News

Arcadia City Attorney Responds to Criticism of Council’s Nonpublic Decisions

City Attorney Stephen Deitsch, to the right of Councilmember John Wou says  defends council  and said “exceeded the requirements of the Brown Act…” –Photo by Terry Miller

City Attorney Stephen Deitsch, to the right of Councilmember John Wou says defends council and said “exceeded the requirements of the Brown Act…” – Photo by Terry Miller

By Joe Taglieri

The Arcadia city attorney on Tuesday rebutted critics who denounced the City Council’s decisions to shelve a zoning code update and exclude the Highlands neighborhood from forthcoming historical preservation policies.

“I’d like to address some erroneous conclusions and opinions which I found in a newspaper article [May 15],” City Attorney Stephen Deitsch said at the request of Mayor Gary Kovacic. “In particular the article in my view incorrectly asserted … ‘Arcadia officials violated California’s open meetings law.’ … That simply is not true.”

Deitsch went on to contend that officials “even exceeded the requirements of the Brown Act, which is the open meetings law of California, and the city, in my view at least, acted transparently under the circumstances.”

On May 5 the council convened in a meeting that was closed to the public, ostensibly to discuss its positioning regarding a lawsuit filed against the city by Highlands residents in an attempt to block two council-approved residential construction projects that will replace mid-20th century homes with significantly larger houses. This closed session was continued from April 7, when it was publicly posted on the council’s meeting agenda and included a public comments segment before council members met privately.

However, after Deitsch’s May 5 public announcement which detailed the council’s 3-2 votes on postponing the zoning revamp and corresponding residents committee as well as excluding the Highlands from an in-the-works historical preservation ordinance until the litigation finishes, a number of critics responded with charges of violating government transparency laws.

He provided several examples of public notices and announcements of the April 7 closed session’s continuance to May 5.

“Ample notice was provided and more notice than the Ralph M. Brown Act requires,” Deitsch said.

David Arvizu, who heads the group of residents called Save the Arcadia Highlands that is suing the council, outlined opposition to the back-room maneuvering.

“The policy decisions made by City Council did not qualify as subject matter which can be discussed in a closed session meeting,” Arvizu wrote in a letter to Deitsch and council members dated May 18. “There was no opportunity for public comment regarding these items. Resident April Verlato brought this to the attention of Attorney Stephen Deitsch on May 5 and was told that public comment had been closed on April 7 and there was not an opportunity on May 5 to have any public comment.”

Arvisu’s letter also contends that zoning update and historical preservation action are not related to his lawsuit, and therefore shouldn’t have been used as an excuse to decide on these issues in private.

He further pointed out, “The discussion of zoning updates, historical survey or Neighborhoods Impact Committee were never identified in any notice of closed session from April 2015.”

Arvizu requested that the council set aside their May 5 decisions and move forward with the zoning revamp, a historical survey of the entire city and hold meetings of the Neighborhood Impacts Committee.

“Or … make the recordings of the closed session meeting of May 5 available to the public,” Arvizu wrote, also noting his possible intentions of filing a complaint with the District Attorney or a lawsuit based on alleged violations of California law governing recordings of closed-session activity.

“The city hopes not to have to expend taxpayer funds to defend a lawsuit the city believes has no merit,” Deitsch said. “If necessary as city attorney I am quite prepared to discuss this matter with the Los Angeles County District Attorney.”

Deitsch also responded to criticisms from government transparency activists featured in a recent press report.

“You can’t make decisions that are tangential to the lawsuit because you happen to be in litigation, and you cannot do an end-run around the public’s right to comment or be involved in policy changes just because they relate to the litigation,” attorney Kelly Aviles said as quoted in the Pasadena Star-News.

“The problem you have is that they effectively made three important policy decisions that affect the community, and yet the community was excluded from ever having an opportunity to address these officials before the decision was made,” open-government advocate Gil Aguirre told the newspaper.

Deitsch claimed the council’s closed-session actions weren’t formal policy mandates, but rather “procedural decisions” providing direction for the city’s near-term legislative agenda.

“The most significant error in the article, in my opinion, was the portrayal of the city council’s actions as the adoption of ‘policies,'” Deitsch said.

“The city council merely made procedural decisions concerning the timing of bringing forward to the city council future policy decisions concerning zoning and historical preservation, all in light of the pending litigation,” Deitsch said.

Jessica Levinson, a governance attorney and professor at Loyola University Law School, took issue with Deitsch’s policy versus procedural distinction.

“That’s not the distinction that we make to determine a Brown Act exception,” she said in an interview.

“‘In light of pending litigation’ is the hook as to why they should go into closed session, but it strikes me that the decisions they made, whether structural or procedural seem to be attenuated enough from the lawsuit that they could be discussed in a regular open session,” Levinson said. “The purpose [of exceptions] is to allow for a government agency to make litigation decisions in private so that they don’t have to tip their hand to other side, so that all of the normal evidentiary confidentialities can be maintained.”

The Highlands lawsuit was filed in March, and both sides have pledged to see it through to trial indicating little chance of an out-of-court settlement.

May 21, 2015

About Author

Arcadia Weekly Our team focuses on delivering you the most informative and interesting articles from a variety of sections to keep you well-equipped with everyday knowledge!


2 COMMENTS ON THIS POST To “Arcadia City Attorney Responds to Criticism of Council’s Nonpublic Decisions”

  1. Mark Samarin says:

    The Arcadia City Council members are at best, with a few exceptions, a group of amateurish hacks. They may be much worse. Used to dealing in private to enrich themselves, they solicit private donations for international travel to conduct largely private business deals under the guise of city business, taking family and friends along for a play date. US congressional reps have had to resign for such blatant pandering and some went to jail. At the same time, they turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the concerns of Arcadia residents for Over-Sized homes that are destroying formerly harmonious neighborhoods that were once the pride of the San Gabriel Valley. Arcadia is the only city in the region with loose building codes or without a moratorium on demolition permits while reviewing the code in open forums. Now the city council has voted in private to suspend review of building code updates. Why? The hacks are all connected to real estate development and real estate investment in Arcadia and surrounding communities. Yet they never recuse themselves and have never disclosed their business and financial ties. “Trust us” is their answer. How can we? The City Attorney, a rubber-stamping parrot, is from the same law firm that represented the City of Bell while the Mayor and council members stole millions and voted themselves outrageous salaries. Sage legal advice “Mr. Mayor, do whatever you want, I got your back.” It’s hard not to be pessimistic. Arcadia deserves better.

    • Mark Samarin says:

      Furthermore, City Council’s decision to exclude the Highlands from the city’s Historical Preservation ordinance is either vindictive, stupid or both. Again, the amateur hacks on the city council are doing a disservice to Arcadia. If they were really interested in helping anyone but themselves they would resign. Now that’s something to get excited about. Arcadia deserves better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GET THE AMPS UPDATE

Get the new localized e-newsletter from Arcadia Weekly with news from Arcadia, Monrovia and Pasadena.

We respect your privacy.
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial