 US I $35.99 CAN
ISBN 978-0-465-05299-8
11 11 111 11 1 11 1 111 1 11 1111 11 11111 i;? 7 i; n
~
~
trj
~
~
n >
T·E
c
01/17/2017 05:39 3102848229 ARC,LLC PAGE 03/03
CENTURY CITY: 1875 Century Park East• Suite 450 •Los Ange les, CA 90067 ·Tel 310.284.8224• Fax 310.284.8229
ALTrRNATIVE RESOLUTION CENTERS~ DOWNTOWN: 800 S. Figueroa Street• Suite 1200 ·Los Angel@s, CA 90017 ·Tel 213.623.0211 • Fax.213.623.0228
A LIM 1TED LI A e ILi TY co MPANY Civil, Farnily & Probate Dispute Resolution • Services Available Nationwide. www.erC4adr.com • 800.347AS12
NOTICE OF HEARING]
ARC Case No. 781\15344
January 17, 2017
CASE/CLAIM Sharon Lo'Veys et al. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes et al.
COURT CASE NO. ---·------·----_ ..... ·---BS 160652/BC 629637
INSURANCE CLAIM NO. _______ _
TYPE OF HEARING ------------·-·-Mediation
EST. PREP./HEARING TIME ·-·-------9.0 Hours
DATE OF HEARING-----Wednesday, February 1, 2017
TIME OF HEARING 10:00 AM
PRESIDING JURlST Hon. J. Gary Hastings, Ret.
LOCATION OF HEARING Alternative Resolution Centers LLC
1875 Century Park East
Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 284-8224
CONTINUANCES ARE STRONGLY DISFAVORED
ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION CENTERS, LLC
Please file and serve all documents in accordance with any applicable statutory provisions, State or
local rules of court or any other time that has been prescribed by your neutral, to the other parties and
your neutral (in the event you are attending a mediation or an arbitration, please send all mediation and
arbitration briefs and supporting documents for the mediation or arbitration five (5) days prior to the
date of your mediation or arbitration) to the following address:
CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL, AND REFUND POLICY .
Any withdrawal l5 days orless in advance ofa hearing da.~ w:tll result in a forfeiture offees paid onhe obligation ro pay tile full retainer. If tbe
matter taoc:elled, continued, or s~ttled is a full day or longer, a mi.ni.mum of 30 days ls required for any refund, or lfunpak( all hourly fees are due
and payable. CONT INUANCES ARE STRONGLY DISFAVORED. If a ma~r Is contiuued with sufficient time for MC to schi;iM1;1 mother he>a(i.og,
prior to the 30 dayperioc\, no additional fees sha.ll be assessed.
Hon. J. Gary Hastings, Ret.
501 S. Juanita Avenue
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
---~~~~-:in':i~;:;~:::P'rh:"·:·cr l'ings@aol .com
M "1 pe t c.J e1 ,is
RE CEIV ED FRO -F THE RECORD AT THE
AN D MA DE A PART 0 I lj-, /,7
COUN CIL MEE.'TING OF - -r . ~F I CE OfJt'lS.!J~ c ~J<;j> CAA iXMo AR 00, CITY CLEA
PHOTO DEPICTING ORIENTATION OF VISTA VERDE CONDOS IN RELATION TO
THE PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM
Photo taken January 9, 2017 off of Google Maps depicting Vista Verde Condos in relation to the Pacific Terrace
Mausoleum, circa 2016. The reference to "Lawn Crypts" in the "Pacific Garden" area is a legal "Misnomer" and should
be disregarded because neither state law, nor the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal (Zoning) Code formally define "lawn
crypts". These are legally considered "earth interments". Under the RPV City Municipal Code (§17 .28.030(A)), use of
cemetery property contemplates only three types of (official) "uses" attendant to the disposition of human remains. All
three categories use the term "interment". Those three types of officially contemplated "uses" are (i) "earth
interments", (ii) vault or f!YB! interments L_a mausoleum (which makes the use of the term "lawn crypts" a misnomer),
and (iii) cinerary interments in a columbarium. This definitional matrix is duplicated in state law which defines a "f!YJ!f '
as "a space in a mausoleum of sufficient size, used or intended to be used to entomb uncremated human remains"
(Health & Safety Code §7015) (Emphasis Added). "Entombment" means the process of placing human remains in a
f!YB! or vault". (Health & Safety Code §7012) (Emphasis Added). "Interment" means the "the disposition of human
remains by "entombment'' or "burial" in a cemetery. (Health & Safety Code §7009) An "Earth interment" contemplates
what is commonly thought of as a "burial"; a term which is also a specially defined under state law. "Burial" means the
process of placing human remains in a grave . (Health & Safety Code §7013). (Emphasis Added). Health & Safety Code
§7014 defines a "grave" as "a space of earth in a burial park used, or intended to be used for the disposition of human
remains." (Emphasis Added). This is another reason the reference to (or labeling of any use consisting of) "lawn crypts"
is misleading. "Crypts" are, by definition, placed "inside" a mausoleum. There can be no "lawn" inside a mausoleum.
The reference to "lawn" is an obvious reference to what one normally considers "the ground" or "the earth". The term
"lawn crypts" is therefore a legal "oxymoron", is legally meaningless, and completely misleading. It should therefore be
discarded as part of any cogent, comprehensive, or competent legal analysis. Green Hills Master Plan needs to be
amended to reflect these proper legal definitions so as to avoid any future confusion as the Master Plan is built-out.
1
PHOTO DEPICTING INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM DEVELOPMENT
Photo taken January 9, 2017 off of Google Maps depicting Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (still under construction), circa
2016. The reference to "Lawn Crypts" on the photo is a legal "M isnomer" and should be disregarded because neither
state law, nor the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal (Zoning) Code formally define "lawn crypts". These are legally
considered "earth interments". Under the RPV City Municipal Code (§17.28.030(A)), use of cemetery property
contemplates only three types of (official) "uses" attendant to the disposition of human remains. All three categories use
the term "interment'. Those three types of officially contemplated "uses" are (i) "earth interments", (ii) vault or mm
interments in a mausoleum (which makes the use of the term "lawn crypts" a misnomer), and (iii) cinerary interments in a
columbarium. This definitional matrix is duplicated in state law which defines a "£!Y.11!' as "a space in, a mausoleum of
sufficient size, used or intended to be used to entomb uncremated human remains" (Health & Safety Code §7015)
(Emphasis Added). "Entombment' means the process of placing human remains in a crypt or vault". (Health & Safety
Code §7012) (Emphasis Added). "Interment' means the "the disposition of human remains by "entombment' or "buriaf'
in a cemetery. (Health & Safety Code §7009) An "Earth intermenf' contemplates what is commonly thought of as a
"buriaf'; a term which is also a specia lly defined under state law. "Buriaf' means the process of placing human remains
in a grave. (Health & Safety Code §7013). (Emphasis Added). Health & Safety Code §7014 defines a "grave" as "a
space of earth in a burial park used, or intended to be used for the disposition of human remains ." (Emphasis Added).
This is another reason the reference to (or labeling of any use consisting of) "lawn crypts" is mislead i ng. "Crypts" are, by
definition, placed "inside" a mausoleum . There can be no "lawn" inside a mausoleum. Nor can there be "lawn crypts" on
the Mausoleum Roof (where apparently the "p lots" have already been recorded (May, 2014) with the County Recorder
(See Below). The reference to "lawn" is an obvious reference to what one normally considers "the ground" or "the earth".
The term "lawn crypts" is therefore a legal "oxymoron", is legally meaningless, and complete ly misleading . It should
therefore be discarded as part of any cogent, comprehensive, or competent legal analysis. Green Hills Master Plan
needs to be amended to reflect these proper legal definitions so as to a void any future confusion as the Master Plan is
built-out.
2
t)f.)(...'t~ --· rA'-..>~-· ·-
11 -; /\D ,.11);/TIO/\~,~VN CRYPTS TO TNiA~~£1~D£D .HAP OF !XSPIR ATION SUlf>F. MAL~501~U~~ --,,:i--_:,.~7-· -
tjkf/ .\ fill L.\ If, \,'(}K! !I. !'4P.J. '~ •< ~
I J;i¥ Ii)... ,.
p • • • • >'('_,r': ·---:... . . • . • . ' .•• , • i"<Mf'v • ~-.. :.
. ' ' .. -. ~
J
,/V'&
·. J.11c.1tf A f"r'A1~'c
U<,4••-j(kt
.. 1Ja.'~c.•i _ '* ·~"~'(/
- - -. / ooc Df:o i•,.s;:. . ~ --.: .. . .. . 80Q ·"201s,;34 ''V.r, .• '·?-,,., 'L
, / .. , " "'· •a, e'?.::.Cc ;..";;»< """'°' , "' om ---· ""-· · ;c ,'.:,,::: '.: , -~ • ~·· '>< --... -r· ~. ~: ... ~-_ .. :--.:~ · ... ·.· .. _ ... ~~ ~
.. ~ ... _ . ... ' . . /~, .. ·.. ~::---..._· . . I .:.
..___,~ ' . .. ~,_. __ ._, . ._ ·F
(. -... ·.····. I! J .. . :·· ·:_
7 ' · .... .
{ ' . ' . ' . : .. . i. ' ...... .
!·. : ..... _:. . . .:·. ·.· '
.c •• 4 : . . . !
J. .
. , .
CE/l·feTERY NAP
,,
BO/. TON ENG/NEER.ING
CORPOIVI naN
t··, ·. . .·
' .; ... : . .
,., Si:...·i .: .
'-" . ' . l ,,r_ ~l:.6/'-... '~~ . ·"
IJ.o t,t,._..., .. -• f
·~ . .. . ::.....
I Ht•.' V'iP1' /Ot '4[JO
W ~lrt ! 0 \ iROI
I
' 1 ------
This is what the certification says relative to the Inspiration Slope situation. "Plots" or "land
interests were "recorded " by Green Hills on Inspiration Slope despite the fact that Green Hills
has nothing legal to sell because the City has not given Green Hills the right to "subdivide"
"interment sites" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The City Planners now this;
the members of the City Planning Commission know this; the City Council either knows this or
will come to know this. The Planning Commissioners are concerned. But there is only so much
they can do until the City Council provides the requisite leadership by insisting that the current
zoning law be followed. Green Hills is practicing deceit on the public by recording a document
which purports to subdivide "land" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum when no
such "land" exists. While the law allows and contemplates the subdivision of airspace "within"
(i.e. inside) a Mausoleum, nothing in law contemplates or permits the subdivision of roof
space on a mausoleum building and labeling that "roof space" ... "land" ..... This
Certification is dated May 24, 2016. It was recorded on June 14, 2016, as per the "cover page"
noted below.
3
~fl:;;; ),! on
~ A'.·ff', 0 1)(1
O'f'H~'.I, ' r,~ llO
PAO) lJ OU
! 111111
1
II 11111~11 ~I lrlllll ,fl I! llt~ll 111 ilf llli Ill 1111111 ~I ~,1111111 lll
I lJl!il 111111111111111 ll!JI lllll lllf I l1Jll Iii ill! 11111 IWI JJlll If !li 11~1llil1111
{)0012216922
007611635
St:Cl:
02
DAR ~ Cour.ter (H:u:d Copy)
THlS f'ORM IS NOT TO BE DUPUCATED
!teec:.c.i.f)ticm: Los lUJ·~,rtr.l.eti,CA lloi:=u.1.11ent -1'8.>1K.i...Oc1V 2016, ~-82217 Paqa: 1 of 2
0.t.!.fuL·; l CQ.Ll.Ull&llt;
4
Daily Breeze
Freight train cars derail near "Wilmington refinery
Se ve ral cars of a Union Pacific Railroad train derailed today in Wilmington , but no one was injured a nd no hazard was reported, authorities
sa id. The dera ilm ent occurred abo ut 9:20 a.m. in th e 1600 block of North Alameda Street, accord in g to th e Los Angeles Fire Department. The
ca rs were carry in g unknown cargo in conta in ers, according to th e LAFD . One Ja ne of Alam eda Street was be in g clo sed in the area to
accom modate firefighting appa rat us se nt to th e sce ne as a precaution.Chuck Be nn ett/Daily Breeze/SCNG
By Donna Littlejohn, Daily Breeze
POSTED: 01/16/17, 10:32 AM PST
Several Union Pacific Railroad freight cars derailed Monday morning in Wilmington near the
Long Beach border, but no injuries or hazardous conditions were reported, Los Angeles City fire
officials said.
The incident occurred at about 9:20 a.m. in the 1600 block of North Alameda Street near Watson
Road, where as many as six gondola-style intermodal cars with large containers came off the rails. No
cause had been determined and the cargo contents were not known.
The incident occurred near the Valero Wilmington Refinery.
"There was no leak, no immediate hazard and no call for evacuation," said Fire Department
spokesman Brian Humphrey. Photographs showed cars leaning off the rails.
Some 55 members of the department's hazardous materials task force responded. Port Police
also responded to the line that serves the Port of Los Angeles.
Union Pacific spokesman Justin E. Jacobs said the cause of the derailment is under investigation and
that Union Pacific personnel were on scene Monday.
Traffic lanes were closed on Alameda between Pacific Coast Highway and Sepulveda Boulevard.
On Jan. 12, several rail cars carrying liquefied natural gas from the Chevron refinery in El Segundo
derailed near Chapman Way and Douglas Street.
No leaks or injuries were reported in that incident, but businesses and a nearby recreational vehicle
park were evacuated. The Metro Green Line also was shut down in both directions until crews with
heavy equipment arrived to hoist the cars back upright. A Chevron spokesman could not
confirm whether the tanks had been filled or were arriving to be loaded .
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACTING CITY CLERK
JANUARY 17, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting
Item No. Description of Material
4 Email from Kathy Snell
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, January 16, 2017**.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Takaoka
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170117 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Kathy <ksnellOOOl@aol.com>
Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:20 PM
CityClerk
Subject:
Leza Mikhail; ksnellOOOl@aol.com
Noise Abatement Ordinance
City Clerk,
Please add this to the record this evening for the Noise Abatement Ordinance
Mayor and Council members,
I would like to protect my ability to use my Ford Tractor and all of its attachments, chain saws,
chipper, weed machines and lawn mowers used for fire weed abatement, landscaping and/or post hole
digging on my four acres in Ranch Palos Verdes. I have owned and used my Ford tractor since 1984.
A TV's should not be allowed. One trip with a truck equals 15 trips needed to move the same amount
in an ATV. ATV's are too loud for continual use in any neighborhood. Residents should not be
allowed to use ATV's transporting themselves frequently on their acreage as they are too noisy.
I object to this being an emergency ordinance not allowing me time enough to review the proposed
ordinance and be present for the hearing.
Respectfully, Kathy Snell
Sent from my iPhone
1 4.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACTING CITY CLERK
JANUARY 16, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, January 17, 2017 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
4
5
Description of Material
Email from Eva Cicoria
Emails from: Donald Gonzales; Madeline Ryan; Darin Betta; Robert
and Susan Miller; Paul Gamlowski; Jennifer Taggart; Brian Kemp;
Tracy Burns; Leslie Chapin; Mickey Rodich; Email exchange
between Senior Planner Mikhail and Paul Gamlowski; Letter from
Ken Swenson and Eva Cicoria
Clean line versions of Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 and 2.08;
Email from Eva Cicoria
Respectfully submitted,
T er a Takaoka
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170117 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cicoriae@aol.com
Monday, January 16, 2017 7:41 AM
cc
Consideration and Possible Action to Initiate a General Plan Land Use Amendment and a Zone
Change for an Apartment Complex
Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda and Misetich,
We are not in favor of a General Plan Land Use amendment and zone change to accommodate high density development. This
apartment complex was constructed under the County of LA's jurisdiction and is an example of why Rancho Palos Verdes
sought incorporation as a city.
It is disappointing to see City staffs recommendation not give greater weight to City residents' interest in maintaining (and
restoring where possible) a low-density, semi-rural environment.
Eva Cicoria
1 /.
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:46 AM
Teresa Takaoka
Cc:
Subject:
Nathan Zweizig; Ara Mihranian
FW: RPV Noise Control Ordinance
Please include in late correspondence
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald A Gonzales [mailto:donatogonz@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:44 AM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV Noise Control Ordinance
Suggestions:
1) Prohibit large trucks from "deiseling" when going down hill on Hawthorne Blvd.
2) Step up efforts to reduce peacock population. Throughout the night they make a shrill noise that awakens us.
1 4.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leza Mikhail
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:59 AM
Teresa Takaoka
Nathan Zweizig; Ara Mihranian
FW: Urgent Noise Ordinance
Please include in late correspondence
From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:53 AM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Urgent Noise Ordinance
Hello Leza and Happy New Year
I am in complete agreement with an ordinance that would give relief to some residents
who are exposed daily to loud, annoying sounds.
I can't say that my neighborhood is excessively noisy due to inconsiderate neighbors,
partyers, or low-flying aircraft, but we do endure the daily noise of mowers, blowers,
incessant barking of dogs, and the excessive traffic, which includes 10-wheelers, cement
trucks, and semi-trucks and trailers, but such is the drawback of living on an arterial
highway.
What I would like to see included in the ordinance would be the prohibiting of operating
any mechanical equipment associated with commericial tree-trimming operations that
require the needed chain-saws and chippers on Sundays and holidays.
Too many Sundays and holiday parties have been ruined because of tree-trimming
operations in close proximity and the noise that is associated with the necessary
equipment to get the job done is deafening and can sure spoil a quiet trail ride.
Thank you for the 'Never on Sunday' consideration.
Madeline Ryan
28328 Palos Verdes Drive East
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
1 q.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Darin Beffa <darin@beffa.us>
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:08 PM
CC; Leza Mikhail
RE: Comments on Proposed Noise Ordinance
Apologies for re-sending this, but I typed Leza's address wrong the first time.
From: Darin Beffa [mailto:darin@beffa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:07 PM
To: cc@rpvca.gov; ezam@rpvca.gov
Subject: Comments on Proposed Noise Ordinance
Hello,
I read through the staff report on the proposed noise ordinance and have one comment I'd like to make before the
council makes a decision: It seems unnecessary to prevent residents from using lawnmowers (or, for that matter, leaf
blowers) during normal daylight hours on Sundays and holidays. For some residents, the weekends are our only chance
to do landscaping work on our houses. By taking away Sundays and holidays, it cuts our available time by more than
half. I support a ban on noise that is excessive, incessant, or at night, but a blanket ban on gardening on Sundays seems
like overkill.
Thanks,
Darin Beffa, RPV resident
1 1.
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:26 PM
Teresa Takaoka
Cc: Nathan Zweizig; Ara Mihranian
Subject: FW: Citywide Noise Control Ordinance
Please include in late correspondence
From: Robert Miller, M.D., Inc.[mailto:rpvmiller@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:26 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Citywide Noise Control Ordinance
Dear Senior Planner Mikhail:
On behalf of my wife and me (32050 Pacifica Drive, RPV 90275), we wholeheartedly support the new
proposed noise ordinance. There have been a number of times when we have been negatively impacted by
nearby "event" noise, but, because of the technicalities of determining decibel levels (as is currently the
requirement) we have been reluctant to lodge our legitimate complaints. The new proposal appears to take a
more "common sense", and human-friendly approach to protecting the peaceful environment of our wonderful
city.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Miller, M.D.
Susan M. Miller
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leza Mikhail
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:36 PM
Teresa Takaoka
Nathan Zweizig; Ara Mihranian
FW: Noise Ordinance Question
Please include in late correspondence
From: Paul Gamlowski [mailto:paulgamlowski@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:46 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Noise Ordinance Question
Hello Leza,
I live just across the street from the Terraces Shopping Center on Caddington Drive. On Tuesday and Thursday
the movie theater offers discount days/nights. There is often excessive noise from beefed up cars and loud car
stereos as the traffic gets very busy and awaits the traffic light, especially during those days. Will there be
enforcement of the noise ordinance in our area?
Thank you,
Paul Gamlowski
1 !/
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer T. Taggart <JTaggart@ddsffirm.com>
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:41 PM
Brian Campbell; brian campbell (brian.campbell@cox.net); Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic;
Anthony Misetich; Ken Dyda; CC
Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian
RPV City Council Meeting 1/17 /17, Agenda Item #4 -Citywide Noise Ordinance
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am a resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and write in opposition to the adoption of the proposed
urgency ordinance to establish a Citywide Noise Ordinance because it is poorly written and appears to be
unconstitutional. It needs substantial revisions to be enforceable.
As a threshold issue, the proposed noise ordinance is generally a "nuisance" based regulation -meaning that it is not
based upon certain decibels but upon the enforcing official's discretion as determining whether the sound violates the
noise ordinance. The proposed Section 9.02.030(A) provides that it is unlawful for any person to "willfully make or
continue, or cause to be made or continued, any excessive or unreasonable noise, which disturbs the peace or quiet of
any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing
in the area."
While there are certain enumerated activities where more objective standards are provided turning on whether the
noise is "plainly audible" at certain distances, the general prohibition is vague, ambiguous and subjective. A person's
conduct is judged solely by the subjective opinions of complaining citizens and enforcement officials. The subjective
nature of the proposed ordinance's wording renders the unconstitutional since it is impermissibly vague. A criminal
statutes should be clear and understandable in order to achieve two goals: notice of illegality and clear standards for
enforcement. The proposed ordinance fails to give notice of what is illegal and clear standards for
enforcement. Accordingly, the City Council should instruct staff to revisit the ordinance's language and revise the
proposed ordinance to incorporate objective standards.
The proposed ordinance also appears to violate the right to free speech. In particular, the provision deeming
loudspeakers/public address systems as "loud, annoying and unnecessary" places an unconstitutional limitation on the
right to free speech as well as the provision deeming "yelling and shouting" to be "loud, annoying and
unnecessary." Other provisions of the proposed ordinance appear to do the same. Freedom of speech is a fundamental
right which is not subject to impairment by state action. Git/ow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138
(1925). A municipal ordinance constitutes state action and is addressed by the prohibition of Section 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938). By
incorporating the prohibitions of the First Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment, the same limitations are
applicable to the states. See Saia v. People of State of New York, 334 U.S. 558, 559-560, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 92 L.Ed. 1574
(1948).
Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly
tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to
occur. Additionally, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such
as disorderly conduct or trespass. However, the City of RPV is not proposing reasonable time, place and manner
restrictions. Instead, the City of RPV is proposing restrictions upon free speech and giving unfettered discretion to
enforcement officials to curtail such. Such an ordinance will not stand Constitutional challenge and I urge the City of
RPV to instruct staff to revise the ordinance to pass Constitutional muster.
1 q.
The proposed definition of nighttime to be after 9 pm is unnecessarily restrictive. I would encourage the City to amend
the definition to nighttime to be after 10 pm Sunday through Thursday, and after 11 pm on Friday and Saturday.
The enumerated "loud and annoying" noises of music, musical instruments and radios and "yelling and shouting"
coupled with the unfettered discretion given to the enforcement official highlight the problems with the proposed
ordinance. It is simply too vague and ambiguous. For example, if a resident is watching a major football game on
Sunday and having a party in the afternoon, and the guests yell and holler in support of their team, a neighbor could
complain and the noises may well be plainly audible to the resident's neighbors. If the neighbor is a complaining type of
person, the neighbor may well seek enforcement of the noise ordinance. Is it really the City of RPV's intent to prohibit
residents from enjoying a Sunday afternoon football game with friends?
With respect to proposed amendment to Section 17.52.020(B) of Chapter 17.56 of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code,
the City of RPV is proposing to prohibit all landscaping activities on Sunday or national holidays or before or after certain
hours Monday through Friday and Saturday. The existing provisions have an exemption for typical residential activities
such as lawn mowing and gardening (excluding the use of weed and debris blowers). However, the new proposed
paragraph 2 does not contain any such exemption. In the Staff Report, it is made clear that the intent is to ban the use
of tree trimmers, weed whackers, saws, edgers, wood chippers, etc. outside of the regular hours for construction and on
Sundays and national holidays. It is ridiculous to ban such activities on the very days that most working residents have
to perform such tasks. It means that I will be prohibited from using my lawn mower on Sunday. I will be banned from
using my chipper to make mulch for my garden on Sunday. I urge City Council to revise these provisions. If the intent is
to ban commercial businesses from performing such work on Sundays and legal holidays, then revise the statute to
provide as such. But please do not ban residential landscaping activities and gardening, even if that gardening means
using power tools, on Sundays and legal holidays or even early Saturday morning.
The City states that it has experienced a growing number of complaints from residences. Those complaints are not
tabulated or provided with the staff report. In the review of materials available on line from prior City Council meetings,
noise complaints seem to stem primarily from activities at Green Hills Memorial Park (and seem designed more to
discredit Green Hills Memorial Park than to warrant development of a City-wide noise ordinance), from so called "party
houses" and which were designed to get the City to enact the ban on short term rentals, and from commercial
construction and landscaping activities outside of the permitted times (presumably). The staff report accompanying the
October 18 agenda item identified in addition to the items mentioned previously summarized from correspondence,
complaints related to pool equipment placed prior to setback requirements, or outside of setback (which has no decibel
limitation). The identified complaints do not seem to warrant the overly broad, ambiguous and unconstitutional
ordinance being proposed. The proposed ordinance, if enacted, will give disgruntled neighbors a tool to restrict free
speech and to control their neighbors.
This proposed ordinance, coupled with other recent actions of the City Council are very troubling. In connection with
the ban on short term rentals, various residents were taking pictures of their neighbors, inside their homes, to prove
violations of the short term rental ban. It is troubling to learn of a resident whose had a group of young women visiting
her daughter home from college photographed through the resident's windows by a neighbor -the neighbor was trying
to prove she violated the short term rental ban. The proposed vague and ambiguous ordinance, lacking defined
standards, is the very sort of Big Brother ordinance which should not be tolerated. It will chill free speech because of the
threat of criminal sanctions. It will allow one neighbor to complain about another, and the lack of defined standards will
leave it to the discretion of the enforcement official as to who is right. Such an impermissibly vague ordinance should
not be enacted by the City.
I urge the City Council to instruct staff to revise the ordinance to include more objective criteria and to revisit the
Constitutional issues concerning free speech.
Jennifer Taggart
Partner
Demetriou, Del Guercio, Springer & Francis, LLP
2
915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.624.8407
213.624.0174 (facsimile)
www.ddsffirm.com
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Leza Mikhail
Thursday, January 12, 2017 8:12 AM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
Subject: FW: Proposed Citywide Noise Control Ordinance Considered at January 17, 2017 City Council
Meeting
Please include in late correspondence
From: Brian Kemp [mailto:bk13@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed Citywide Noise Control Ordinance Considered at January 17, 2017 City Council Meeting
Senior Planner Mikhail,
I read the proposed noise control ordinance and feel there is one glaring noise source overlooked in this ordinance -
barking dogs. I encourage the ordinance be updated to include this source of noise.
As a former Redondo Beach resident, I'm familiar with that city's process. The text below is copied from their
website:
http://www.redondo.org/depts/police/police services/animal services.asp
Barking Dog Complaints
Municipal Code 4-24.502 prohibits excessive barking.
-Your neighbor's barking dog constitutes a violation of the law when:
The dog barks more than five minutes in any hour.
--The dog's barking is audible at the complainant's property line.
RBMC 4-24.502
No person shall keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, upon any premises owned, occupied, or
controlled by such person, any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any sound or
outcry, shall result in noise levels at the complainants property line which are audible for more than
five (5) minutes in any hour.
There is also a link for a complaint form to formally document the problem and start the enforcement
process.
I feel their code is fair to both the dog owner and the nearby residents and encourage something like this to be added
to the RPV noise control ordinance.
I read RPV's barking dog complaints page at http://www.rpvca.gov/505/Barking-Dog-Complaints and it appears that
the city is passing the buck up to the county and requiring the neighbors to take court action in our already
overworked court system to resolve ongoing barking dog problems.
Thank you,
1
Brian Kemp
6415 Corsini Place
Rancho Palos Verdes
On 1/11/2017 11 :30 AM, City of Rancho Palos Verdes wrote:
View this in your browser
On January 17, 2017, the City Council will review proposed code language for a new citywide Noise Control
Ordinance.
Click here to view the January 17, 2017 Noise Control Ordinance Staff Report and attachments.
Please direct any questions and/or comments to Senior Planner Leza Mikhail at (310) 544-5224~----~ or
via email at lezam@rpvca.gov
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Leza Mikhail
Monday, January 16, 2017 9:41 AM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
FW: Noise Ordinance
image002jpg
Please include in Late Correspondence
From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 2:22 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Noise Ordinance
Councilman Dyda -specifically requested an ordinance to ban pool equipment running at night. It falls under
"mechanical" Sec. 14, but I don't see set hours of approved operation. Ifl'm understanding the ordinance as whole,
then pool equipment would fall under the hours set for construction. Since most pool equipment needs to run 6-8
hours to clean the average sized pool, those set hours should be sufficient. BUT, ifl am wrong then you'll need to
work on this point for him.
Several of the councilmembers asked about specifying "quite hours", I do not see that in the ordinance. The loud
music or amplified noise was one issue that they seemed to want to address specifically -i.e. late night parties. It
looks like Manhattan Beach and Torrance have a good overall noise plan and specified hours for amplified noise.
**Manhattan Beach-they set specific hours for amplified sounds see 5.48.150
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/manhattan beach/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT5SAHE CH5.48NO
RE
**Torrance -their noise ordinance as whole is concise, but specifically look at 46.5.3
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Torrance/mobile/?pg=Torrance04/Torrance0406.html
I hope this helps!
Tracy
On Tue, Jan JO, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tracy,
Attached is the January 17th City Council Staff Report on the proposed noise ordinance.
Please let Leza and I know if you have any comments or questions.
1 L/.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-522 8 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
~ Do_'t_ou real/'{_ need to prif:JJ_this e-mail?
2
3
From: LeslieChapin [mailto:les.alice@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:52 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Akhtar Emon <alif@cox.net>; Bert Nastanski <nastano@yahoo.com>; Cheryle Ushkow-Kolodny <clushkow@yahoo.com>;
John Spielman <johnspielman@sent.com>; Mac Chapman <chpmn65@aol.com>; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>;
Sharon Fair <sfair40004@cox.net>; Willam Quan <williequan@yahoo.com>
Subject: RPV City Noise Ordinance
Hello,
I have been reading and attempting to follow the updates of the city noise ordinances. I live in Pacific View which includes the 345
homes that surround Hesse park. I am curious as to the status of flying model airplanes and drones at Hesse park? The model
airplanes being flown from the west side of upper Hesse Park are certainly noise level tolerable. The drones are being flown over
the park and over the tops of homes on Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road. I am guessing they are being flown at an altitude
of about 500 feet. I recognize that aircraft model flying enthusiasts certainly need an area to fly their aircraft. The drones are in a
neighborhood "annoying" noise category and it might help if they were limited to the vertical boundaries of the park. I am not
aware that the city has conducted any noise level tests on these drones. These drones are not being frequently flown and maybe
the recurrence is not more than a couple of times a month. Thank you for your efforts to update the city's noise ordinance.
Leslie Chapin
6710 Verde Ridge Road
RPV, Ca 90275
les. al ice@cox.net
1
if.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Monday, January 16, 2017 10:57 AM
cc
Noise Ordinance On CC Agenda 1/17 /17
I am writing this email to express my displeasure at your proposed Noise Ordinance scheduled for
tomorrow nights City Council Meeting agenda. While the intentions may be there to produce a strong
Ordinance, I think it is poorly thought out and poorly written. I have read the Ordinance and would like
to raise the following points:
a) Sec.9.02.050: Assessment of Noise Disturbance is to be made audibly by an enforcement officer.
They will not use noise level measurement meters to determine the degree of
violation. This makes it subject to the enforcement officers hearing level and
makes no sense. Decibel meters are cheap, easy to use, can be easily calibrated
and are accurate. A meter reading eliminates the usual "he said, she said"
arguments. I think there should also be a duration element along with a
distance element. How long can this noise go on before one is in violation and
at from what point will this noise be measured? Will it be a property line or
your bedroom window? This would make a lot more sense.
b) Sec. 9 .02.080: Even in cases involving, for example, mechanical equipment on the roof of a
business, 90 days seems too long to make corrections because there is also a 90 day appeal period
beyond that. To me 45 days would be more appropriate with a 45 day appeal period beyond that. Most
complaints will be for things such as party houses, loud pool pumps, boisterous back yard parties or band
and music noise, which should be corrected on the spot and not in 45 days.
c) Sec.9.02.090; This section header says "Violation-Enforcement and Penalties" but no where do you
spell out the penalties involved for these violations. This Ordinance must include the penalties assessed
based on the violation involved.
d) The last question I have is who will be monitering these complaints?? Will it be the Sheriff or will it
be a Code Enforcement Officer hired by the City? If it is a Code Enforcement Officer, are they full time
or part time? What is the cost associated with this new employee?
As you can see, this Ordinance is supposed to answer all of the issues that come up when we have a
Noise Ordinance and not create further issues.
1
f.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leza Mikhail
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:29 PM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
FW: Noise Ordinance Question
Please include in late correspondence
From: Paul Gamlowski [mailto:paulgamlowski@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Noise Ordinance Question
Hi Leza,
Thank you for the information. I know that Caddington and Terraces are in RPV. However, the loud noise -
similar to the issues on PV East via the Switchbacks and loud motorcycles -is transitory as a driver comes up or
down, stops at the traffic light, and goes. I'm not sure how that would be investigated unless constantly patrolled
and not without taking a lot of time and resources.
I would propose, and I have no idea how to convey this to those in charge .. posted warning signs if the
ordinance is passed, especially in known noisy areas -such as shopping centers, parks, busy streets, etc. No
different than posting Do Not Litter Signs with a penalty fee written on the sign. That way people are aware of
the new ordinance and if stopped and warned or fined, they can't claim ignorance, etc.
Thank you,
Paul Gamlowski
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1 :35 PM, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Mr. Gamlowski,
The new noise ordinance is proposed to be enforced citywide, so it would apply to the private and public properties
within the City's jurisdiction. It is important to note that Western Ave. (the actual street itself) is not within the City's
jurisdiction, but instead under the jurisdiction of CalTrans. Nonetheless, any noise you hear that is generated from
properties within Rancho Palos Verdes (including the Terraces), we can certainly take a look at.
I encourage you to attend or watch the meeting live to see if the Ordinance is passed. If it is passed, contact us when
the infraction occurs and we will investigate the complaint.
1 4.
Thank you for your comments. I will provide them to the City Council in their Late Correspondence.
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
L,, City of <J(ancfw PaCos <Veraes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpvca.gov
From: Paul Gamlowski [mailto:paulgamlowski@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:46 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Noise Ordinance Question
Hello Leza,
I live just across the street from the Terraces Shopping Center on Caddington Drive. On Tuesday and Thursday
the movie theater offers discount days/nights. There is often excessive noise from beefed up cars and loud car
stereos as the traffic gets very busy and awaits the traffic light, especially during those days. Will there be
enforcement of the noise ordinance in our area?
2
Thank you,
Paul Gamlowski
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
cicoriae@aol.com
Monday, January 16, 2017 2:52 PM
cc
Proposed Noise Ordinance
Letter to RPV council re noise ordinance.pdf
Honorable Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda and Misetich,
Please see our attached comment letter.
Ken Swenson and Eva Cicoria
1
Lf.
KENNETH W. SWENSON
EVA CICORIA
28981 PALOS VERDES DR. E.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
(310) 547-5689
January 16, 2017
Via electronic mail to cc@rpvca.gov
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance
swensons athorne@aol. corn
Honorable Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda and
Misetich:
We have reviewed the city's proposed ordinance revisions regarding noise. We strongly
recommend that you do NOT adopt these ordinance revisions as an urgency ordinance, and that
you send this proposal back to City staff for further revision and further public review of those
revisions, given the significant impact this may have on activities of property owners in the City.
We have the following specific comments and recommendations, but in general, we find that the
proposal represents an unduly heavy handed regulation of private property use.
No Emergency Exists.
City staff states that this measure is brought as an urgency ordinance due to a "growing number"
of complaints regarding noise issues and the City's inability under current ordinances to address
those complaints. The mere fact of a growing number of complaints is not sufficient basis for an
urgency ordinance, especially when it means enacting an important overall revision to the City's
codes on noise issues and when an urgency ordinance results in limited public participation and
input. A growing number of complaints does not rise to the level of an emergency situation
requiring immediate government action. Alternatively, if there are specific noise issues that are
being raised and require targeted legislation, the Council may adopt an urgency ordinance on
those issues alone and leave the overall rewrite to go through proper public process.
Sensory Environment Element of General Plan.
The recitals of the ordinance mention that the Sensory Environment Element of the City's
General Plan states that "it shall be the goal of the City ... through proper land use planning and
regulations to provide for a quiet and serene residential community with a minimum of
restriction on citizen activity." [emphasis added] Yet there is no indication that the proposed
ordinance takes into account the latter part of that goal. In fact, in several places, as discussed
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 16, 2017
Page 2
below, the ordinance greatly expands the City's intrusion on normal and customary activities on
private property, even when no noise disruption exists. A noise ordinance that is very strong
during nighttime hours and is somewhat more lax during daytime hours would be an example of
an ordinance that balances the interests in maintaining a quiet neighborhood and minimizing
restrictions on citizens' activity. We would support a noise ordinance balanced in this way.
Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance is not balanced, and is unduly onerous and restrictive of
ordinary citizens' activity. One wonders whether children, let alone adults, will be able to play
freely in their yards, including enjoying pool time (no loud and raucous noise!--Section
9.32.040), without fear of the sheriff calling. Do-it-yourself activities are both a form of
recreation and a necessity for us, yet the ordinance would severely limit our ability to engage in
those activities on our property at reasonable hours of the days of the week when we are actually
home and able to perform such activity.
Section 9.02.010, purpose of the noise ordinance.
This Section refers to "loud, unnecessary or unusual noises" then later to "loud, unnecessary,
unnatural or unusual noises". What in the world does this mean? Some of our do-it-yourself
activity is in fact necessary in order to maintain and improve our property. We do try to be
considerate of neighbors, but we are aware that not all neighbors are considerate of others. There
has to be a balance between competing considerations (necessity of activity versus people who
do not want to hear their neighbors). The proposed ordinance is decidedly not in our household's
interest as compared to the currently existing ordinances, and while it may be convenient to some
and benefit some, we believe it is unduly inconvenient, burdensome and restrictive for many of
the City's residents.
Section 9.02.020, defining "Weed and Debris Blower."
In the definition section, the phrase "weed and debris blower" is massively expanded from its
original application specifically to leaf blowers to now intrude upon virtually every aspect of a
property owner's do-it-yourself activities. It is deceptive to call this category Weed and Debris
Blower since it now means any motorized power tool used in the garden or in the home,
including saws, drills, sanders, mowers, chippers, vacuums and so on. Rolling all of these into
the defined term without changing the name of the term is either designed to mislead the public
into thinking this ordinance is less restrictive than it actually is, or is at least likely to have that
misleading effect. Moreover, not all these tools are equally loud, so it is inappropriate to lump
them all together in a noise ordinance.
Section 17.56.020(B), regarding "construction activities" and operation of "Weed and Debris
Blowers."
The phrase "construction activities" is now added to Section 17.56.020B. Although this term is
not used as a capitalized defined term, it may be fairly read that "construction" in this instance
refers back to the defined term "Construction," which is broadly used to mean all aspects of
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 16, 2017
Page 3
building or demolishing something, regardless of size or complexity. Used in this way, it
appears to greatly expand the scope of illegal activities that a property owner may not conduct on
his or her own property during the hours when they are home and less likely to be working.
The revised ordinance's application of the broad term "construction" and of the broadly revised
Weed and Debris Blower term suffers from multiple problems:
• The principal problem is the severe limitations on a property owner's customary activities
on days which are customarily reserved for recreation and home and yard maintenance
and improvement. The way this Section is written, these common and necessary
activities are more heavily regulated than the far less common and necessary "engine-
repair and testing," which can occur between 8AM and 6PM seven days a week
according to the ordinance.
• Every citizen of Rancho Palos Verdes who is employed in a regular daytime job may
now be limited to home and yard maintenance and improvement activity during a single
7 hour period, once a week on Saturdays. For those whose jobs necessitate Saturday
work in addition to Monday through Friday hours, the proposed ordinance prohibits them
from do-it-yourself home and yard projects entirely.
• This will result in increased deferred maintenance and in a decrease in improvements on
properties in Rancho Palos Verdes because, for a variety of reasons, residents may prefer
not to or may not be able to hire others to perform every task, no matter how small, that
requires power tools around the house and yard. It is also a lifestyle preference to "do it
yourself" rather than hire outside help.
• This Section means that if we rent a tool for the weekend, we can only use it for seven
hours, though we would have to pay for it for the full weekend.
• This Section does not make such work a violation only if it unreasonably disturbs others.
It makes any operation of tools on a Sunday per se illegal. Neighborhood protection and
property owners' rights should be balanced by allowing construction and yard activities
during reasonable hours throughout a weekend and holiday period subject to not creating
an unreasonable, repeated disturbance. That said, it may be reasonable to impose a
blanket restriction on holidays such as Easter Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas
Day, when the likelihood is great that families are gathering in celebration and noise of
machinery would be more broadly disruptive.
We can name numerous projects that would not have been completed had this ordinance been in
effect for the last decade, but one that stands out is the wood and glass kiosk at the Del Cerro
entrance to the Nature Preserve, built by one of our daughters as her Girl Scout Gold Award
project. That project could not have been timely completed with just a few hours on Saturdays.
We need our Sundays and occasional holidays to upkeep and improve our properties. A
distinction should be made between the regular schedule of a commercial enterprise hired for
maintenance and home improvement versus a homeowner's less regular schedule and need for
greater flexibility for maintenance and home improvement.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 16, 2017
Page4
Section 9.02.030 and all subsequent sections that create a subjective standard for noise as
disturbing, annoying or similar terms.
The question here is, who decides what is disturbing or annoying? The ordinance uses the
"reasonable person" standard, but the reasonable person is a mythical legal construct. This is
why most many civil and criminal ordinances go to great lengths to determine an objective
standard of behavior, and subjective standards are usually reserved for only the most obviously
reckless activities. These ordinance revisions remove the City's objective standards of decibel
limits in favor of subjectivity which is poorly defined and subject to abuse both by complaining
parties and by enforcement parties. Many cities and counties use the decibel limit as measured at
the property line, and this ordinance should retain that standard where it already exists and adopt
it where it does not.
Additionally, this Section lists "standards that may be considered" but gives little indication
which way they cut. In some cases, we would like to think it is self-evident, yet we are not sure
based on the totality of the proposal. Is noise produced by a commercial activity preferable to
noise produced by a noncommercial activity? Which is natural; which is unnatural?
Section 9.02.050, regarding enforcement.
While the ordinance supposedly only limits unreasonably disturbing or annoying activities, the
enforcement provision creates only a single process: If the enforcer can hear the noise and
identify its source, a violation exists. There is no room in the ordinance for the enforcer to
exercise the discretion required by the ordinance that the noise must be unreasonably disturbing
or annoying. There is no process created by which the enforcer makes this determination. So,
where is the due process for the citizen who is unfairly cited? How is a citizen to know in
advance what behavior is permissible when the ordinance does not make it clear? How is a
citizen to prove a defense when there is no standard? Again, the standard should be the decibel
level, which is objective and can be measured by the enforcer.
Given the subjective nature of violations, we also recommend that the remedy be a warning for
an individual's first violation for each violation type. If the violation continues, or ceases but
occurs again at another time, then the remedies cited in the ordinance are appropriate.
Section 9.02.040B, regarding horns and signaling devices.
This would appear to make car alarms a violation. The City or County of Los Angeles may have
an ordinance respecting car alarms that exceeds a specific duration, and Rancho Palos Verdes
should consider following such a model.
Section 9.02.040D, regarding radios, musical instruments, etc.
As with other sections on noise, this section should be subject to a decibel limit. Otherwise, all
outdoor music, parties, etc., become violations of Rancho Palos Verdes' ordinance so long as
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 16, 201 7
Page 5
even one person is disturbed or annoyed. It is not sufficient to say that the disturbance must be
reasonable because, as discussed above, there is no mechanism for making that determination
under the ordinance.
Section 9.02.040E, regarding yelling, shouting, etc.
Apparently a child's birthday party or a crying baby are now citable events in Rancho Palos
Verdes, as the ordinance provides no exclusion for any type of human noise as long as someone
finds it disturbing or annoying. Clearly, there would be instances where some types and levels of
human noise should be considered a disturbance, but the City Staff and/or City Attorney should
be redirected to do a better job than this one-size-fits-all overkill section.
Section 9.02.040G, regarding domestic power tools.
This section is in conflict with Section 17.56.0208. Section 17.56.0208 (discussed above)
appears to create an absolute prohibition on the use of power tools on certain days because that
Section uses the terms "construction," which would encompass the use of power tools, and
"weed and debris blower," which is specifically defined to include power tools. On the other
hand, this Section 9.02.40G appears to allow use of power of tools on those very same days so
long as there is not a noise disturbance. The terms of Section 9 .02.040G appear to be more
reasonable and we recommend that Section 17.56.0208 be modified to allow use of motorized
garden equipment and power tools within certain reasonable hours on all days of the week and
holidays subject to not creating an unreasonable disturbance. This would address our concerns
with Section 17.56.0208.
Section 9.02.040H, regarding mechanical equipment.
Why is the noise level here considered at the property line, while the level for other noise is
considered across the property line or 50 ft from the property line or simply whatever annoys?
To this point, why are there these multiple measurement standards at all?
Section 9.02.060, regarding defenses.
Item C in the list should be an exemption rather than a defense. If a device satisfies state law, it
should be permitted, not require a citizen to prove their innocence to an improper citation.
Section 9.02.070H, regarding exemptions.
If all City activities are exempt, what right do citizens have to protect themselves against non-
emergency events where the City engages in clearly disturbing noise activities that could be
mitigated or planned for different times or days? Although the city needs to be able to serve its
residents, this exemption has the strong appearance of "do as we say, not as we do," and
undermines the City's credibility when it comes to noise control.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
January 16, 2017
Page 6
Finally, the ordinance is silent on noise from pets and domestic animals. There ought to be
reasonable regulation of such animal noise. For example, when donkeys bray loudly each time
they are fed, it would be reasonable for a property owner to schedule feeding during normal
wakeful hours, rather than at 4 or 5 AM. Common courtesy ought to dictate that behavior, but
unfortunately some regulation is necessary for those who do not show neighborly consideration.
We appreciate you taking these comments into account.
Sincerely,
Ken Swenson Eva Cicoria
Title 2 -ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
Chapter 2.04 -CITY COUNCIL
Chapter 2.04 -CITY COUNCIL
Sections:
2.04.001 -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
2 .04.005 -Council Responsibilities .
2 .04.010 -Council chambers.
2 .04.020 -Regular meetings .
2 .04 .030 -Adjourned meetings .
2.04 .040 -Special meetings .
2.04.050 -Executive sessions .
2 .04.060 -Term limits .
2.04 .070 -Compensation-Reimbursement of expenses.
2 .04.001 -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (city council) consists of five (5) electors of the city of Rancho Palos
Verdes. elected at large, to serve as the governing body of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes with all such
rights associated therewith .
2.04.005 -Council Responsibilities.
The city council has responsibility for the overall operations of the RPV municipal city government. The city
council may delegate certain matters and/or duties to the [appointed] city manager who serves at the
pleasure of the city council. The city council may take any lawful action which they deem appropriate or
necessary to ensure that the city manager and the municipal organization are fulfilling their respective
responsibilities as city employees pursuant to the rules. regulations. and ordinances of city.
2.04.010 -Council chambers.
The council chambers of the city council shall be located at the Hesse Community Park Building, 29301
Hawthorne Boulevard unless another location is designated by resolution of the City Council.
(Ord . 179 § 1, 1984: Ord . 65 § 1, 1975: Ord . 65U § 1, 1975: Ord. 2 § 1 (part), 1973)
2.04.020 -Regular meetings.
Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at the
hour of six p.m . in the council chambers except as follows :
A. When a Rancho Palos Verdes municipal election is conducted in the city on the first or third
Tuesday of the month, the city council meeting shall be held on the next succeeding day which is
not a holiday .
01203.0001/322169.1 Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Code of Ordinances Page 1
5
Title 2 -ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
Chapter 2.04 -CITY COUNCIL
B. When an official city holiday falls on the first or third Tuesday of any month, the meeting shall be
held on the next succeeding day which is not a holiday.
Only executive or "c losed" sessions and study sessions may be held between six p.m. and seven
p.m . unless a regular meeting is adjourned to or a special meeting called for such time. No study
session or closed session will be held during such hours unless the agenda is posted at least seventy-
two hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 54954.2 of the California Government Code. No
action shall be taken during any study session held between such hours unless the agenda so
provides . Nothing herein prevents a closed session from being held earlier or at another time if the
meeting is properly noticed.
(Ord . 375 § 1, 2002; Ord. 299 § 1, 1994; Ord . 287 § 1, 1993; Ord. 279 § 1, 1992: Ord. 240 § 1, 1989:
Ord. 192 § 1, 1985: Ord. 124, 1979: Ord. 65 § 3 (part), 1975)
2.04.030 -Adjourned meetings.
All meetings may be adjourned to a time, place and date certain, but not beyond the next regular
meeting . Once adjourned, the meeting may not be reconvened . A copy of the order of adjournment must
be posted at or near the door to the council chambers within twenty-four hours.
(Ord. 65 § 3 (part), 1975)
2.04.040 -Special meetings.
Special meetings may be called by the mayor, or in the absence of the mayor, by the mayor pro
tempore, or by any three members of the council, on twenty-four-hour notice, as set forth in Government
Code Section 54956, by delivering personally or by mail written notice at least twenty-four hours prior to
the meeting to each member of the city council, to the city attorney, to the city manager, and to
representatives of all newspapers and radio stations which have requested such notice in writing, and a
copy of the notice shall be posted in the city offices. The notice shall specify the time and place of the
special meeting and the business to be transacted; no other business shall be considered at such meetings.
Notice may be waived by a member of the city council by filing with the city clerk a written waiver of notice;
such waiver may be given by telegram. Attendance at the time and place specified shall be deemed a
waiver of notice of such meeting .
(Ord. 65 § 3 (part), 1975)
2.04.050 -Executive sessions.
All meetings are open to the public except that executive or closed sessions may be held by the council
during a duly called meeting on certain litigation, real estate, personnel matters or other matters as
permitted by law.
(Ord. 65 § 3 (part), 1975)
2.04.060 -Term limits.
A. No person shall serve more than two consecutive terms of office as a member of the city council.
B. For the purpose of this section, a "term" shall mean any period of service on the city council that
exceeds two years, and "consecutive" shall mean immediately following, without an intervening hiatus
in service.
01203.0001/322169.1 Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Code of Ordinances Page 2
Title 2 -ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
Chapter 2.04 -CITY COUNCIL
C. Any person who has served two consecutive terms as a member of the city council shall not be eligible
to serve again until the expiration of at least six months after the end of that person's last term of office.
D. The term limits imposed by this section shall apply prospectively only to those terms of office that
commence after November 4, 2003, the date this section was adopted by the voters. (Measure C,
2003)
2.04.070 -Compensation-Reimbursement of expenses.
A. Members of the city council will each be compensated for their services in the sum of four hundred
dollars ($400.00) per month, which compensation will be a charge against the city and payable in the
same time and manner as salaries are paid to other officers and employees of the city. The
compensation payable to members of the city council may be adjusted in accordance with the
provisions of Government Code Section 36516.
8. The compensation set forth above in subsection A of this section is exclusive of any amounts payable
to members of the city council as reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the
performance of official duties on behalf of the city pursuant to a properly documented reimbursement
request. Procedures for such reimbursement may be specified by resolution adopted by the city
council.
(Ord. No. 500, § 1, 10-20-09)
01203.0001/322169.1 Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Code of Ordinances Page 3
Chapter 2.08 -CITY MANAGER
Sections:
2.08.010
2.08.020
2.08.030
2.08.040
2.08.050
2.08.060
2.08.070
2.08.080
2.08.090
2.08.095
2.08.100
2.08.110
2.08.130
2.08.140
2.08.150
2.08.160
2.08.170
Office created.
General responsibilities.
Council member eligibility.
Bond.
Acting city manager.
Compensation.
Powers and duties.
Council-manager relations.
Departmental cooperation.
Council advice on appointment of certain managers.
Attendance at commission meetings.
Removal-Procedure.
Removal-Administrative leaveSuspension pending hearing.
Removal-At will employee.
Removal-Limitation.
Terms of employment.
Agreements on employment.
2.08.010 -Office created.
The office of the city manager of the city is created and established. The city manager
shall be appointed by the city council and shall hold office at the pleasure of the city
council, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(Ord.19§ 1(part),1974)
2.08.020 -General responsibilities.
The city manager shall be the administrative head of the Rancho Palos Verdes
municipal city government under the direction of the city council except as otherwise
provided in chapter 2.08.070. The city manager shall be responsible for the efficient
management of the affairs of the city and shall ensure that the best interests of the citizens
and businesses are maintained at all times.
2.08.030 -Council member eligibility.
No member of the city council shall be eligible for appointment as city manager until
one year has elapsed after such council member has ceased to be a member of the city
council.
(Ord.19§ 1(part),1974)
2.08.040 -Bond.
01203.0001/322265.6 Page 1
The city manager shall furnish a corporate surety bond to be approved by the city
council in such sum as may be determined by the city council and shall be conditioned
upon the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the city manager as prescribed
in this chapter. Any premium for such bond shall be a proper charge against the city.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.050 -Acting city manager.
When the city manager will be away from the office for more than one day (temporary
illness, disability, scheduled absence, etc.), the city council shall be so notified and the
deputy city manager or other departmental director as the city manager may designate in
writing filed with the city clerk shall be designated and delegated "acting" city manager
authority. If the city manager fails to designate an "acting city manager" the city council
may designate a qualified city administrative officer to exercise the powers and perform
the duties of manager during the temporary absence or disability.(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.060 -Compensation.
A. The city manager shall receive such compensation pursuant to contract or as the city
council from time to time determines by resolution, and said compensation shall be a
proper charge against such funds of the city as the city council designates.
B. In addition, the city manager shall be reimbursed for all actual and necessary
expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties, including those incurred
when traveling on business pertaining to the city and as authorized by the city council.
Reimbursement shall be made when an itemized claim, setting forth the sums
expended for such business for which reimbursement is required, has been
presented to and approved by the city council or to such other officer as the city
council may designate.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 197 4)
2.08.070 -Powers and duties.
The city manager shall be the administrative head of the government of the city under
the direction and control of the city council except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
He shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the city which
are under his control. In addition to his general powers as administrative head, and not
as a limitation thereon, the city manager shall have the following powers and duties:
A. Ordinances. To enforce all laws and ordinances of the city and see that all
franchises, contracts, permits and privileges granted by the city are faithfully
observed;
B. Management Authority. To maintain management control, and provide direction
to all department heads, subordinate officers and employees of the city;
01203.0001/322265.6 Page 2
C. Power of Appointment and Removal. To appoint, remove, promote and demote
all city officers and employees, except for elected officials and the city attorney,
subject to the following, (i) compliance with applicable provisions of the
negotiated employee union collective bargaining agreement then in effect; (ii) all
applicable personnel ordinances, rules and regulations; and (iii) the council
advice provisions of Section 2.08.095;
D. Administrative Organization. To conduct studies and effect such administrative
organization or reorganization of offices, positions or units as may be indicated
in the interest of efficient, effective and economical conduct of the city's business
with concurrence of the city council;
E. Ordinances. To recommend to the city council for adoption such measures and
ordinances as deemed appropriate;
F. Council Meetings. To attend all meetings of the city council unless excused
therefrom by the mayor individually or city council as a whole, except when his
removal is under consideration;
G. Financial Reports. To keep the city council at all times advised as to the financial
condition and needs of the city;
H. Budget. To prepare and submit the proposed annual budget to the city council
for consideration and approval;
I. Purchasing Agent. To purchase all supplies for all the departments or divisions
of the city in accordance with Chapters 2.14 and 2.44 of the RPVMC and to
submit such purchases to the city council for approval;
J. Investigations and Complaints. To make investigations into the affairs of the city
and any department or division thereof, and any contract or the proper
performance of any obligations of the city; to investigate all complaints in relation
to matters concerning the administration of the city government and the service
maintained by public utilities in the city; to create processes to receive complaints
from citizens, vendors, and other aggrieved persons; to report on any
investigative activities and make recommendations to the city council. At the city
council's discretion, the council may decide to conducUoversee specific resident,
contractor and/or other non-employee complaints and investigations.
K. Public Buildings. To exercise general supervision over all public buildings, public
parks and all other public property which are under the control and jurisdiction of
the city council;
L. Other Duties. To perform such other duties and exercise such other powers as
may be delegated to the city manager from time to time by ordinance, resolution
or other official action of the city council.
(Ord. 156 § 1, 1982; Ord. 19 § 1(part),1974)
(Ord. No. 588, § 1, 9-6-16)
01203.0001/322265.6 Page 3
2.08.080 -Council-manager relations.
The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative service of the city
through the city manager. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from
the city council only when sitting in a duly convened meeting of the city council and no
individual councilman shall give any orders or instructions to the city manager. However,
the city council has ultimate oversight responsibility for the overall operations of the
Rancho Palos Verdes municipal city government and may take any lawful action which
shall be deemed necessary to ensure that the city manager and the municipal
organization are fulfilling their respective responsibilities as city employees.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.090 -Departmental cooperation.
The administrative heads of the divisions or departments of the city shall report to the
city manager and shall assist the city manager in administering the affairs of the city
efficiently, economically and harmoniously. They shall be at-will employees without
contracts and the terms of their employment shall be established by resolution or
ordinance of the council.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.095 -Council advice on appointment of certain managers.
Without diminishing the city manager's authority over any employees as provided in
this chapter, the city council shall exercise an advisory function with respect to the hiring
of certain management positions as specified herein. This shall apply to the heads of all
administrative departments of the city including the city clerk and the assistant or deputy
city manager, if there is one. In considering the recruitment or promotion of any person to
any such position, the city manager shall establish the process to recruit and evaluate
candidates, and shall determine the top candidates for the position, and shall provide to
the city council the materials used to make such determination. The confidentiality of the
materials including from the candidate's employer shall be maintained by council
members. The city council members may evaluate the final candidates as determined by
the city manager, and shall consult and advise the city manager as to their evaluations of
the candidates. The city manager may then select the candidate to be awarded the
position. The council may not nominate persons to such positions, nor is the council's
consent or approval required to appoint or remove a person from such position, which
decision shall continue to be made by the city manager.
(Ord. No. 588, § 2, 9-6-16)
2.08.100 -Attendance at commission meetings.
The city manager may attend meetings of any commission, board or committee
created by the city council, upon his own volition or upon direction of the city council. At
01203.0001/322265.6 Page 4
such meetings which the city manager attends, he shall be heard by such commissions,
boards or committees as to all matters upon which he wishes to address the members
thereof, and he shall inform said members as to the status of any matter being considered
by the city council, and he shall cooperate to the fullest extent with the members of all
commissions, boards or committees appointed by the city council.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.110 -Removal-Procedure.
Any city council member may request that the mayor convene a closed session
meeting to discuss the city manager's job performance which meeting shall be noticed in
accordance with state law. Should a majority of the members of the city council decide
that the city manager's job performance does not meet Council expectations, the Council
may initiate a job performance improvement plan or may terminate the city manager.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.130 -Removal-Administrative leave.
After furnishing the city manager with written notice of intended removal, which need
not provide reasons therefore, the city council may remove the city manager in
accordance with Section 2.08.140 of this chapter, or suspend the city manager from duty
by placement on administrative leave, but compensation shall continue until
reinstatement or removal by a majority of the members of the council.
(Ord.19§ 1(part),1974)
2.08.140 -Removal-At will employee.
The city manager is an at will employee and is subject to removal without cause. Any
rights shall be set forth in the city manager's agreement per Section 2.08.160. In
removing the city manager, the city council shall use its sole discretion and its action shall
be final.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.150 -Removal-Limitation.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 2.08.110 (Removal-Procedure) through
2.08.140 (Removal-Discretion of Council), the city manager shall not be removed from
office, other than for misconduct in office, during or within a period of 90 days next
succeeding any general municipal election held in the city at which election a member of
the city council is elected. The purpose of this section is to allow any newly-elected
member of the city council or a reorganized city council to observe the actions and ability
of the city manager in the performance of the powers and duties of his office. After the
01203.0001/322265.6 Page 5
expiration of the 90-day period, the prov1s1ons of Sections 2.08.110 (Removal-
Procedure) through 2.08.140 (Removal-Discretion of Council) as to the removal of the
city manager shall apply and be effective.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 197 4)
2.08.160 -Terms of employment.
The city manager shall not accept outside employment while employed by the city.
The specific Terms and Conditions of the city manager's employment shall be
detailed in a mutually agreed upon Employee Agreement that is approved by a majority
of the city council. Any contract must contain the following:
A The city manager is an at will employee who can be removed with or without
cause, with the grounds for cause specified in the agreement.
B. The city manager can be paid a severance payment for removal without cause
at separation not exceeding the equivalent to the monthly salary of the city
manager times the number of months remaining on the unexpired term of
contract, but not exceeding 18, or as otherwise provided in Government Code
Section 53260, not including benefits.
C. Any severance payment must be contingent on waiving any claims against the
city.
D. The city manager shall be subject to periodic evaluation and review.
E. The city manager shall receive at least the same benefits as generally received
by department heads.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
2.08.170 -Agreements on employment.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as a limitation on the power or authority of
the city council to enter into any supplemental agreement with the city manager
delineating additional duties, obligations, policies or terms and conditions of employment
consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. 19 § 1 (part), 1974)
01203.0001/322265.6 Page 6
1
From:cicoriae@aol.com
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2017 7:22 AM
To:CC
Subject:Proposed revisions to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 and 2.08
Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda and Misetich,
Perusing the proposed revisions to the RPV Code Chapters 2.04 and 2.08 raised a couple of concerns. Green/bold text is newly
added/proposed, red/italic text is old and proposed to be deleted.
2.08.070 - Powers and duties . . .
J. . . . . to create processes to receive complaints from citizens, vendors, and other aggrieved
persons; . . .
I would be concerned that the city manager might create processes to receive complaints from residents that would
limit residents' access to city councilmembers and our ability to keep councilmembers informed.
The code amendment also seems to eliminate the residency requirement for somebody running for city council:
2.04.001 – Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (city council) consists of five (5) electors of the city of Rancho
Palos Verdes city residents, elected at large, to serve as the governing body of the cCity of Rancho Palos
Verdes with all such rights associated therewith.
Eva Cicoria