CC SR 20150901 M - City Attorney Contract with Aleshire & WynderCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGERkV""
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2015
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT WITH ALESHIRE
& WYNDER
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached contract for City Attorney Services which
appoints David J. Aleshire as the City Attorney and hires Aleshire & Wynder as its City
Attorney to render such legal services as are customary.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In March 2015, a subcommittee of Mayor Jim Knight and Councilmember Jerry Duhovic
directed City Manager Doug Willmore and Human Resources Manager Sean Robinson
to work with them to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for City Attorney Services. The
RFP was issued on April 8, 2015. Six responses were received by the closing date of May
14, 2015. The City Council interviewed three firms on June 10, 2015. Staff also conducted
extensive background and reference checks and the City Council engaged in further
interviews with principals of some of the firms.
At the conclusion of the interviews and investigation, the City Council asked the Council
subcommittee and City Manager Willmore to negotiate a potential contract with David
Aleshire and Aleshire & Wynder to be considered on a future Council agenda for
discussion and possible adoption.
In 2015, David Aleshire of Aleshire & Wynder was named California Lawyer Attorney of
the Year in the category of Municipal Law.
The proposed contract commences on September 2, 2015.
1
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted Amount FY 2015/2016: $ 880,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
BACKGROUND
The law firm of Richards Watson Gershon has provided City Attorney services for
Rancho Palos Verdes since the City's incorporation more than 42 years ago. Carol
Lynch, of Richards Watson Gershon has been the City Attorney for RPV for the last 25
years.
It is normal and customary, for both transparency and efficiency reasons, for a City to
periodically request new proposals for services, even if the City is satisfied with the
service they are currently receiving.
Typically, a City Attorney provides legal advice, legal opinions, and consultation on all
matters affecting the City to the City Council, City Manager, boards, commissions,
committees, and employees of the City as requested by the City Council and the City
Manager. A City Attorney also prepares and reviews all necessary legal documents and
represents and advises the City on pending and potential litigation.
DISCUSSION
Staff issued the RFP on April 8, 2015 with the following proposed schedule:
• RFP Mailing: April 8, 2015
• Submittal Deadline: May 14, 2015
• First Review Ad Hoc Committee: Week of May 26, 2015
• City Council Interview with Finalists Closed Session on June 16, 2015
• City Council Announces Selection: July 7, 2015
• Contract Effective Date September 1, 2015
The RFP closed on May 14, 2015. The City received six responses to the RFP. The
respondents were:
• Aleshire & Wynder
• Richards Watson Gershon
• Jones & Mayer
• Best, Best & Krieger
2
• Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley
• Olivarez Madruga
In analyzing the written responses, the subcommittee and City Manager Willmore
narrowed the potential candidates to three finalists and interviews were held on June
10, 2015. The initial analysis of the written proposals were based on cost, quality,
reputation, experience, and responsiveness. The three finalists chosen were:
Jones & Mayer
Aleshire & Wynder
Richards Watson Gershon
All three firms are highly respected municipal law firms and recognized as among the
best in the state of California. Assuming that all firms worked the same amount of hours
that RWG had in the prior year, a financial summary of the three firm's initial proposals
is below.
1st Year $912,166
$878,630
$960,420
2nd Year $912,166
$935,930
$960,420
3rd Year $912,166
$935,930
$960,420
Total est. 3 -yr. costa $2,736,498
$2,750,490
$2,881,260
In addition, the responses of the above three firms to the City's RFP are attached to this
staff report.
After the interviews of the three finalists, the City Council conducted further interviews
with Aleshire & Wynder and with Richards Watson Gershon. In addition, Council
members conducted individual interviews with David Aleshire of Aleshire & Wynder.
The City Council then asked City Manager Willmore to work with the subcommittee in
negotiating a potential contract with David Aleshire and Aleshire & Wynder to bring back
to the Council on its agenda for consideration and discussion and possible adoption.
During those negotiations an updated rate proposal was negotiated by the City as
shown below:
CONCLUSION
The proposed contract with Aleshire & Wynder includes a possible savings of more than
$60,000 annually if assuming the same amount of hours are worked. In addition, the
proposed contract allows the city to contract with one of the top municipal law firms, and
one of the top municipal attorneys, in the state of California. Obtaining high quality legal
advice is an important priority of the City, and this contract allows the City to continue to
receive legal work of the highest quality and at a slightly lower cost.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not approve the attached contract and continue City Attorney services with
Richards Watson and Gershon.
2. Do not approve the attached contract and direct staff to issue a new RFP.
ATTACHMENTS
Contract Services Agreement for City Attorney Services with Aleshire & Wynder (page 5)
Proposal to provide City Attorney Services from Aleshire & Wynder (page 18)
Proposal to provide City Attorney Services from Richards Watson Gershon (page 84)
Proposal to provide City Attorney Services from Jones & Mayer (page 145)
El
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
This CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
(the "Agreement") is effective as of the Z day of TMO15, by and between the law firm of
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership ("A&W"), and the
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("RPV" OR "City"), a general law city. The term "City"
shall also include the RPV Successor Agency, the RPV Community Housing Authority, the RPV
Public Financing Authority, and all other City boards and commissions.
1. APPOINTMENT
City Council hereby appoints David J. Aleshire as the City Attorney, and hires A&W as
its City Attorney, to render such legal services as are customarily rendered by such officials and
as further specified herein, including attending meetings of the City Council, Planning
Commission, RPV Successor Agency ("Successor Agency"), RPV Housing Authority ("Housing
Authority"), RPV Public Financing Authority ("Public Financing Authority"), all other City
boards and commissions and their affiliated agencies, as directed by the City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing appointment, the designated City Attorney, Agency
Counsel, and any Assistant or Deputy City Attorney, may be established from time to time or
modified by resolution of the City Council. A&W represents that it employs, or will employ at
its own expense, all personnel required for the satisfactory performance of any and all tasks and
services set forth herein. A&W shall not replace the designated City Attorney (or any successors
to such person) without the City Council's prior approval, except from time to time necessary
due to illness or vacation scheduling. Approval of any such temporary substitute, or of any
Assistant City Attorney shall be obtained from the City Manager, and resources will be provided
to the City Manager and City Council if requested. City Attorney may appoint various deputies
as City Attorney deems appropriate, without the need for amendment hereof.
2. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES
A. A&W shall perform any and all work necessary for the provision of City Attorney
services to City, as set forth in the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) Attendance at City Council, Planning Commission, or Successor Agency,
Housing Authority, Public Financing Authority, or other affiliated entities, unless excused by the
City Manager or his/her designee, and other board and commission meetings on request of the
City Manager or his/her designee; and
(ii) Provide legal advice, written legal opinions, and consultation on all
matters affecting the City to the City Council, City Manager, boards, commissions, committees,
officers, and employees of City and as requested by the City Council, the City Manager, or
his/her designee, in accordance with such policies and procedures as may be established by City
from time to time; and
09999.0014/266395.1 C�
(iii) Be available for telephone consultation with City staff, as needed on legal
matters which are within their area of operation; and
(iv) Prepare or review necessary legal documents such as: ordinances, and
resolutions; all agreements of any nature; all real property instruments of any nature including
purchase agreements and escrows, leases, covenants, deeds, easements and licenses; bond size,
amount, and offering terms and conditions; public works construction documents including bid
specifications, contracts, bonds, insurance, liens and related documents; memorandum of
understanding; franchise agreements; and all similar documents; and
(v) Represent and advise City on pending and potential litigation;
notwithstanding the foregoing, it is expressly understood that A&W shall not be responsible for
any pending litigation matter(s) handled by attorneys previously or otherwise employed by the
City until all files have been transferred to A&W and A&W has specifically appeared in the
matter(s) as attorneys of record on behalf of City; and
(vi) Hold office hours at City Hall at a time agreed to with City Manager; and
(vii) Attend management staff and agenda review meetings at a time agreed to
with City Manager; and
(viii) Monitor pending and current legislation and case law as appropriate; and
(ix) Supervise outside legal services, if any.
B. A&W, as a full-service law firm, is prepared to, and will, provide representation
to City in all of its legal affairs, including, but not limited to, municipal law, land use,
environmental, toxics, mining, water, tort defense, personnel, labor representation, code
enforcement, criminal prosecution, redevelopment, housing, cable television, finance,
franchising, contracts, enterprise and other matters, except where conflicts exist or where the
City Council may otherwise direct. The City Attorney shall represent City in all of the foregoing
legal matters, and in initiating and defending all litigation unless otherwise directed by the City
Council.
C. The City Attorney will keep City informed as to the progress and status of all
pending matters in accordance with such procedures as the City may establish from time to time.
The City Attorney is expected to manage, control and oversee the delivery of legal services in a
competent, professional, and cost-effective manner. All legal services shall be properly
supervised and all personnel shall be qualified to handle the work assigned. If outside special
counsel is retained, unless otherwise directed by the City Council, such special counsel shall be
supervised by the City Attorney.
D. All legal services shall be coordinated under the direction of the City Manager.
Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, any legal services can only be authorized
by the City Council or City Manager. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed in any
manner as limiting the ultimate and absolute discretion of the City Council, at any time, to assign
or reassign legal matter of City from or to A&W.
2
09999.0014/266395.1
3. CITY DUTIES
City agrees to provide such information, assistance, cooperation, and access to books,
records, and other information, as is necessary for A&W to effectively render its professional
services under this Agreement. To the extent City desires services to be rendered on site, City, at
City's expense, will make available sufficient office space, furniture, telephones, computers,
facsimile machines, and secretarial support, as approved by the City Manager, as may be
necessary therefor. City further agrees to abide by this Agreement, and to timely pay A&W's
bills for fees, costs, and expenses. In addition, City understands that the fee structure herein
represents a blending of rates, with certain services offered at discounted rates, on the
assumption that, due to the volume of work, other services will be rendered at higher rates.
Therefore, insofar as possible and unless A&W lacks the experience, capability or resources, it is
the intent of the parties hereto that all matters of City requiring the rendition of legal services
shall be performed by A&W. However, nothing in this Section, or any other part of this
Agreement, shall be construed in any manner as limiting the ultimate and absolute discretion of
the City Council, at any time, to assign or reassign legal matters of City from or to A&W.
4. PERSONNEL
In addition to David J. Aleshire acting as City Attorney, A&W will provide the following
additional attorneys to render the predominate legal services hereunder:
David J. Aleshire:
Agency Counsel
Sunny Soltani:
Deputy City Attorney
Anthony Taylor:
Chief Litigation Deputy City Attorney
Elena Gerli:
Assistant City Attorney
Christina Burrows:
Deputy City Attorney
Margaret Rose:
Deputy City Attorney
Colin Tanner:
Deputy City Attorney/Personnel
Glen Tucker:
Deputy City Attorney/Police and Defense
Assignments may be modified as provided in Section 1 above and except as so provided,
A&W will exercise its discretion to utilize whichever attorney(s) (and staff) it determines to be
best suited to its rendition of legal services under this Agreement, consistent with the competent
and efficient rendering of legal services, and with a view toward rendering such services in an
economically efficient manner.
5. COMPENSATION
A&W's fees will be charged on an hourly basis for all time actually expended. The
compensation schedules are set forth in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
In general, the arrangement is that there is a base amount of hours which are significantly
discounted and referred to as the general retainer hours. This includes general services, attending
public meetings, preparing ordinances and resolutions, giving general advice to City departments
and similar services. A higher rate is charged after the retainer hours are exceeded. Special
services, including a broad range of categories (litigation, personnel, labor, redevelopment,
09999.0014/266395.1 %
housing, toxics, refuse, cable, enterprise, etc.), which would otherwise be likely to be contracted
out as special services at higher rates, are billed at a higher blended rate. Public finance matters
are charged on a contingent basis based upon the size of the matter. The specific terms are set
forth below in Section 6 and in the exhibits.
The City might wish to consider a set retainer for general services. We will track the
expenses for six (6) months, or such period as a standard has emerged, and negotiate a retainer at
that time if desired by City.
With regards to conversations with Council Members, these are considered a part of
general services. Conversations shall be related to City business and City Attorney shall report
to City Manager concerning any excessive use of services.
The foregoing arrangement would remain in effect for at least Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and
the following Fiscal Year. However, the hourly rates of the attorneys at A&W are reviewed
annually and, when appropriate, adjusted to reflect increases in expertise as well as other
appropriate factors. Such increases are made on an annual basis, effective as of the beginning of
each calendar year. While the hourly rates for services rendered by individual A&W attorneys
may be adjusted as set forth herein, the "rates" established in this Agreement shall not be
adjusted except as provided here, and only upon the approval of the City Council.
6. BOND OR FINANCIAL SERVICES
Bond or Financial Services shall mean those situations where A&W acts as Bond
Counsel for City with regard to the issuance of securities by City; after review and accord of the
proposed issue by independent review Counsel if selected by City, A&W shall be compensated
for Bond or Financial Services on a flat fee non -contingent basis of Four Hundred Dollars
($400.00) per hour or on a contingent finance option as shown on Exhibit "A". The choice of
options shall be solely at the discretion of the City Council.
7. COSTS AND OTHER CHARGES
A&W may incur various costs and expenses in rendering the legal services required by
this Agreement which, if customary and necessary for the performance of legal services
hereunder, shall be reimbursable by City. These costs and expenses are described in more detail
in Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. City agrees to reimburse
A&W for these costs and expenses in addition to the hourly fees for legal services.
Reimbursable costs shall not include any overhead or administrative charge by A&W or A&W's
cost of equipment or supplies except as provided herein.
A&W may determine it necessary or appropriate to use one or more outside investigators,
consultants, or experts in rendering the legal services required (particularly if a matter goes into
litigation). City will be responsible for paying such fees and charges. A&W will not, however,
retain the services of any outside investigators, consultants, or experts without the prior written
agreement of City. A&W will select any investigators, consultants, or experts to be hired only
after consultation with and approval by the City.
4
09999.0014/266395.1 8
The cost and expenses referred to herein include certain travel expenses; transportation,
meals, and lodging; when incurred on behalf of the client. Except in connection with litigation
(travel costs to court and for discovery are chargeable), these will only be charged when outside
the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside, and only with the prior agreement of City.
Periodically, when on-site, A&W personnel may be required to make local and long-
distance telephone calls, or make photocopies, or incur other expenses on behalf of the City.
A&W will not be charged for such expenses and, in exchange, will not charge the City for calls
made from our office or other locations to the City.
A&W shall scrupulously examine all bills submitted for services tendered under this
Agreement to assure that appropriate billing judgment is employed in billing City for service
hereunder. A&W shall not bill for hours other than those hours expressly devoted to the tasks
approved in advance by the City. A&W agrees it will not bill for time which is not specifically
devoted to said task(s). A&W shall not use legal professionals for secretarial work and under no
circumstances shall A&W have lawyers billing for making copies, scheduling appointments or
taking care of matters or work which would otherwise be work performed by a secretary. The
billing format utilized to provide bills shall be set forth in a detailed format which readily permits
the full scrutiny by any City retained auditors.
8. STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT
A&W shall render to City a statement for fees, costs, and expenses incurred on a monthly
basis. Such statement(s) shall indicate the basis of the fees, including the hours worked, the
hourly rate(s), and a specific description of the work performed. Separate billing categories can
be established to track costs associated with City funding categories or to track project costs, or
such other basis as the City may direct. Reimbursable costs shall be separately itemized.
In consideration for A&W's performance of legal services on behalf of City under the
terms of this Agreement, and upon review and approval of A&W's bill by the City, A&W shall
be compensated at the preapproved hourly rates and for authorized expenses as set forth in
Exhibit B. Payments shall be made by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of the statement,
except for those specific items on an invoice which are contested or questioned and are returned
by City with a written explanation of the question or contest, within thirty (30) days of receipt of
the invoice. Payments made more than ninety (90) days after the due date shall draw interest at
ten (10) percent. Invoices shall be submitted to the City at the address shown in Section 13.
9. PROHIBITION AGAINST SUBCONTRACTING OR ASSIGNMENT
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of A&W, its partners, associates,
and employees, was a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
A&W shall not contract with any other person or entity to perform, in whole or in part, the legal
services required under this Agreement without the written approval of City. In addition, neither
this Agreement, nor any interest herein, may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated,
or encumbered voluntarily, or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors, or
otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Adding attorneys to A&W, changes in the
5
09999.0014/266395.1 (a
partnership, name changes and similar changes shall not be deemed a transfer or assignment
requiring approval of City or amendment hereof.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
A&W shall perform all legal services required under this Agreement as an independent
contractor of City, and shall remain, at all times as to City, a wholly independent contractor with
only such obligations as are required under this Agreement. Neither A&W nor any employees or
agents of A&W shall be considered an employee of City for any purpose. Neither City, nor any
of its employees, shall have any control over the manner, mode, or means by which A&W, its
agents or employees, render the legal services required under this Agreement, except as
otherwise set forth. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of
A&W employees, servants, representatives, or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation,
or hours of service.
11. INSURANCE
A&W shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content
satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement, including any extension thereof,
the following policies of insurance:
(a) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. A policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than a combined single
limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) products
and completed operations.
(b) Workers' Compensation Insurance. A policy of workers' compensation insurance
in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall
indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both A&W and City against any loss, claim or
damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by
or any persons retained by the Contractor in the course of carrying out the work or services
contemplated in this Agreement, with limits of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for
bodily injury by disease, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) each accident/bodily injury and
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) each employee bodily injury by disease.
(c) Automobile Insurance. A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance
written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than a combined single limit liability of
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Said policy shall include coverage for owner, non -owner,
leased and hired cars.
(d) Errors and Omissions Insurance. A policy of professional liability issuance
written on a claims made basis in an amount not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00).
Except for the policy of professional liability insurance, all of the above policies of
insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name City, its officers, employees and agents as
additionally insured. Except for the policy of professional liability insurance, the insurer shall
waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers,
employees and agents and their respective insurers. Except for the policy of professional
6
09999.0014/266395.1 10
liability insurance, all of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be
amended or canceled without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by registered mail to
the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, A&W shall, prior to the
cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section to the
City. Failure to do so is cause for termination.
12. INDEMNIFICATION
A. A&W agrees to indemnify City, its officers, employees and agents against, and
will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to
persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities (herein
"claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of
or in connection with the work, operations or activities of A&W, its agents, employees,
subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein or arising from the acts or omissions of A&W
hereunder, or arising from A&W's performance of or failure to perform any term, provision,
covenant or condition of this Agreement, except to the extent such claims or liabilities arises
from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents or employees.
B. City acknowledges that A&W is being appointed as City Attorney pursuant to the
authority of Government Code Section 36505, and has the authority of that office. Accordingly,
the City is responsible pursuant to Government Code Section 825 for providing a defense for the
City Attorney for actions within the scope of its engagement hereunder. Therefore, City agrees
to undertake its statutory duty under section 825 and indemnify A&W, its officers, employees
and agents against and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits,
claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or
liabilities (herein "claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claims by any person, firm or
entity arising out of or in connection with the work, operations or activities of A&W within the
course and scope of its employment hereunder, but nothing herein shall require City to
indemnify A&W for liability arising from A&W's own negligence, tortious acts, willful
misconduct or legal malpractice. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to provide A&W
with greater indemnification than required by Government Code section 825 or to prohibit the
City from providing a defense with a reservation of rights as permitted by section 825. In
connection herewith:
(i) City will promptly provide a defense and pay any judgment rendered
against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of
or in connection with such work, operations or activities of City hereunder except as specified
above;
(ii) In the event A&W, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any
action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against City for such damages or other claims solely
arising out of or in connection with the work operation or activities of City hereunder, City
agrees to pay to A&W, its officers, agents or employees any and all costs and expenses incurred
by attorney, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not
limited to, legal costs and attorneys' fees to the extent required by Government Code section 825.
7
09999M14/266395.1 11
13. NOTICES
Notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by personal service upon the
party to be notified, or by delivery of same into the custody of the United States Postal Service,
or its lawful successor; postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
CITY: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Attention: City Manager
ATTORNEY: Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700
Irvine, California 92612
(949) 223-1170 (office)
(949) 223-1180 (fax)
Attention: David J. Aleshire
Service of a notice by personal service shall be deemed to have been given as of the date
of such personal service. Notice given by deposit with the United States Postal Service shall be
deemed to have been given two (2) consecutive business days following the deposit of the same
in the custody of said Postal Service. Either party hereto may, from time to time, by written
notice to the other, designate a different address or person which shall be substituted for that
specified above.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION
In connection with the execution of this Agreement, A&W shall not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, marital status, color, sex,
handicap, sexual orientation, or national origin. A&W shall take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated fairly during their employment, without
regard to their race, religion, color, sex, marital status, handicap, sexual orientation, or national
origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, promotion,
demotion, transfer, duties assignment; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff of
termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship. In the State of California, this requirement is an ethical obligation of attorneys in
the management of their firms. [Rules of Professional Conduct Section 2-400(c)]
15. TERM DISCHARGE AND WITHDRAWAL
This Agreement shall continue in effect, subject to modification of fees as provided in
Section 5, until terminated by either party hereto. City may discharge A&W at any time. The
City Attorney shall have no right to hearing or notice, and may be discharged with or without
notice. A&W may withdraw from City's representation at any time, to the extent permitted by
law, and the Rules of Professional Conduct, upon at least sixty (60) days' notice to City.
09999.0014/266395,1 12
In the event of such discharge or withdrawal, City will pay A&W professional fees and
costs, in accordance with this Agreement, for all work done (and costs incurred) through the date
of cessation of legal representation. City agrees to execute, upon request, a stipulation in such
form as to permit A&W to withdraw as City's attorneys of record in any legal action then
pending. A&W shall deliver all documents and records of City to City, or to counsel designated
by City, and assist to the fullest extent possible in the orderly transition of all pending matters to
City's new counsel.
16. CONFLICTS
A&W represents that it has advised the City in writing prior to the date of signing of this
Agreement of any known relationships with a third party, the City Council or City employees
which would: (i) present a conflict of interest with the rendering of professional services under
this Agreement; (ii) prevent A&W from performing the terms of this Agreement; and (iii)
present a significant opportunity for the disclosure of confidential information.
A&W has no present or contemplated employment which is adverse to the City. A&W
agrees that it shall not represent clients in matters either litigation or non -litigation against the
City. However, A&W may have past and present clients or may have future clients, which, from
time to time, may have interests adverse to City, and A&W reserves the right to represent such
clients in matters not connected with its representation of the City, upon securing a waiver from
both the City and the present or future client.
If a potential conflict of interest arises in A&W's representation of two clients, if such
conflict is only speculative or minor, A&W shall seek waivers from each client with regards to
such representation. However, if real conflicts exist, A&W shall withdraw from representing
either client in the matter, and assist them in obtaining outside special counsel.
17. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT AND FORUM
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and performance of
the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of any dispute
hereunder, forum shall be the Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
18. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT; LEGAL REVIEW• AMENDMENT
This Agreement contains all of the agreement of the parties and cannot be amended or
modified except by written agreement. City has been advised by A&W of its right to have
independent legal review of this Agreement and has not sought or relied upon advice from A&W
concerning this Agreement. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect
with respect to those matters covered in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at
any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing.
19. LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
A&W shall demonstrate that the attorney(s) who provide legal services to City under this
Agreement are licensed to practice law in the State of California and, if not, indicate to the
9
09999.0014/266395.1 13
satisfaction of the City Council or the City Manager why such license is not required to perform
the services required.
20. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE
The data, information and reports acquired or prepared by A&W in connection with
matters upon which the City has retained A&W shall not be shown or distributed to any other
public or private person or entity except as authorized by the City Council or the City Manager
and in no event prior to having been first disclosed to the City Council or the City Manager. All
information, documents, records, reports, data or other materials furnished by City to A&W or
other such information, documents, records, data or other materials to which A&W has access
during its performance pursuant to this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall remain the
property of City. A&W shall not make oral or written disclosure of such documents or materials,
other than as necessary for its performance under this Agreement, without the prior written
approval of the City Manager.
21. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTATION
A&W shall maintain complete and accurate records of the services provided to City and
expenses incurred on behalf of City. A&W agrees to assist City in meeting City's reporting
requirements to other agencies with respect to A&W's work under this Agreement.
22. ASSIGNMENTS AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
City and A&W bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, executors and
administrators to the terms of this Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement,
no interest in this Agreement or any of the work provided for in this Agreement shall be assigned
or transferred, either voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of the
City Manager or the City Council.
23. NO WAIVER
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver
of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or
subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver shall be binding, unless executed in writing by
the party making the waiver.
24. CORPORATE AUTHORITY
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they
are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that in so executing
this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.
10
09999.0014/266395.1 14
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
of execution by the City.
Dated: , 2015 "CITY"
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
a municipal corporation
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Dated: , 2015
"ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP"
Jim Knight, Mayor
David J. Aleshire, Esq.
11
09999.0014/266395.1 15
EXHIBIT "A"
FEE ARRANGEMENT
(1) The payment for up to one hundred (100) hours of general legal service (Monthly Hour Limit) shall
be a maximum of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) per month (billed at One Hundred
Sixty -Five Dollars ($165) per hour). This high discount is due to the need to ramp up services in the first
year. After 2 years, the discounted rate shall apply to only 80 hours of legal services. The $165 rate shall
increase to $175 per hour after two years of services (July 1, 2018).
(2) General legal services over the Monthly Hour Limit will be billed at the rate of One Hundred
Seventy Five Dollars ($175) per hour for the first year and increasing to $185 the second year and $195
per hour thereafter (July 1, 2017, through July 1, 2018).
(3) Special legal services shall include litigation matters, public finance, disciplinary actions or
hearings, labor negotiations, redevelopment, housing, cable television, water, toxics, refuse, franchising,
enterprise activities and any major contract negotiation involving more than 10 hours (with City Manager
approval). Except for insurance defense, code enforcement, and public finance, all such matters shall be
billed at the rate of Two Hundred Five ($205) per hour and increasing to $215 after one year of services.
(4) Insurance defense/risk management, and code enforcement litigation will be billed at a reduced rate
of One Hundred Eighty Five Dollars ($185) per hour.
(5) Where there is an opportunity to obtain cost recovery through a private party such as a developer,
the hourly rate will be Two Hundred Seventy Fifty Dollars ($275) per hour or $320 for major
transactions.
(6) If City chooses to use Firm for public finance, the fee structure shall be as follows: (i) For land
based issues (i.e. CFD, Assessment or Improvement Districts) one and one-half (1 '/2) percent of the first
$1 million executed and delivered; three-quarters percent of the next $4 million executed and delivered;
one-third percent of the next $10 million; one-eighth percent of the next $10 million; and one-tenth
percent of any amount over $25 million; subject to a minimum fee of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000);
or (ii) For all other financings the above schedule applies with a 25% discount. In the event that multiple
series of bonds or notes are issued, the foregoing fee schedule would be applied to each issue. Fees shall
be contingent unless otherwise directed by the client. If contingent, payment of the fees is entirely
contingent upon the successful execution and delivery of the bonds or notes to be payable on or after
delivery except for out-of-pocket expenses. In addition to the foregoing, a fee of $6,000 may be charged
if a tax opinion is required. At the discretion of the City, City may choose a non -contingent structure in
lieu of the above schedule at the rate of $400 per hour on a blended rate for all attorney time incurred.
(7) In addition to the foregoing, the Firm would be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses as described
in the attached Exhibit B.
(8) The blended rate for legal assistants (Paralegal), irrespective of matter, shall be One Hundred Five
Dollars ($105) per hour.
(9) The blended rate for document clerks, document litigation specialist and city clerk/election
consultant services shall be Fifty Dollars ($50).
This arrangement shall remain in effect until July 1, 2018 and thereafter until amended.
12
09999.0014/266395.1 16
EXHIBIT "B"
STATEMENT OF BILLING PRACTICES
The Firm's fees are charged on an hourly basis for all time actually expended and are
generally billed monthly with payment due within thirty (30) days after the date of the bill.
However, where contract rates are established, they prevail over design rates. The current hourly
design rate for the attorneys and staff working on this matter will be set forth in the billing
statement. Annually, you will be provided with the prevailing hourly design rates for the
attorneys who will spend the predominate amount of time on this matter. It should be
understood that hourly rates are reviewed, and when appropriate, adjusted to reflect increases in
seniority and experience as well as inflationary factors. These increases are generally made on
an annual basis effective at the beginning of each calendar year.
The Firm will incur various costs and expenses in performing legal services. These costs
and expenses are separately billed to the client and include fees fixed by law or assessed by
public agencies, litigation costs including deposition, reporter fees, and transcript fees, long
distance telephone calls, messenger and other delivery fees, postage, photocopying (charge of
twenty cents ($.20) per page) and other reproduction costs, staff overtime when necessitated and
authorized by the client, and computer-assisted research fees when authorized by the client, all
based on the actual and reasonable cost (mileage, reproduction and other costs are periodically
adjusted in accordance with the Firm's actual costs).
Travel costs including mileage (current IRS rate), parking, airfare, lodging, meals, and
incidentals are charged in connection with administrative or judicial proceedings, or when
traveling outside of Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties. Travel time may also be
charged in connection with such proceedings. In addition, the client will be responsible for
paying the fees of consultants and other outside experts who are retained after consultation with
the client.
The Firm will not charge for mileage or travel time between our office and City facilities,
nor for local telephone calls or calls made to the City. In exchange, Firm shall not be charged for
calls made or received at the City, whether local or long-distance, or for copying charges since
copying onsite will reduce the charge to the client.
The monthly billing statements for fees and costs shall indicate the basis of the fees,
including a detailed and auditable breakdown of the hours worked, the billable rates charged and
description of the work performed. All bills are expected to be paid within thirty (30) days of the
date of the billing statement. In the event any statement remains unpaid for more than thirty (30)
days after the date of the statement, interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (101/0) per annum
shall be due and payable thereafter on the unpaid balance.
Registration fees for attorneys attending conferences and seminars are paid by the Firm
and are never charged to the City (unless expressly requested by the City).
13
09999.0014/266395.1 17
ORIGINAL
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE
CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES TO
May 14, 2015
Prepared by Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Sunny Soltani
David J. Aleshire
w•
ALESHIRE &
WYNDER I LP
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
May 14, 2015
Dr. Doug Willmore, City Manager
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Respond to Sunny Soltani
ssoltani@awattorneys.com
Direct (949) 223-1170
Orange County
18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
P 949.223.1170 • F 949.223.1180
Los Angeles
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
EI Segundo, CA 90245
P 310.527.6660 • F 310.532.7395
Inland Empire
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 520
Riverside, CA 92501
P 951. 241.7338 • F 951.300.0985
Central Valley
2125 Kern Street, Suite 307
Fresno, CA 93721
P 559.445.1580 • F 888.519.9160
awattorneys. corn
Re: Proposal for City Attorney Services to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Mr. Willmore, Honorable Mayor Knight and Members of the City Council:
As perhaps the fastest growing municipal law firm in California, the law firm of Aleshire
& Wynder, LLP ("A&W") is pleased to have the opportunity to submit the attached Proposal in
response to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' ("RPV") Request for Proposal for City Attorney
Services. Our Proposal includes the following Sections:
Section I:
General Company Data
Section II:
Introduction to the Firm
Section III:
Attorney Qualifications
Section IV:
Qualifications - Areas of Expertise
Section V:
Performance — Plan for Providing Services
Section VI:
Current Clients/Conflicts of Interest
Section VII:
Compensation and Reimbursement
Section VIII:
Professional References
Exhibit
Proposed Contractual Agreement
A&W was formed in early 2003 to be a full-service public agency law firm. We have
experienced great success, even through the Great Recession; growing from 10 attorneys to 40,
growing from one office in Irvine, to a second in Los Angeles in 2006, expanding to Riverside in
2012, and Fresno in 2013. The tripling of our client base from six cities in 2003 to 20 in 2015
makes us one of the fastest growing public law firms in the State in the last decade. We now
have more public lawyers than all but three municipal law firms and a legal capability exceeding
all but the largest cities in the State. Moreover, unlike our competitors, we are focused on public
law solely, which has proven to give us many competitive advantages.
09999.0016/252174.1
19
Proposal to Provide City Attorney Services
May 14, 2015
Page 2
Our success is due to a business model focused primarily on serving public agencies, and
includes the following:
(1) Provide experienced and quality lawyers covering all practice areas needed by public
agencies;
(2) Eliminate conflicts by not featuring private clients, nor representing clients who sue
cities; and
(3) Control costs so that rates average below $200 per hour for general services and
below $250 per hour for specialty services.
Our public law practice includes all of the principal areas of municipal law: zoning,
subdivisions, development agreements, environmental review, endangered species, contracting,
leasing, redevelopment (successor agency), affordable and senior housing, hazardous waste,
solid waste, franchises, elections, annexation, law enforcement, public records, public meetings,
conflicts of interest, condemnation, relocation, code enforcement, insurance defense, special
districts, public works contracts, personnel, labor, water, constitutional law, civil rights, and
related areas of law. We also have expertise in certain areas few other public law firms have
such as historic preservation, public finance, energy, utilities, airports, rent control, coastal, oil
fields, mining, and telecommunications. Our existing clients have ongoing projects in all of
these areas. In short, there are few legal issues facing municipal entities which we are not fully
capable of handling.
As City Attorney we are proposing Senior Partner Sunny Soltani, who is City Attorney in
Carson and has served as Assistant City Attorney for various cities including Carson, Signal Hill
and Bell. Sunny specializes in land use, environmental law, property , and regulatory takings.
Her litigation victories include 7 significant published opinions, dismissal of two lawsuits saving
a city client $110 Million, and a jury trial involving 21 consolidated cases on the cleanup of a
former oil field, saving that client $18 Million. Sunny was one of the lead litigators before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, et al, where
the City won an important decision for all public agencies on subdivision issues. In 2012, she
served as counsel for the amici curiae in the seminal case of Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile
Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, wherein the Supreme Court restored an important aspect of
public agencies' land use power's related to subdivisions and the Coastal Act back to them.
Sunny graduated in 2000 Cum Laude from Loyola and was inducted into the Order of Coif.
Prior to that, she received two B.A.'s with honors and great distinction from University of
California Los Angeles in 1997.
Ms. Soltani's services would be supplemented by David J. Aleshire as Successor Agency
Counsel. Mr. Aleshire is a 1972 Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Stanford with a joint Master's
degree in Law and Urban Planning from UCLA (JD '75; MA '76). He has been assistant or city
attorney of 12 different cities and has served as City Attorney and Redevelopment General
Counsel for an aggregate of over 60 years (including Signal Hill (25 years), Palm Springs (15
years), Lawndale (17 years) and Irwindale (10 years)). He is particularly experienced in
09999.0016/252174.1
20
Proposal to Provide City Attorney Services
May 14, 2015
Page 3
redevelopment, land use, and water issues. Mr. Aleshire currently serves as City Attorney and
Successor Agency Counsel to Signal Hill, Banning and Bell. He was also selected by California
Lawyer Magazine as municipal lawyer of the year (2014) for his work in Bell.
We would like to summarize the major reasons for selecting our Proposal:
1) Outstanding Attorneys and Expertise: With the growing complexity of public
law, we felt it critical in creating this firm to find experts in all the fields necessary for public
agencies. Our growth and ability to take on pubic clients both large and small, in geographically
diverse areas, and handle the full gamut of their legal problems, demonstrates that we have
achieved this. The Firm's attorneys have enjoyed long-term relationships with our clients, some
dating back to the 1970s.
2) Costs: The Great Recession has been hard on all cities and costs have become a
huge challenge for everyone. Fundamentally, we left the biggest law firm in Orange County
because the cost structure there did not allow us to bid competitive rates for many public clients.
The fact that in 6 years we've gained 12 new public clients in the midst of this recession, shows
that our rate structures are extremely competitive. Generally our rates can be 20% below other
comparable firms. We cannot emphasize too much that while other firms might not want costs
to be a key criterion in awarding contracts, it is a key part of our proposal and economic success.
3) Bringing Quality Legal Services to Small Jurisdictions: With the breadth of our
expertise and focus on public law, we have established cost structures which the large firms we
compete with cannot match. However, we bring a quality of lawyers which can go toe to toe
with the state's largest firms. Two recent examples just happen to involve the firm of Latham
and Watkins, one of LA's premier blue chip firms. In four years of litigation to compel the
Water Replenishment District to comply with Proposition 218, we won and eventually settled
receiving $9.1 million in damages. Our legal fees over four years were $2.3 million, but in 10
months Latham charged WRD $5 million (see article). Meanwhile, in representing Carson, we
recently negotiated a transaction for a $1.8 billion NFL stadium where the lawyers on the other
side were Latham and Allan Matkins. This has allowed us to acquire clients outside of the urban
core, even small cities. For example, in the Santa Paula Valley we represent Fillmore; in the
delta area we have the city of Suisun City; in the Central Coast, Morro Bay and Lompoc; in the
Central Valley, Arvin; and in the high desert, Yucca Valley. Larger firms cannot economically
service these cities, and yet in the increasingly complex world of public law, these entities need
the services of a full service public law firm. This has allowed us to establish a statewide
practice firm and we plan on making Ventura County a key to our growth.
4) Public Service Passion: No firm has a stronger commitment to public service
than A&W. This is perhaps most effectively referenced by pointing to one of our clients, the
City of Bell. When the scandals were revealed by the LA Times in 2010, our firm volunteered to
represent the community group undertaking the recall on a pro hono basis. We felt someone in
the public arena needed to participate in the correction of the injustice. We provided over
09999.0016/252174.1
21
Proposal to Provide City Attorney Services
May 14, 2015
Page 4
$70,000 in free services to a recall effort which gathered 4000 signatures in 30 days. The recall
effort was rewarded in the March 2011 election when the whole Council was replaced. We
insisted on competitive process for the position of City Attorney and were selected 5 months
later. The City has had an incredible array of legal issues including fighting with some of the
biggest law firms in the state - one matter alone involved a default on a $35M bond issue and
investigations by the IRS, and former employees were seeking $6M in unfunded pensions based
on their excessive salaries. In one year we recovered $7 million for the City in malpractice
actions again the City Attorney and audit firm and in insurance recoveries. Some $75M in
claims against the City were eliminated. Last year we took the City from the brink of insolvency
when we brought in $25M to the City; and these efforts were recognized when we received the
California Lawyers recognition as municipal lawyers of the year.
We think while some of our competitors can score highly on some of the above criteria,
we think that no other firm can offer the above combination of strengths. We hope that in
reviewing our Proposal, the above factors will be apparent, and that in the end you will look
favorably on our Proposal.
In closing, we see RPV as a City which has always been a leader in its area; a community
still based on its core values and economics. We believe your legal needs are varied and you are
a perfect match for our firm philosophy, which combines all municipal disciplines in a cost-
effective structure. RPV offers the unique opportunity for a partnership where we can together
prove that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.
We look forward to addressing all the questions you may have concerning our Proposal.
Very truly yours,
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
David J. Aleshire
Managing Partner
DJA:sgf
09999.0016/252174.1
22
09999.0016/252174.1
1
23
TABLEOF CONTENTS
I.
GENERAL COMPANY DATA............................................................................
II.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRM
Philosophy of the Firm - Why You Should Hire Us ..........................................
2
MissionStatement..............................................................................................
2
HowWe Control Costs......................................................................................
4
III.
ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS
Introduction to the Team....................................................................................
6
No Complaints or Malpractice...........................................................................
6
Individual Attorney Qualifications/Resume
SunnySoltani.........................................................................................
7
DavidJ. Aleshire....................................................................................
9
Christina Burrows..................................................................................
10
Christopher Neumeyer...........................................................................
11
JamesJ. McGrath...................................................................................
12
ColinJ. Tanner.......................................................................................
13
GlenE. Tucker.......................................................................................
15
AnitaLuck.............................................................................................
16
IV.
QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Areasof Expertise..............................................................................................
18
LandUse & Zoning.....................................................................................
20
Labor Relations and Employment Law .......................................................
21
Conflicts of Interest/Ethics..........................................................................
22
Elections.......................................................................................................
23
CodeEnforcement.......................................................................................
24
Property Acquisition and Condemnation.....................................................
24
Franchisesand Utilities................................................................................
25
Successor Agency/Housing.........................................................................
26
Environmental (CEQA) and Toxics.............................................................
28
Risk Management & Torts...........................................................................
30
Litigation......................................................................................................
32
SolidWaste..................................................................................................
32
RentControl.................................................................................................
32
Water............................................................................................................
33
California Joint Power Insurance Authority ................................................
34
V.
PERFORMANCE — PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
OfficeStaffing..................................................................................................
35
Timeliness and Response Timeframes..............................................................
35
Reports and Requests for Services.....................................................................
36
Computer Resources..........................................................................................
36
09999.0016/252174.1
1
23
VI. CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
Conflictsof Interest........................................................................................... 38
Current Public Agency Clients.......................................................................... 38
Professional Commitments................................................................................ 39
VII. COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT
General............................................................................................................... 40
Fee Proposal/Hourly Rates................................................................................ 40
GeneralServices.......................................................................................... 41
SpecialServices........................................................................................... 41
Cost Reimbursement & Training..................................................................... 41
Statement of Fee Arrangement, Exhibit A .................................................. 42
Statement of Billing Practices, Exhibit B .................................................... 43
VIII. PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES...................................................................... 44
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Attorney Qualifications Chart......................................................... 46-49
Exhibit B: Proposed Contractual Agreement ................................................... 50-58
09999.0016/252174.1
11
24
I GENERAL COMPANY DATA
I.
GENERAL COMPANY DATA
A. OFFICIAL NAME AND ADDRESS
Main Office
Aleshire &Wynder, LLP
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 223-1170
B. NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 223-1170 [office]
(949) 250-5407
ssoltani@awattomeys.com
C. TYPE OF ENTITY
Limited Liability Partnership
D. FIRMS FEDERAL I.D. NUMBER
Tax ID: 55-0814676
09999.0016/252174.1 -1-
25
II.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRM
A. PHILOSOPHY OF THE FIRM OF THE FIRM - WHY YOU SHOULD HIRE US
We exist to provide the highest possible quality of legal services to public agencies at a
reasonable cost. We have invested a great deal of thought and energy into carrying out that very
simple -sounding statement, as we hope you will see below and throughout this Proposal.
A number of our attorneys have over 20 or even 30 years of public service, and
collectively our attorneys have worked for a majority of the major municipal law firms in
Southern California. Individually and collectively, we love public service. We enjoy the
complexity and variety of issues, including unique areas of law such as land use, constitutional,
employment, and environmental law. We also enjoy the dynamic of the political process and
working with elected officials and professional staff who are similarly motivated to serve the
public. Above all, we have a deep appreciation for democratic values and processes at the local
level.
In our years with other firms we came to conclude that none of them had the same vision
we did concerning how to provide legal services to municipalities at a reasonable cost. We found
that some small law firms had only one or two experienced practitioners without a group of
specialists who were able to handle the wide variety of their clients' legal needs. We also found
that the larger firms had high quality personnel and excellent specialists, but their increasing cost
structures forced them to push their rates up to unsustainable levels, or to represent private
developer clients whose interests were adverse to cities.
At A&W we have been successful in balancing these issues. We have established a clear
set of goals. We carefully seek out and hire high quality attorneys who enjoy what we do. And
with a great appreciation that our clients are stewards of public tax dollars, we pay careful
attention to the economics of our practice so that we can provide excellent services at a
reasonable cost.
We have even found that our approach can be superior to an in-house operation where
specialized services are contracted out. We have priced our services so that our general services
are price -competitive with in-house services, and due to volume, we can price our specialized
services below what most outside firms charge for such services. Thus, we have replaced in-
house operations, reduced overall legal costs and increased accountability. This is explained
further om Section V of this Proposal.
B. MISSION STATEMENT
Our mission is to deliver to our clients the following (our seven critical values):
1. Expertise: We are public law specialists, and our expertise encompasses virtually
all areas of law that may be presented to a public agency. For example, we have handled all the
legal affairs for full-service cities with their own police and fire departments, their own risk
-2-
09999/0016/164800.03
26
II INTRODUCTION TO THE FiRm
management and code enforcement, and with an airport, convention center, wastewater treatment
plant, cogeneration plant, and 36 -hole golf course facilities.
2. Accountability: Accountability means not only achieving a good result, but
doing so at a reasonable cost to the client. A case or transaction must be evaluated early. The
determination must be made if a litigation matter is winnable and at what cost. If a lawsuit must
be settled, then it should be settled early. If the client determines to "litigate," then we accept
responsibility to make sure our advice is clear and strategies are cost effective. Our clients have
rarely been surprised by the outcome of a lawsuit or outcome of a negotiation, either by the
results or the cost. In short, accountability requires management.
3. Cost Control: Cost control requires clear mechanisms for receiving and
reporting on assignments, supervising the attorney work to prevent excessive time, using
paralegals on appropriate assignments, and cost recovery from developers whenever possible.
Another even more important measure is preventive counseling: identifying issues which need to
be remedied before they turn into litigation and handling disputes so they are resolved early and
by informal means.
4. Focus and Timeliness: We are not a large bureaucracy. Our attorneys enjoy a
collaborative working relationship with each other and with the clients of the Firm. Each client
is vital to us; we focus on their needs and no one gets "lost in the shuffle." We believe that, as a
medium size law firm, we can offer focus in lieu of bureaucracy, timeliness rather than delay,
and a consistent "team" of known attorneys rather than just a group of researchers.
5. Creativity: Focus makes us results -oriented. We view our legal services to be a
part of a problem -solving team. As members of that team, it is our obligation to be creative and
help find winning solutions, not simply give reasons why something can't be done.
6. Integrity and Impartiality: As participants in the democratic process and as
"officers of the court," we play a critical role in protecting the integrity of governmental decision
making. In many ways city/agency counsel acts as "umpire." The attorney must remain
independent, while at the same time being sensitive to the political process but not controlled by
it. The attorney must also make sure that the organization's procedures are fair for all.
7. Commitment: We are passionate about the practice of public law, and
committed to working as a member of the management team that assists elected and appointed
officials in meeting the needs of each community. To demonstrate our commitment to our public
clients, we do not represent private clients in litigation against municipalities. We have no
divided loyalty.
Our commitment to the City organization is demonstrated by our ability to function as a
part of the City team. This is done by being responsive to staff deadlines, being creative and
helpful, by anticipating difficulties and problems and being a "counselor," by not being
defensive and seeking to shift blame, by being honest and demonstrating integrity. Our
commitment to community is shown by taking an interest in the community, by being a
participant in events and activities. Commitment, in all its varied forms, we believe to be the
most critical element of our success.
09999.0016/252174.1 -3-
27
II INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRM
C. HOW WE CONTROL COSTS
Because costs are so important to us, this is a matter we cover in this introduction. A
critical part of our formula is cost control. As stated earlier, private clients now routinely pay
rates from $300 to $500 per hour for attorney services. The larger firms attract this business and
their cost structures are adjusted to these rates. Meanwhile cities are operating in a different cost
world. This is the world we choose to operate in. We must be cost competitive and not price
ourselves out of the market as the larger firms are doing. This involves a multifaceted strategy
which includes the following:
1. Require attorneys to be hard-working and productive.
2. Keep the rate for basic services deeply discounted.
3. Attract the special services which can be billed at a higher rate to offset the low
base rates, but still keep the special service rates lower than what special counsel
would charge.
4. Hire productive clerical staff and do not overstaff.
5. Keep space leasing costs under control.
6. Utilize technology to reduce labor costs.
The goal is to create 20+ year client relationships. This cannot happen if legal costs are
excessive because with municipal budgets subject to public scrutiny, legal costs will always be a
target. It is our job to keep these costs under control. Thus, the above strategic plan is
implemented through specific measures. Our top 10 list is:
1. Make sure assignments are clear, both from the client and to the attorney doing
the work. Is the client asking the right questions? Is research necessary? Is there
a practical solution not requiring research? What precisely is the issue to
research?
2. Do not get multiple attorneys involved in a matter.
3. Use paralegals when possible.
4. Develop expertise and concentrate assignments so that the attorney develops the
necessary background to operate independently and without having to research
each issue.
5. Monitor performance by asking for reports from the attorneys and reviewing
monthly statements.
6. Develop and use form documents as much as possible (contracts, leases,
easements, etc.) and provide documents for staff use from our extensive library.
7. Spread the cost of research and drafting memoranda among multiple clients with
the same issues.
8. Assist clients in avoiding disputes with other parties. If you are headed for a
dispute, be very clear in your advice to the council and staff. Put your advice in
writing. Evaluate the likelihood of success and cost of the dispute and present
this to the decision -maker.
9. Look for opportunities for cost recovery against third parties whenever possible.
10. Review overall monthly bills against the budget and write off time when
necessary. Remember that you are looking for a long-term relationship so short-
term losses may be warranted to preserve the long-term relationship.
09999.0016/252174.1 -4-
28
II INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRM
As illustrations of these practices, in 1990 we became City Attorney of Palm Springs.
The City had always had an in-house City Attorney with five people in the City Attorney's office
and an overall budget of $1.2M. The City was contracting with 32 outside law firms. Over a
period of some six years we reduced costs to about $800,000 and by 2000, costs had only risen to
$1.1 M, still under the budget of 10 years previously. Had the legal budget gone up by CPI, it
would have been $1.7M in 2000. Moreover, over the 10 year period, our rates increased at about
half the rate of employee wage increases.
Similarly, in the City of Perris, over a three year period when the City was in financial
difficulty verging on bankruptcy, we were able to reduce the legal budget from $600,000 to
approximately $200,000 while still adequately addressing the client's legal needs. When we
took over Hesperia in 2007 there were over 30 litigation matters and now six years later there are
none.
We took over in Carson from a major downtown law firm. Over the first three years our
costs declined by 30% and are now $1M per year less than the annual cost of the former City
Attorney firm. Our litigation costs have declined by 40% as we managed the significant case
load and resolved outstanding matters.
More recently we took over in the City of Bell which has received national notoriety
from scandals involving its former officials. The City is mired in a multitude of complex
litigation matters. In the year prior to our hiring the prior firm charged the City over $2M in
legal fees. In our first year we reduced costs to $1.2M and in the second year agreed to defer
$1M of our legal fees until we had recovered funds. We have had not a single adverse decision:
recovered over $7M from prior insurance, accounting, and law firms; recovered $4M from a
retirement fund under funded by $3M, defeated claims by former public officials for over $6M in
unfunded pensions and an equal amount of legal fees; and blocked foreclosures on City property
- at effective rates of less than $170 per hour. A $35M claim by Dexia against the City in a bond
transaction was resolved by finding a developer willing to pay $17M for the property and getting
the property entitled in six months. (See Section VI, G)
These practices prove that our theories and methods work and help explain our
extraordinary stability with our clients. We invite you to confirm this by talking to our clients.
09999.0016/252174.1 -5-
29
III.
ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
A. INTRODUCTION TO THE TEAM
In recognition of the City's needs for experienced legal counsel, we are offering Partners
Julie Biggs as City Attorney and Adrian Guerra as Assistant City Attorney. Julie's expertise in
public, land use, and municipal organization and Christy's expertise in litigation, CEQA,
personnel, and planning, we believe, present a good team to assure the City of consistent and
solid advice.
The complete team consists of the following attorneys:
City Attorney......................................................................
Sunny Soltani
Senior Resource Advisor ....................................................
David J. Aleshire
Assistant City Attorney.......................................................
Christina Burrows
Deputy Asst. City Attorney ................................................
Chris Neumeyer
Litigation.............................................................................
James McGrath
Personnel and Labor...........................................................
Colin J. Tanner
Risk Management...............................................................
Glen E. Tucker
Public Finance Counsel ......................................................
Anita Luck
All of the foregoing attorneys, and indeed all of the attorneys at the Firm, are properly
licensed to practice law in California. This team of public law professionals combines for over
100 years of experience and expertise in virtually every facet of municipal and redevelopment
law. None of the attorneys has ever had a malpractice claim or been subject to a State Bar
complaint.
We propose a team approach to providing the City's legal services. The City Attorney
will be fully involved in all matters but an assistant is also delegated to be principally involved
so that the client can always get a prompt definitive opinion. There are also specialists in areas
such as personnel and conflicts of interest who can directly address issues. Moreover, the
information requested by the RFQ is detailed in the Table of Attorney Qualifications attached
hereto as Exhibit B. We also have specialists in CEQA, condemnation, telecommunications and
other areas which are shown in the Summary of Qualifications in section C below. We believe
our "team" approach will assure the City that Aleshire & Wynder can provide the full array of
legal services that you may require.
B. NO COMPLAINTS OR MALPRACTICE
Neither Aleshire & Wynder nor any of its attorneys has ever been sued by anyone for
malpractice, been the subject to a State Bar complaint or had discipline imposed by the State Bar.
This record demonstrates our strong ethics and positive client relationships.
-6-
09999/0016/164800.03
6_09999/0016/164800.03
30
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
SANAZ "SUNNY" K. SOLTANI
Sunny Soltani is a partner and a founding member of the Firm.
PRACTICE AREAS
She specializes in land use, environmental law, property
State Bar of California
Environment & Natural Resources
acquisition and regulatory takings. Her litigation victories
Due to her successful litigation record, Sunny has been
Housing
include 7 significant published opinions, dismissal of two
US District Court, Eastern, CA
Land Use & Zoning
lawsuits saving a city client $110 Million, and a jury trial
➢
Mobilehome Parks & Rent Control
involving 21 consolidated cases on the cleanup of a former oil
Foreign Languages
Property Acquisition & Takings
field, saving that client $18 Million. She currently serves as
%=
Public Agency Organization
City Attorney in the C ity of Carson where she is one of the
r
Toxics & Hazardous Waste
lead negotiations on the Carson NFL stadium deal. Sunny also
Sunny has successfully negotiated various Remedial Action
assists her clients in legislation solutions.
PUBLIC OFFICES
successfully represented her clients in various CEQA
Cite Attorney
Sunny has been invited and has served as a speaker on several
amendments.
City of Carson
occasions for Lorman Education on "Litigation Skills for the
Legal Profession". She has also been a speaker at the annual
Assistant City Attorney
California Bar Association Conference on "conflict of
N City of Bell
interest" issues. She is admitted to practice before the United
States Supreme Court. In 2011, Sunny was one of the lead
t'eneral Coa�nsel
litigators before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Colony
9 Carson Rent Control Review Board
Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, et al, where the City
N Carson Successor Agency Counsel
won an important decision for all public agencies on rent
• Carson Housing Authority
control issues. In 2012, she served as counsel for the amici
EDt CATION
curiae in the seminal case of Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile
Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, wherein the Supreme
000
Loyola Law School, fth e Coif, St
magna cum laude, Order 2 the
Court restored an important aspect of public agencies' land use
Thomas More Law Honor Society
power's related to subdivisions and the Coastal Act back to
University of CA, Los Angeles
them.
BA 1997
Sunny's litigation skills are a great asset to the clients she
ADMISSIONS
advises on transactional matters.
State Bar of California
➢ United States Supreme Court
Due to her successful litigation record, Sunny has been
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
recruited and serves as special counsel on land use issues,
US District Court, Eastern, CA
including subdivisions and regulatory takings cases, to Cities
US District Court, Northern, CA
of Chino, Palm Desert and Palm Springs. Sunny assists her
' US District Court, Central, CA
clients with general plans and codes, zoning, public parks,
Foreign Languages
subdivisions and complex real property acquisitions and
Farsi
conveyances. She regularly assists her municipal clients with
the Political Reform Act (conflicts of interest), Brown Act
(public meeting laws), Public Records Act and elections laws.
Sunny has successfully negotiated various Remedial Action
Plans with DTSC and the Regional Water Board. She has also
successfully represented her clients in various CEQA
challenges to development plans and/or general plan
amendments.
09999.0016/252174.1 -7-
31
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
Sunny represented the Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency in a cleanup of a former oil field and
redevelopment with an expansion of the Signal Hill Auto Center. This project also resulted in a trial
involving 21 consolidated cases. The Agency condemned approximately 30 parcels of undeveloped oil
field property for redevelopment of a car dealership. Four settled; the remaining 21 proceeded to trial as a
group. Sunny also served as the lead litigator at the time of trial. Issues at the time of trial included: (a)
right to take, (b) environmental contamination, (c) the cost of abandoning or re -abandoning oil wells, (d)
the right to and the impact on value of the right of an oil production company to use the surface of the
property for oil exploration and drilling purposes, (e) the impact on the value of some of the parcels due to
their proximity to a known earthquake fault, and (f) reasonable probability of assemblage of multiple
parcels under separate ownership for joint development. The jury returned verdicts on the properties only a
small percentage above the Agency's appraised values and about 80% less than the property owners'
appraised values. The verdicts saved the Agency over 18 million dollars.
In 2006 Sunny won, on a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Government Code § 1090 matter on behalf of
City of Carson where a developer had paid a bribe to receive an $850,000 loan from the City for a 30 year
low-income housing project. The developer disgorged the entire $850,000 benefit he received to the City
and the City kept the benefits of the 30 year low-income housing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, in yet
another published opinion, in its entirety, the lower court's decision and the California Supreme Court
denied the developer's petition for review. In the same year, Sunny successfully finished a 4 week long
federal jury trial in the Los Angeles Central District Court where a developer had sued the Carson
Redevelopment Agency for $21,000,000 for a failed exclusive right to negotiate.
Sunny represented a Water District in Sacramento, where the County of Sacramento was challenging the
Water District's authority to issue bonds and certificates of participating in the amount of $25,000,000.
Sunny obtained a favorable ruling for the Water District in the very early stages of the proceedings. She
obtained a ruling dismissing, with prejudice, thirteen of the County's fourteen causes of action against the
Water District, thereby enabling the District to proceed with the issuance of bonds.
In 2013, she took the lead in assisting Carson in restoring important regulatory powers back to cities by the
passage of SB 510 signed in to law by governor Brown. SB 510 was enacted after a decade of court battles
up and down the state involving more than 25 municipalities and a veritable host of mobilehome park
owners. Many of the lawsuits filed against local governments have cost public agencies hundreds of
thousands of dollars in legal fees and have exposed them to millions of dollars of regulatory taking
damages lawsuits. This new law ends these unwarranted legal exposures.
Sunny graduated from Loyola Law School, magna cum laude, in 2000 where she was inducted into the
Order of the Coif. Sunny received two B.A.'s with honors and great distinction from University of
California Los Angeles in 1997. In 1999, Sunny clerked for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt in United
States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Her published opinions include the following:
Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 783
• Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, et al. (9th Cir. 2011) 640 F.3d 948, Case No. 09-57039
[petition for review denied]
• City of Perris v. Stamper, et al (2013) 218 Cal.AppAth 1104 [petition for review granted - pending]
Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 840 [petition for review
denied]
• Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 1487; [petition for review
denied]
• Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 103 8 [petition for review denied]
• Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1323
09999.0016/252174.1 -8- 32
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
DAVID J. ALESHIRE
Dave Aleshire has been practicing municipal law, environmental, PRACTICE AREAS
redevelopment, franchising, municipal, and zoning and land use law
since graduating from UCLA with a J.D. in 1975 and M.A. in urban Y Practice Areas
planning in 1976. Mr. Aleshire graduated Phi Beta Kappa from y Economic Development
Stanford University in 1972. Mr. Aleshire has been AV® rated by y Energy & Utilities
Martindale -Hubbell's peer review rating process, which reflects the Environment & Natural Resources
hest level of skill and integrity. He was named a Southern Housing
highest � Land Use &Zoning
California Super Lawyer in 2009 - 2014. Mr. Aleshire's life-long Mining
devotion to public service has been the result of his efforts to emulate > Toxics & Hazardous Waste
his father, a city manager for 35 years. Water
Mr. Aleshire has served as Assistant City Attorney or City Attorney for PUBLIC OFFICES
12 different cities, including Banning, Bell, Palm Springs, Irvine, r City Attorney
Cerritos, Norwalk, Signal Hill, San Dimas, Lawndale, Irwindale, San ° City of Banning
Jacinto, and Perris. He has had long stints as City Attorney at Palm • City of Bell
Springs (15 years) and Lawndale (17 years) and is currently City City of Signal Hili
Attorney at Signal Hill, Banning, and Bell. Cumulatively he has over EDUCATION
60 years of city attorney service.
• Creation of the Signal Hill Auto Center now approaching 50 acres with some 15 brands, and generating over
$3M in annual sales taxes to the City.
• Development of the Signal Hill Town Center including big box users such as Costco and Home Depot, but also
encompassing the community's only market, Food -4 -Less.
09999.0016/252174.1 -9- 33
y-
University of CA, Los Angeles;
Mr. Aleshire spent many years specializing in urban renewal issues,
MA Urban Planning 1976
redevelopment and economic development. In his early years, he
University of CA, Los Angeles
has represented redevelopment agencies of the cities of Los
JD 1975
Angeles, Santa Monica, Culver City, Monterey Park, Cerritos, Signal
v
Stanford University; BA 1972
Hill, Palm Springs, Banning, Irwindale, and Carson. he has been
Phi Beta Kappa
heavily involved with dealing with ABx1 26 and the post
redevelopment world, including creating new authority for cities to
ADMISSIONS
pursue economic development.
State Bar of California
Since 2010 Mr. Aleshire has been representing a citizens group in
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
US District Court, Central, CA
Bell in the recovery of the City, and since the successful recall, the
City itself and the new City Council. The Firm has been involved in
AFFILIATIONS
over 50 different matters involving restitution from the former corrupt
officials, resisting their indemnification and pension claims; correcting
r
League of California Cities
internal city controls; dealing with investigations by the SEC, IRS and
California Redevelopment Association
state agencies; and suing former law firms and accounting firms for
>
American Planning Association
malpractice. The restoration of Bell is one of Mr. Aleshire's most
>
LA County City Attorney Association
important case projects and ultimately Bell will be back on a sound
Orange County City Attorney
fiscal basis.
Association
Adjunct Professor of Law
Major projects and programs Mr. Aleshire has accomplished during
Southwestern University Law School
his career include:
(1980-84)
Boy Scouts of America, Scoutmaster
(1995 -present)
• Creation of the Signal Hill Auto Center now approaching 50 acres with some 15 brands, and generating over
$3M in annual sales taxes to the City.
• Development of the Signal Hill Town Center including big box users such as Costco and Home Depot, but also
encompassing the community's only market, Food -4 -Less.
09999.0016/252174.1 -9- 33
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
• Overcoming numerous issues in transforming the historic 1 billion barrel Signal Hill oil field, in continuous
production for 75 years, with complex contamination issues, into a beautiful community with a vibrant local
economy.
• Developing a Palm Springs power center with Lowes, Home Depot, and WalMart, located partially on a former
municipal landfill site, and successfully defending the project from environmental challenges.
• Developing an Indian Gaming Casino in Palm Springs including negotiating a DDA with a tribal government
and successfully defending a lawsuit by the California Attorney General.
• Reclamation of a 126 -acre Irwindale mining pit and developing a 2.5 million square foot mixed use project
through a development agreement with Trammel Crow (winner of a prestigious Gold Nugget Award).
• Negotiating a development and financing agreement for an $800 million dollar entertainment and mixed use
project with Lennar on a 157 -acre site on a former landfill (including a $100 million dollar site remediation
program).
• Negotiating development agreements for 1000+ acre projects for hotel, golf course, and residential
development and dealing with sensitive environmental and endangered species issues.
• Developing major public projects including expanding the Palm Springs Convention Center twice, a
championship 36 -hole golf course, sewer wastewater plant expansions, parking structures, several city halls
and police stations, and numerous water reservoir and other water improvements.
• Master planning the Palm Springs Airport and undertaking numerous runway and terminal expansions including
developing innovative passenger facility charge financing.
• Developing an innovative franchise program for the Town of Mammoth Lakes to facilitate underground delivery
of gas to customers and requiring the franchisee to provide pipeline capacity to other suppliers.
• Overseeing Palm Springs' municipalization of energy program to find a national non -Edison supplier of energy
services and reduce customer charges by 15%.
• Negotiating lease agreements to privatize Palm Springs' wastewater treatment plant with US Filter, a Fortune
500 company.
• Negotiating many innovative, award-winning affordable housing projects including in Signal Hill alone: A $9
million, 40 -unit, affordable moderate income single family detached project; and a $20 million, 92 -unit, low and
very low income family project, including a park, child care center and police substation. (This last project, Las
Brisas, won the League of California Cities' prestigious Helen Putman award in 2006).
• Overseeing a long term program for Irwindale to require reclamation of multiple 100+ acre mining pits with
depths of over 300 feet, and achieving development agreements providing for reclamation, payment of the
highest mining taxes in the state, and infrastructure development.
• Negotiating a 50 -year development agreement with Pardee for development of a 5400 unit, 1600 acre project
with a golf course and water features, parks, community center, satellite treatment plant and commercial
center.
• Advising the Banning Public Utility and dealing with all its water issues, with a community with extraction rights
from five groundwater storage basins, negotiating an acquisition of water rights from a mutual water district
owning a 100 -year old flume, and overseeing the development of water lines, reservoirs and recycling facilities.
• Forming and representing special purpose agencies, including community service districts and joint powers
authorities.
He has been a speaker and authored various articles on municipal law including the subjects of municipal
investment, takings, economic development, casino gaming, mixed use development and others, and served as
Adjunct Professor of Municipal Law at Southwestern University.
Developed an economic development ordinances to maximize cities' authority to pursue economic development
projects in California's post -redevelopment world.
09999.0016/252174.1 _10-
34
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
CHRISTINA BURROWS
Christina Burrows is an associate in the Los Angeles office focusing PRACTICE AREAS
on litigation, labor and employment, and code enforcement matters. - Code Enforcement
Ms. Burrows received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law. While Labor & Employment
pursuing her degree, Ms. Burrows participated in the Landlord -Tenant > Litigation
Clinic and served as the Productions Editor of the Chicano -Latino Law Risk Management & Torts
Review. Ms. Burrows first joined the Firm as a summer clerk and
continued her employment while in her final year of law school. EDUCATION
Ms. Burrows received her bachelor's degree, cum laude, from the ➢ University of CA, Los Angeles JD 2013
University of California, San Diego where she majored in International University of San Diego BA 2009
Studies. While in school she volunteered at the Preuss Charter cum laude
School and upon graduation she worked at the Charter School of San
Diego. ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
09999.0016/252174.1 -1 1-
35
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
CHRISTOPHER F. NEUMEYER
Chris F. Neumeyer specializes in civil litigation, with a focus on tort PRACTICE AREAS
liability, business disputes, appeals, and injunctive relief. He also Contracts & Public Works
provides legal counsel on First Amendment law, election law, medical
marijuana law, intellectual property, and regulatory compliance. Elections
He has two published appellate decisions which in collaboration with
his associates were victories for his clients: Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio
Investments, LLC, 214 Cal. App. 4th 358 (2013); and, Maddox v.
Costa Mesa, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1098 (2011).
Further, Mr. Neumeyer specializes in First Amendment law (forum
analysis, commercial speech, Establishment Clause, RLUIPA);
election law (initiatives, special/regular elections, Voting Rights Act);
medical marijuana law (Compassionate Use Act, Medical Marijuana
Program Act, federal Controlled Substances Act); intellectual property;
regulatory compliance (e.g., telecommunications, mobile vending); and
ordinances (amend/draft codes, findings).
09999.0016/252174.1 -12-
36
r Ethics & Open Government
Notable examples of Mr. Neumeyer's litigation experience in the
Land Use & Zoning
courtroom include: winning an appeal of an unfavorable ruling on an
anti-SLAPP motion filed for client against frivolous cross-complaint
v Litigation
alleging slander, trade libel and interference with prospective
Y Public Agency Organization
economic advantage; summary judgment motion caused a plaintiff to
dismiss premise liability complaint; securing the denial of both a
Public Safety
temporary restraining order application and then a preliminary
Risk Management & Torts
injunction motion concerning an election lawsuit; opposition motion
granted on all grounds to summary judgment motion filed against
EDUCATION
client's suit for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and
;� Georgetown University Law Center,
breach of fiduciary duty; won opposition to ex parte application for
JD 2007
temporary restraining order on enforcement of local law, followed up
' University of CA, Berkeley, BA 1998
by persuading the court at oral argument to change a tentative ruling
on an unfavorable preliminary injunction motion for the same suit; and,
ADMISSIONS
successfully litigated contested real property lien and secured
State of California
attorney's fees for client.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Mr. Neumeyer also manages discovery from initial discovery to expert
y U.S. District Court for Central District of
depositions, notable examples include: taken and defended multiple
California
depositions (e.g., obtained plaintiffs concession that contrary to
lawsuit she did not know mechanism of injury, secured technician's
admission he had not properly maintained utility equipment, use of
exhibits caused doctor admission could not explain excessively high
billings); motion to compel discovery responses granted with court
ruling all requests for admission deemed admitted while sanctioning
opposing counsel with payment of client's attorney's fees; defeated
motion to quash subpoena for bank records for alter ego liability and
awarded attorney's fees.
He has two published appellate decisions which in collaboration with
his associates were victories for his clients: Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio
Investments, LLC, 214 Cal. App. 4th 358 (2013); and, Maddox v.
Costa Mesa, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1098 (2011).
Further, Mr. Neumeyer specializes in First Amendment law (forum
analysis, commercial speech, Establishment Clause, RLUIPA);
election law (initiatives, special/regular elections, Voting Rights Act);
medical marijuana law (Compassionate Use Act, Medical Marijuana
Program Act, federal Controlled Substances Act); intellectual property;
regulatory compliance (e.g., telecommunications, mobile vending); and
ordinances (amend/draft codes, findings).
09999.0016/252174.1 -12-
36
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
JAMES J. MCGRATH
James McGrath has successfully defended and prosecuted more than
one hundred lawsuits in both state and federal courts. He handles all
aspects of a lawsuit, from writing and arguing dispositive motions to
filing and defending federal and state appellate matters. He was
named a Rising Star in Southern California Super Lawyers and Los
Angeles magazines.
In addition to Mr. McGrath's courtroom experience, he partners with
his clients to manage risk and cost of litigation through alternative
dispute resolution or early settlement when appropriate. To that end,
he has successfully negotiated dozens of out-of-court settlements,
both through structured mediation and informal discussions.
Mr. McGrath is an active member of the community, serving as vice
chairman of the board for the Intellectual Virtues Academy, a public,
charter middle school open to the Long Beach community. He also
serves as corporate secretary for the board of directors of Bright Star
Schools, which educates over 2,000 public school students in some of
the most underserved neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Additionally,
Mr. McGrath is a member of the Santa Monica Community College
advisory board.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. McGrath was an associate with a global
law firm, where he represented Fortune 100 companies spanning a
variety of industries. He graduated from the UCLA School of Law,
where he was co -chief managing editor of the Women's Law Journal,
class president, and president of the Sports Law Federation. Prior to
his legal career, Mr. McGrath was a professor of philosophy it Long
Beach City College.
PRACTICE AREAS
Education
Y Litigation
Real Estate
EDUCATION
➢ University of CA, Los Angeles, JD 2008
r University of CA, Irvine, MA 2002
A University of CA, Berkeley, BA 1997
ADMISSIONS
State of California, 2008
U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, 2008
U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California, 2008
➢ U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, 2008
Y U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California, 2008
r U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2008
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
➢ Super Lawyers Magazine, Rising Star
Representative Work:
• Defended depositions in community college fraud matter.
• Court granted anti-SLAPP motion based on failed NFL negotiations in $56 million lawsuit.
• 7 -Eleven, Inc. v. La Canada Flintridge, LASC BC536761. Second chair in bench trial. Drafted and argued
successful opposition to motion for summary judgment.
• Pryor v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., 2015 WL 136684. California Court of Appeals upheld demurrer
based on sham pleadings.
• In story covered by Los Angeles Times, drafted resolutions for, and recommended against, city action to
boycott publication, which ultimately got shelved just prior to vote.
• Drafted motions for summary judgment on punitive damage claim for HMO following an adverse punitive
damages judgment for hundreds of millions of dollars in a coordinated case.
• Junger v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 603262 (C.D. Cal. 2012). In a widely cited securitization suit,
represented defendant bank in a motion to dismiss that was granted in its entirety.
• Uncovered plaintiff fraud and mediated $30 million discrimination suit.
• Routledge v. Bank of Am., N.A., LASC BC487095. Drafted and argued motion for summary judgment, granted
in its entirety, in a fraud dispute involving medical and agency issues.
09999.0016/252174.1 -13-
37
13-
37
a
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
COLIN J. TANNER
Colin J. Tanner is a founding partner of the Firm, Chair of the Firm's
PRACTICE AREAS
Labor & Employment Practice Group, Chair of the Firm's Personnel
y Labor &Employment
Committee, and Co -Chair of the Firm's Litigation Practice Group. In
Y Litigation
these capacities, Mr. Tanner advises the Firm's clients regarding their
y Public Safety
labor and employment practices as well as defends and/or prosecutes
PUBLIC OFFICES
litigation claims on their behalf. He also practices in the areas of
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
preventive liability, insurance coverage, and business litigation for the
Labor and Employment Counsel
Firm's public and private sector clients.
Cries of:
Discrimination Cases.
■ Arvin
Mr. Tanner was born in Oyster Bay, New York. He received a B.A. in
■ Banning
English & American Literature and Political Science from the
■ Bell
University of California San Diego in 1987 and his J.D. from the
■ Carson
■ Cypress
University of California Hastings College of Law in 1990. Mr. Tanner
■ Fillmore
has been admitted to practice before all courts and administrative
■ Lawndale
tribunals in California, as well as the United States District Courts for
■ Lompoc
the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Central Districts of California. He
Morro Bay
has also been admitted to practice in the State of Colorado. Mr.
Perris
Tanner is a member of the California State Bar, Colorado State Bar,
■ Rialto
American Bar Association, and Orange County Bar Association.
■ Suisun
EDUCATION
In 1990, Mr. Tanner joined the general litigation department of Haight,
Brown & Bonesteel in Santa Monica after clerking with the firm during
y University of CA, Hastings,
law school. In 1993, Mr. Tanner joined the litigation group of
JD 1990
Fainsbert, Mase & Snyder in West Los Angeles, eventually becoming
Y University of CA, San Diego,
Chair of the litigation and employment practice groups before
BA 1987
relocating to Orange County in 1999. In 1999, Mr. Tanner joined Hart,
ADMISSIONS
King & Coldren as senior counsel, continuing his litigation and
employment practices. In 2000, Mr. Tanner joined Burke, Williams &
State Bar of California
Sorensen as a contract partner in its Irvine office, eventually being
State Bar of Colorado
invited to be a full equity partner, and participating in the firm's public
US District Court, Eastern, CA
law, labor & employment and business practice groups. In 2003, Mr.
Tanner became a founding partner in Aleshire & Wynder and
%' US District Court Southern, CA
undertook to Chair its Labor & Employment Practice Group.
US District Court, Northern, CA
Mr. Tanner has authored or co-authored articles which include: Peace
Y US District Court, Central, CA
Officer Retirement Identification Issues and the Related Endorsement
AFFILIATIONS
to Carry a Concealed Weapon, When is an Administrative Decision
y American Bar Association
Final?, U.S. Supreme Court Holds Mandatory Arbitration Provisions in
Employment Contracts Are Valid and Enforceable, Public Employee's
r Orange County Bar Association
Failure To Promptly Seek Judicial Review Of Adverse Administrative
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Decision May Bar Lawsuit Under FEHA, and California Supreme Court
AVO Martindale -Hubbell Peer
Validates Binding Pre -Dispute Arbitration Agreements In Employment
Review Rated
Discrimination Cases.
09999.0016/252174.1 -14-
38
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
GLEN E. TUCKER
Glen E. Tucker is a Partner in the Firm. His practice includes
counseling, advising, and training various police departments and their
officials on such varying subjects as police policy development, police
policy field application, and departmental training of officers and police
administrators in litigation avoidance and police defense strategies.
He is an experienced litigator of such issues as excessive force, false
arrest or imprisonment, federal civil rights litigation, and police search
and seizure issues. Mr. Tucker is a 1966 graduate of Loyola
Marymount University and has served on the Loyola Marymount
alumni board. He received his J.D. from Southwestern University of
Law School in 1972 and is admitted to practice before the California
Supreme Court, the United States District Courts, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Tucker began his legal career working on personal injury and
medical malpractice defense cases, occasionally representing cities.
During this period, he argued the California Supreme Court case of
Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 197, in which the
High Court defined the issue of "duty" in a negligence context as well
as the extent and effect of various statutory and common law tort
immunities.
In 1981, Mr. Tucker joined the firm of Clausen, Harris and Campbell in
Los Angeles. Since then, Mr. Tucker's primary practice area focus
has been on the defense of public entities, particularly police officers
and their departments, in civil rights litigation. Since 1981, Mr. Tucker
has served as special litigation counsel for the City of Palm Springs
Risk Management Department, litigating police cases and general
liability matters.
PRACTICE AREAS
Litigation
y Public Safety
r Risk Management & Torts
EDUCATION
Southwestern
School
1D 1972
University Law
Loyola Marymount University
BA 1966
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States Supreme Court
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
r US District Court, Central, CA
AFFILIATIONS
r Arbitrator, LA & Riverside Superior
Court
r Hearing Officer, Newport Beach
iw Judge Pro -Tem, LA Superior Court
LA County Bar Assoc
Manhattan Beach Little League
President
Manhattan Beach Zoning
Commission
P.O.S.T. Certified Instructor
Mr. Tucker's practice includes the composition of police policy manuals and the analysis of existing manuals for his
client police departments. This function is then illustrated and presented in roll -call sessions with police officers and
police administrators.
Mr. Tucker was trial and appellate counsel on the case of Craig Teter v. City of Newport Beach, (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 446.
In that case the California Supreme Court clarified that a person arrested for public intoxication is a prisoner for the
purpose of Government Code Immunities and that there is no liability for damages sustained by a prisoner as a
consequence of conditions that are common to all inmates and represent reasonable application of policy
determinations by jail or prison authorities.
Mr. Tucker has lectured extensively in the areas of Risk Management and Excessive Force in search and seizure
issues. He is a P.O.S.T. certified instructor in those areas. He is also on the faculty of Lorman Education Services
lecturing on Police Risk Management issues.
09999.0016/252174.1 -15-
39
III. - ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
ANITA LUCK
Anita Luck is a Partner with the Firm specializing in municipal finance
PRACTICE AREAS
law in addition to her general municipal law, land use and successor
agency to redevelopment law practice. She also recently served the
a Contracts & Public Works
City of Perris as Assistant City Attorney. Ms. Luck advises public
r Economic Development
agencies on the formation of special districts, assessment districts,
and community facilities districts, the adoption of special taxes,
J Elections
assessments, development fees and other innovative fees to assist
Ethics & Open Government
cities in financing projects. Recently Ms. Luck was involved in
Housing
forming one of the first community facilities districts to finance
ongoing hazardous site maintenance on an old landfill being
r Land Use & Zoning
developed in the City of Carson. Ms. Luck is knowledgeable on
> Public Agency Organization
election issues, issues relating to Proposition 218 and Proposition 26.
v public Finance
Ms. Luck has participated in bond financings for assessment districts
and community facilities districts.
EDUCATION
Ms. Luck has participated in numerous complex finance transactions
Loyola Law School
throughout Southern California, including real estate transactions, the
JD 1998
development of mixed use projects, low-income housing projects and
y University of CA, Santa Barbara
assisting troubled municipalities with restructuring debt through
BA 1990
tender offers, workouts and other arrangements. Ms. Luck structures
financing mechanisms to alleviate the additional burdens on public
ADMISSIONS
agencies, generate commercial development and examines alternate
State Bar of California
revenue sources to alleviate budgetary concerns.
Y US District Court, Central, CA
In her public finance practice, Ms. Luck is experienced in AFFILIATIONS
representing government entities as bond counsel in a variety of
transactions, including the issuance of certificates of participation, National Assoc of Bond Lawyers
general obligation, special tax revenue, utility and lease revenue
bonds. Representative transactions include financings for a
convention center, an airport, water facilities, special districts,
redevelopment projects, major infrastructure, community facilities,
non-profit corporations, low-income multifamily housing, and utility
revenue financings. Ms. Luck has structured, negotiated and drafted
a variety of bond, disclosure and security documents, including
official statements, leases, trust indentures, loan agreements, letters
of credit, deeds of trust, and escrow agreements.
In her practice, Ms. Luck has represented the cities of Perris, Signal
Hill, Carson, Lawndale, Bell and Irwindale, among others. Ms. Luck
has also represented various other public entities in Los Angeles and
Riverside counties.
Ms. Luck graduated from the University of California Santa Barbara
with a B.A. in Business Economics in 1990, and received her J.D.
from Loyola Law School in 1998. While in law school, Ms. Luck
externed for the Honorable William M. Byrne, Jr. and clerked for the
State of California Attorney General's Office.
09999.0016/252174.1 -16- 40
IV.
QUALIFICATIONS — AREAS OF EXPERTISE
A. PRACTICE AREAS OF EXPERTISE
In order to provide the full range of services needed by municipalities, we have organized
our practice into the following areas: Public Law; Litigation and Appellate; Mining; Labor and
Employment; Land Use and Zoning; Environmental and Toxics; Franchising and
Telecommunications; Civil Rights and First Amendment; Conflicts of Interest and Elections;
Contracts and Public Construction; Law Enforcement and Nuisance Abatement; Successor
Agency and Housing; Rent Control; Public Finance; Torts and Governmental Immunity; Real
Property Acquisition and Disposition; Condemnation; and Water Law. We have attorneys
specializing in all of these practice areas.
We have been able to handle all police and civil rights cases for cities with police
departments; all federal interface issues for airports; personnel issues for all our clients; all labor
negotiations; general plan revision programs; subdivision legal issues; conflict of interest
questions including interfacing with the FPPC; all public record requests; adoption of city
charters; franchising programs and utility undergrounding; all condemnation cases for site
assembly for redevelopment and housing projects; negotiation of purchase, redevelopment and
development agreements with developers; impact fee ordinances; assessment districts and other
public financing as well as municipal finance and Proposition 218 issues; cable television
franchise ordinances; endangered species questions; all CEQA litigation; environmental cleanup
and mining reclamation plans; trash contract renewals and AB 939 issues; construction contract
disputes and litigations; community choice energy aggregation; and similar matters.
We have special expertise in a number of practice areas critical to cities. With respect to
the bread and butter of public law practice, such as the Brown Act, Public Records Act, Roberts
Rules of Order, planning and land use, contracts and so forth, a majority of our attorneys
commonly deal with these issues. However, we also have specialization in the practice areas
discussed in this section. Our belief is that each attorney must develop a subject matter specialty
in one or more areas.
Of course, an attorney who wants to represent public agencies must have a working
knowledge of municipal law issues so that the specialists do not have to get involved in every
issue. Another principle for organizing our practice is that each client has a team assigned to it:
the city attorney, an assistant, and, for larger clients, an additional deputy. The assistant is an
experienced attorney who is up to date on all issues in the city so that if the city attorney is not
immediately available, the client can still get a quick answer. However, the lead attorney is stili
the key to the client relationship and must remain directly involved in the management of the
work.
Aleshire & Wynder serves as City Attorney for 20 cities throughout California and our
attorneys have extensive experience in all general municipal law matters affecting California
cities, including issues relating to dissolution of redevelopment agencies. The dissolution of
redevelopment agencies under ABxI 26 and its related implementing legislation, AB 1484
(collectively, "Dissolution Laws") raises a host of novel and important legal issues. Since early
-17-
09999/0016/164800.03
41
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
2011, Aleshire and Wynder attorneys have been very involved with the complex issues and
procedures surrounding the Dissolution Laws. We have guided many cities and successor
agencies through the redevelopment dissolution process step-by-step and they have succeeded in
obtaining approvals from the State Department of Finance ("DOF") that were significantly
favorable to local agencies. Examples of notable work include:
• A&W Attorneys are collaboratively suing DOF on behalf of the successor agencies of
Lynwood, Lawndale, Santa Maria and Suisun. Those cases involve a host of
Dissolution Law issues, ranging from inter -agency financial transfers, to bond
issuances, to the enforceability of third -party contracts and other issues pertaining to
recognized obligation payment schedules ("ROPS").
• A&W represented the Carson Successor Agency in litigation against DOF. That case
involved a due diligence review ("DDR") determination by the DOF requiring the
City of Carson to disgorge $5 Million the redevelopment agency had paid to the City
in 2011. After filing the initial pleading in that case, we were able to secure a
settlement from DOF by which Carson was allowed to retain the $5 Million and
obtained a "finding of completion" in exchange for Carson's dismissal of the
litigation.
• A&W has accomplished sales of real property even prior to the approval of Long
Term Property Disposition Plans including an auto dealer site from Carmax to
Sonic(BMW) in Signal Hill.
• A&W was able to block foreclosure of the key 5 -acre commercial site in Bell where
the City had improperly approved at $4.6M purchase price and through the judicial
action negotiated a price reduction to $2M and has been able to include the
transaction on the ROPS and use tax increment to make the payments.
• Representing the City of Perris in litigation filed by a third -party against DOF
challenging DOF's determination that a particular contract entered into by the March
Air Force Base Redevelopment Agency is an enforceable obligation of its successor
agency.
• Resolving pass-through agreement disputes between school districts and successor
agencies, including the successor agencies of Bell and Banning.
• A&W is handling a dispute between the Irwindale Successor Agency and the State
Controller's Office where the Controller threatened to "claw back" approximately $3
Million from the City notwithstanding that the amount was approved by the DOF as
an enforceable obligation and as part of the DDR process.
In addition to these examples, our Firm serves as successor agency counsel in every city
for which we serve as city attorney. This has given our whole Firm day-to-day experience with
the routine operations of successor agencies, such as attending oversight board meetings, dealing
with County and State audits and DDRB, attending meet and confer meetings in Sacramento, and
developing long range property management plans and ROPS.
Of course, the Dissolution Laws have not eliminated the need for an aggressive economic
development program. We have drafted perhaps the most comprehensive economic
development ordinance in the State in response to the loss of traditional redevelopment. A truly
successful economic program involves elements of long-term planning, zoning, code
09999.0016/252174.1 -18- 42
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
enforcement, property acquisition, developer transactions with incentives, environmental
analysis, housing assistance, and public financing — and requires expertise in all those subjects.
Our Firm is one of only a few in the state with such expertise.
(1) Land Use & Zoning
We have an extensive practice in all aspects of land use law, including environmental
investigation and analysis, property acquisition, the entitlement process, impact fees, subdivision
requirements, planned developments, growth management, coastal development, preparing
general plans and specific plans and plan updates, and updating zoning codes to remain
consistent with state laws.
Expertise
• Planning and Zoning Laws
• Adoption and Amendment of General Plans, Specific Plans, Overlay Zones
• The Subdivision Map Act
• CEQA, NEPA and the Endangered Species Act
• Conditional Use Permits, Special Use Permits, Zone Exceptions and Variances
• Property Acquisition, including by Eminent Domain
• Development Agreements
• Subdivision Improvement Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements
• Developer Impact Fee and Mitigation Programs
• Mobile Home Park Conversions
• Storm Water/NPDES issues
• Analysis of Taking issues
• First Amendment Issues, including Adult Entertainment, Massage Parlors,
Billboards, News Rack and other Sign Issues
• All forms of Land Use Litigation
• Solid Waste
Expertise in Action
We have overseen a number of general plan adoption and amendment programs, as well
as the amendment of major plan elements such as the land use, housing and transportation
elements. We have overseen multi-year general plan revision programs with lengthy citizen
participation requirements costing from $100,000 to $1,000,000. We represent many developed
communities where special issues relating to growth control, condominium conversions, non-
conforming uses, variances, mobile home parks and redevelopment issues predominate. We also
represent many growing communities where the primary concerns are planned growth,
infrastructure, parks and open space, and economic development. We have prepared detailed
development agreements with lengthy phased development programs and amenities as well as
specific plans. We have drafted hundreds of amendments to zoning and subdivision codes.
We have broad experience working with CEQA and NEPA procedures and laws. We
have worked on the preparation of local CEQA Guidelines and have reviewed initial studies,
09999.0016(252174.1 _19-
43
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
mitigated negative declarations, DEIRs, FEIRs, EISs as well as supplemental environmental
studies for compliance with CEQA and NEPA.
In some instances, litigation cannot be avoided. When litigation does ensue, we are fully
prepared to pursue our clients' interests through trial and appeals, if needed, but also work to
reduce the costs of litigation without compromising the land use principles that may be at stake.
Our strategy includes the use of appropriate experts on traffic, housing, infrastructure and related
land use planning matters.
(2) Labor Relations and Employment Law
We provide essential and comprehensive labor and employment legal services to our
clients by providing consistent and common sense advice and guidance in employment and
personnel administration. Our areas of expertise include, as examples, the drafting of personnel
rules and policies, enforcing workplace management and employee rights, assisting with drafting
and implementing hiring processes, employee evaluation, promotion, discipline and discharge
processes, employee training, personnel file maintenance and disclosure, personnel
investigations, due process hearings and appeals, and disability and retirement issues. In
addition to our extensive advisory work, we handle complex, and often sensitive, labor and
employment litigation. We assertively and ethically represent our clients as advocates when
litigation arises, and have represented clients at all levels of the state and federal judicial systems
and administrative and regulatory agencies.
Expertise
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
• Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
• Federal Civil Rights Acts
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
• Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA)
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPAA)
• Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
• Family and Medical Leave laws
• Occupational Safety and Health laws
• Workers' Compensation laws
• Employment Development Department obligations, among others
• Collective bargaining, and negotiating/drafting of labor agreements with employee
organizations
• Enforcement and defense of labor agreements
• Prosecuting/defending against unfair practice charges filed with the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB)
• Prosecuting/defending against labor related civil court actions
• Employee discipline and discharge
Expertise in Action
09999.0016/252174.1 -20-
44
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Our attorneys have provided labor and employment legal advice to a number of public
agency clients, including the cities of Banning, Carson, Covina, Chino Hills, Culver City,
Cypress, Hemet, Hesperia, Industry, Irwindale, Lake Forest, Lynwood,. Palm Springs, Perris,
Signal Hill, South Pasadena, Stanton and the City of West Covina. Additionally, our attorneys
have served as corporate and/or employment counsel to a number of private companies,
including national transportation companies, national food distributors, insurance agencies, and
real estate agencies.
We realize the sensitivity inherent in employment issues, and make it our primary
purpose to present options and develop effective strategies to obtain successful results, often by
preventing or resolving employment disputes or liability issues before they become detrimental
to our clients. To accomplish this, our lawyers often work as part of a management "team,"
providing services ranging from simple legal guidance to direct representation in personnel
administration, complex labor negotiation and administratively and/or civilly contested matters.
(3) Conflict of Interest/Ethics
We are leading experts in governmental ethics and conflict of interest laws. We have
expertise in the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, Public Records Act, Public Bidding laws and
the Maddy Act. Ms. Biggs has participated in any number of League of California and California
State Bar presentations sharing her knowledge and experience in this area of law. She is a featured
presenter this year at the annual California Bar Association Open and Public Meetings and Public
Records Act conference at Hastings College of Law. Our team of attorneys serves as legal counsel
to public agencies on a wide variety of areas related to governmental ethics and conflicts of interest.
We provide impartial legal counsel of the highest quality to ensure governmental acts are made in
an ethical and transparent manner. We also advise our clients on compliance with important
federal, state and local election rules.
California legislative policy favors making government transparent, accessible, and fair, 'and
many different laws are a part of creating "open government." Designed to improve public
participation and governmental transparency and assure ethical conduct by public officials, such
laws can become pitfalls for public agencies without experienced legal counsel.
Expertise
• The Ralph M. Brown Act
• The Maddy Act (Governmental Appointments)
• The California Public Records Act
• Statements of Economic Interest (FPPC Form 700 Compliance)
• AB 1234 Ethics training
• Mass Mailing regulations
• Conflict of Interest codes
• Political Reform Act
• Government Code § 1090
• Incompatibility of Offices Doctrine
• Due Process/Fair Hearing conflicts
• Quo Warranto actions
• 09999.0016/252174.1 -21-
45
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Common Law Conflict of Interest Doctrine
Expertise in Action
Our attorneys have conducted frequent training sessions for public officials, including
orientation for new council members and commissioners. We have provided AB 1234 ethics
training, and developed expense reimbursement polices. We were instrumental in developing the
ethical standards for city attorneys approved by the City Attorneys Department of the League of
California Cities in 2006. We advise city clerks and other public officials on responses to Public
Records Act requests. We have drafted codes of ethics in our municipalities, created ethics
commissions, and assisted in improving the ethical environment in communities where officials
have been subject to scrutiny due to public corruption scandals. We frequently consult with
public officials on conflict issues and are expert in working with both the FPPC, and when
required, the Attorney General's office on such matters. We have authored FPPC regulatory
changes (small city exception).
After Carson endured a series of public corruption scandals resulting in public officials
being convicted of bribery and extortion, our Firm was hired as city attorney. We immediately
pursued litigation targeting those who benefited from the public corruption to return money
taken from the city. In 2005, the Firm won, on a Motion for Summary Judgment (which has
resulted in the published opinion of Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla (2006) 140 Cal.
App. 4th 1323), a Government Code § 1090 matter on behalf of City of Carson where a
developer had paid $75,000 to receive an $850,000 loan from the City for a 30 -year low-income
housing project. The Court ordered the developer to disgorge the entire $850,000 benefit he
received to the City with the City keeping the benefits of the 30 -year low-income housing. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision and the California Supreme Court denied
the developer's cert for review.
(4) Elections
We have provided election consulting services to various city clerks and other public
officials in over 100 elections. Our attorneys are knowledgeable in all aspects of municipal
elections. We have prepared ballot measures, written measure analysis, advised election officials
on code compliance questions, dealt with initiative and recall questions, written campaign
finance ordinances, and dealt with an endless number of other questions, from absentee ballots,
election signs, State and Federal Voting Rights Act issues, and all subjects in between.
Election cases must be brought and defended immediately and aggressively since election
deadlines give such disputes priority over other matters.. We have had great success litigating
complex and high-profile matters under the California Elections and Government Codes. Our
attorneys have also testified before State legislative committees on reforming the electoral
process.
Expertise
• Federal Voting Rights Act
• California Voting Rights Act
• Calling and holding of special elections
09999.0016/252174.1 -22-
46
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Initiative, referenda and recalls
• Political Reform Act
• Impartial City Attorney analyses
• First Amendment litigation
• Absentee Ballot voting
• Contested elections and recounts
• Ballot arguments and designations
• Political sign laws
• Public information campaigns
• Electronic voting
(5) Code Enforcement
We take pride in our communities and in making sure effective code enforcement
programs are in place. We have extensive experience in handling a wide range of code
enforcement matters including formal and informal code enforcement processes taking
advantage of all appropriate legal remedies, including collaboration with police, fire, and sheriff
departments. We understand the primary goal of code enforcement is compliance, and we gear
our efforts toward solving problems while minimizing costs.
Expertise
• Enforcement of municipal, zoning and uniform codes
• Public nuisance law
• Abatement actions
• Criminal prosecution of code violations
• Civil and Gang injunctions
• Focused Code Enforcement programs for At Risk Neighborhoods
• Strategies for cost recovery
• Ordinance drafting for maximum effectiveness
• Streamlining and analyzing enforcement processes for efficiency
• Administrative citation process
• Administrative hearings including conditional use permit revocation
• Training of staff, including workshops, for proper investigation, reporting and
case preparation techniques
(6) Property Acquisition and Condemnation
Our Firm represents a range of public agencies in acquiring real property through
negotiated transactions and, when necessary, the lawful exercise of the power of eminent
domain. Our practice includes advising clients throughout the property valuation and acquisition
process and counseling clients on how to avoid inverse condemnation claims arising out of land
use and other regulations. We are also adept at litigation of these issues at the trial and appellate
levels, when efforts to avoid claims or reach a negotiated resolution are unsuccessful.
Our expertise in municipal law, redevelopment, and environmental law adds to our
effectiveness in the property acquisition arena because we are able to coordinate property
09999.0016/252174.1 -23- 47
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
acquisition with all other aspects of the project for which property is being acquired. Thus we
assure that environmental review, financing, budgetary, and construction scheduling issues are
all addressed. In addition, we defend our public agency clients against claims of inverse
condemnation based on alleged physical and regulatory takings.
Expertise
• Negotiating and drafting purchase agreements
• Appraisal and valuation
• Property owner notices
• Relocation guidelines and assistance, including administrative hearings
• Pre -condemnation and inverse condemnation damages
• Public purpose, including blight, and right to take issues
• Contaminated property and valuation and remediation issues
• Partial takings, remnants, and severance damages
• Business takes including goodwill
• Inverse condemnation claims involving alleged physical and regulatory takings
(7) Franchises and Utilities
We advise our municipal clients regarding use of the public right-of-way by other public,
quasi -public, and private entities providing services to residential, commercial, industrial, and
public customers. These entities include gas and electric utilities, public and private water
agencies, petroleum companies, cable and telephone companies, and cellular and other wireless
technology companies. We advise our clients on forming and operating their own energy and
water enterprises, as well as new technology such as city -sponsored wireless networks, business
district observation/surveillance systems, and red light cameras at street intersections. We
counsel our clients in all areas of franchise agreements and have successfully collected unpaid
franchise fees through franchise fee audits.
Expertise
• Franchises and regulations for oil and gas pipelines, natural gas, electricity, and
water facilities
• Municipal services franchises such as waste disposal, sanitation, water services, and
others
• Right-of-way management; encroachment permits and regulation
• Creating, operating, and reorganizing municipal utilities
• Communications facility leasing
• Cable and telecommunications regulation; including wireless facilities/tower siting
• Cable franchises including renewals, transfers and enforcement of franchising
requirements
• State and Federal regulatory agencies and authorities
• Energy law
Expertise in Action
09999.0016/252174.1 -24-
48
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Technology - especially communications technology - is advancing at an ever-increasing
pace, and the ability of local public agencies to regulate the location and appearance of
communications facilities, or regulate the use of their own public right-of-way, is increasingly
affected by new state and federal laws.
We have negotiated cable franchise agreements in all of our municipalities, and have
established forms for pipeline franchise agreements. In addition, our breadth as public agency
attorneys gives us familiarity with related issues such as undergrounding ordinances and public
right-of-way encroachment problems.
Several projects illustrate how the merger of a deep knowledge of municipal authorities
and creativity can solve unique problems for our clients:
Palm Springs Municipalization of Power — During the California deregulation
experiment, we provided all legal services to create a bid process to find an alternative energy
supplier to Edison and to negotiate a power contract with Portland General which reduced energy
charges to customers by 15%.
Mammoth Lakes Gas Franchise — The Town wanted to create an underground delivery
system to customers to replace above ground propane tanks which were difficult for winter
service. A franchise agreement required the franchisee to create a rate system to allow other
energy providers to deliver gas through the underground system.
Signal Hill Antenna Consolidation — Signal Hill was once dotted with numerous
communication antennas which needed to be consolidated to allow hilltop residential
development. The City determined the optimal number of antennas pursuant to Federal law, and
through zoning and franchising created incentives for antenna cohabitation. Over a 6 -year period
we accomplished consolidation from 20 to 2 antennas without litigation over takings, federal
preemption, or other issues.
We keep abreast of existing and new technology and related developments in the law impacting
our clients. Through these efforts we are able to provide state-of-the-art advice to ensure that our
clients and their communities have the benefit of modern solutions.
(8) Redevelopment/Successor A enc
We have extensive experience in forming and advising a wide range of successful
redevelopment agencies and housing authorities. Redevelopment allows a community to
proactively recreate itself, and we believe the expertise and creativity we offer in this area is
critical to a community's long-term success. Accordingly, this has been a special area of
emphasis for the Firm. Affordable housing is an essential element of redevelopment, as real
estate trends continue to work against housing affordability and must be dealt with in a
comprehensive and integrated fashion.
A whole new set of legal issues has arisen with the dissolution of redevelopment under
ABxl 26, and implementing legislation (1484), and regulations of the Department of Finance.
We have been at the forefront of these issues representing all of our successor agencies,
attending oversight board meetings, dealing with County and State audits, attending meet and
09999.0016/252174.1 -25-
49
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
confer meetings in Sacramento and developing property disposition plans. Although eventually
everyone expects new State economic development programs to emerge, these dissolution issues
will be critical over the next several years.
The dissolution of redevelopment has not eliminated the need for an aggressive economic
development program. We have drafted perhaps the most comprehensive economic
development ordinance in the State. A truly successful economic program involves elements of
long-term planning, zoning, code enforcement, property acquisition, developer transactions with
incentives, environmental analysis, housing assistance, and public financing — and requires
expertise in all those subjects. Our Firm is one of only a few in the state with such broad
expertise.
Expertise
• Advice and assistance in preparation, adoption, and amendment of redevelopment
plans
• Formulation, negotiation, monitoring, and enforcement of Exclusive Negotiation
Agreements (ENA), Cash Depository Agreements (CDA), Owner Participation
Agreements (OPA) and Disposition and Development Agreements (DDA)
• Property acquisition either by negotiated sale or condemnation
• Hazardous wastes and toxic materials clean up including Polanco Act and
Brownfield
• Economic development through loan and grant programs and business retention
• Preparation of easements and other real estate documents
• Compliance with California Community Redevelopment Law including AB 1290,
AB 637, SB 211, etc.
• Prevailing wages legislation (SB 975)
• Formation of project area committees
• Documentation and analysis of blight and Plan Amendments
• Environmental documentation under CEQA
• Project expiration planning
• Relocation assistance
• Low and moderate income housing requirements and housing assistance programs
• State and Federal programs for housing assistance
• Loan, grant, and deferred payment housing rehabilitation programs
• First-time home buyer programs
• State housing audits and general plan programs to maximize housing
opportunities for low-income minority and disadvantaged persons
• Density bonus and other zoning incentives
• Drafting and enforcing housing restrictions through covenant agreements
Expertise in Action
Our attorneys in this practice area have over 100 years of aggregate experience in
redevelopment and housing, and have worked on numerous projects of importance in California.
These projects include auto centers and individual auto dealer transactions, commercial town
center projects, mixed commercial/residential projects, big box centers, entertainment
09999.0016/252174.1 -26-
50
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
complexes, neighborhood commercial projects, grocery/drug store complexes and industrial
complexes. We have negotiated projects ranging from a 157 -acre $800,000,000
retail/entertainment/housing project in Carson on a former landfill site to a 2.5 million square
foot award-winning Trammel Crow industrial/commercial project in Irwindale on a refilled
former mining pit.
We have attempted through award-winning projects to help our cities meet the strong
state legal mandates encouraging the provision of low and moderate income housing. These
programs range from infill of urban lots in Irwindale to development of the 92 -unit Signal Hill
Las Brisas project including a park and childcare center to win the League of California Cities'
prestigious Helen Putman Award.
Finally, with its own public finance specialty area, the Firm is one of the few which can
offer attorneys with expertise in financing innovative projects.
(9) Environment (CEQA) and Toxics
We have an extensive practice in all aspects of land use law, including environmental
investigation and analysis, property acquisition, the entitlement process, impact fees, subdivision
requirements, planned developments, growth management, coastal development, preparing
general plans and specific plans and plan updates, and updating zoning codes to remain
consistent with state laws.
Expertise
• Planning and Zoning Laws
• Adoption and Amendment of General Plans, Specific Plans, Overlay Zones
• The Subdivision Map Act
• CEQA, NEPA and the Endangered Species Act
• Conditional Use Permits, Special Use Permits, Zone Exceptions and Variances
• Property Acquisition, including by Eminent Domain
• Development Agreements
• Subdivision Improvement Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements
• Developer Impact Fee and Mitigation Programs
• Mobile Home Park Conversions
• Storm Water/NPDES issues
• Analysis of Taking issues
• First Amendment Issues, including Adult Entertainment, Massage Parlors,
Billboards, News Rack and other Sign Issues
• All forms of Land Use Litigation
(10) Risk Management/Torts
We believe in taking a pro -active role in handling claims for the cities we represent. It is
our experience training staff on methods to avoid litigation, early recognition of liability
exposure through evaluations, incident reviews prior to the receipt of claims and lawsuits, and
09999.0016/252174.1 -27-
51
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
review of settled and resolved claims with involved staff and management to enhance "best
practices," are all elements that have reduced the possibilities and instances of litigation.
We also believe in keeping management and city councils fully informed as to the status
of claims and to provide early advice on whether settlement is advisable. If a matter should be
settled, then that decision should be reached as soon as possible before hundreds of thousands of
dollars have been spent in legal defense cost. Finally, no one should be surprised by a large
adverse judgment. The client should receive early advisement if that is a possibility.
Once matters are in litigation, we take a hands-on approach by personally investigating
accident sites with City staff and claims administrators, as well as developing a comprehensive
litigation approach to minimize legal costs while providing an aggressive defense of our clients.
We have worked with many public joint powers insurance authorities (CJPIA, PERMA, BICEP,
etc) as well as private insurers, and are experienced with handling claims in a manner meeting
strict claim administration requirements. We pride ourselves on regular and effective
communication with our clients and insurers to meet their needs throughout all aspects of
litigation. Most of all, we pride ourselves on winning cases and on good results.
Expertise
• Advisory work on claims, insurance needs, and risk avoidance
• Dangerous condition matters on public streets, sidewalks, parks and other public
property including wrongful death and serious injury actions
• Specialized public properties such as recreation areas, hillsides, trails, reservoirs,
drainage facilities, etc.
• Slope failure and landslide litigation
• Employee automobile accident defense
• Defamation claims against City employees
• Civil rights claims against cities, including jail facilities and police officers
• Enactment and enforcement of municipal ordinances
Expertise in Action
The following are examples of matters that our attorneys have successfully handled:
In Illingworth v. City of Cypress, Court of Appeal Case No. G031280 (2003), the Court
of Appeal held the Anti-SLAPP statute was applicable to the free speech conduct of a City of
Cypress employee. Specifically, the Court of Appeal held the employee was immune for her
free speech activities made on behalf of Cypress to preserve a city lease agreement. This
decision resulted in Cypress being awarded nearly $60,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff's $2,000,000 lawsuit against the City and its employee was also defeated in this
litigation.
In Rasmussen v. City of Cypress, OCSC Case No. 01CC04178, the City prevailed on its
trivial defect defense in a serious injury trip -and -fall accident through a motion for summary
judgment that was affirmed on appeal.
09999.0016/252174.1 -28- 52
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
In Craig Teter v. City of Newport Beach (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 446, the California Supreme
Court clarified a person arrested for public intoxication is a prisoner for the purpose of
Government Code Immunities and there is no liability for damages sustained by a prisoner as a
consequence of conditions that are common to all inmates and represent reasonable application
of policy determinations by jail or prison authorities.
(11) Litigation
Municipalities and related public agencies often become involved in litigation, as both
plaintiffs and defendants. This litigation encompasses the full range of government's
responsibilities -- compliance with the Brown Act, Public Records Act and conflict of interest
laws, civil rights litigation, tort litigation, land use disputes, CEQA litigation, code enforcement,
construction contract disputes, employee discharge and discrimination issues, inverse
condemnation and eminent domain, among others. Attorneys in our Firm have the knowledge
and experience in administrative and court procedure necessary to represent public agencies in
administrative hearings, mediation, arbitration, civil litigation and appeals involving all of the
substantive areas of the law included in our practice. Knowledge of procedure, however, is only
one aspect of success in litigation. Knowledge of the area of substantive law involved in the
litigation is equally, if not more, important to address and prevail in such matters.
Because litigation is an integral part of our practice, and because our substantive legal
knowledge is essential to our success, our litigation experience is described in each of the other
practice area descriptions, including discussion of specific cases with which we have been
involved. However, some of the significant litigation our attorneys have handled includes:
• Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1323. We litigated
this matter to void a tainted contract under Government Code § 1090, the State conflict-
of-interest statute, and obtained an award of $850,000 plus costs from a developer who
paid $75,000 to obtain a contract. This litigation resulted in a seminal published opinion
interpreting Government Code § 1090.
• Illingworth v. City of Cypress, Court of Appeal Case No. G031280 (2003). The Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the Anti-SLAPP statute was applicable to the
free speech conduct of a Cypress employee. This decision resulted in Cypress being
awarded nearly $60,000 in attorneys' fees and costs in its favor. Plaintiff's $2 million
lawsuit against the City and its employee was also defeated in this litigation.
Ehrlich v. Culver City (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854. A seminal case in which the California
Supreme Court upheld the authority of cities to impose public art programs and
development conditions being challenged as unconstitutional.
Vela v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 141. A California appellate case that
established the attorney-client privilege for police department shooting incident reports.
Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1221. The Court of Appeal
upheld the City of Lawndale's removal of its elected City Clerk against the petitioner's
procedural due process challenge.
09999.0016/252174.1 -29-
53
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Avalon Center Investment Company v. City of Carson, LASC Case No. BS 087688,
Court of Appeal Case No. B183893. An unpublished California appellate decision
upholding City's denial of a permit for continued use of an automotive fueling station
against the claim that the City Council's denial was based upon the improper motive of
protecting existing competition and denial violated petitioner's vested rights.
• Craig Teter v. City of Newport Beach (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 446. The California Supreme
Court clarified that a person arrested for public intoxication is a prisoner for the purpose
of Government Code Immunities and that there is no liability for damages sustained by a
prisoner as a consequence of conditions that are common to all inmates and represent
reasonable application of policy determinations by jail or prison authorities.
• State of California v. City of Palm Springs. The Attorney General sued to invalidate an
agreement between Palm Springs and the Agua Caliente Tribe to sell the Tribe land on
which a. hotel -casino would be developed, based on state law prohibiting redevelopment
agency assistance for gaming. The City prevailed at trial court and the matter was
eventually settled.
• United Rock v. City of Irwindale. Mining company sued City to invalidate mining tax
increase, to establish its vested rights, and for a declaration that the City's actions
violated a prior settlement agreement. Litigation did not proceed past the demurrer stage
and City was able to proceed with regulatory actions.
El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. Rent Review Com. (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 335. Our
attorneys successfully represented the City of Palm Springs in a nearly 15 -year battle
with a mobilehome park owner over application of a rent control ordinance and numerous
challenges to the City's administrative rulings. Some of these decisions resulted in
appellate decisions in favor of the City.
County of Sacramento v. Florin Resources Conservation District. Our attorneys
represented the Water District, where the County of Sacramento was challenging the
District's authority to issue bonds and certificates of participation in the amount of
$25,000,000. We obtained a favorable ruling for the District in the very early stages of
the proceeding, dismissing with prejudice thirteen of the County's fourteen causes of
action against the District, thereby enabling the District to proceed with the issuance of
the bonds.
• Several favorable appellate decisions for the City of Carson in numerous challenges to
the administrative ruling of its Mobilehome Park Rent Control Board:
o Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review
Board, LASC Case No. BS077148, Court of Appeal Case No. B180317, Supreme
Court of California;
o Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review
Board, LASC Case No. BS077364, Court of Appeal Case No. B170146;
09999.0016/252174.1 -30-
54
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
o Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review
Board, LASC Case No. BS085137, Court of Appeal Case No. B181771;
o Carson Estates v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, LASC
Case No. BS079860, Court of Appeal Case No. B171598; and
o Carson Gardens, LLC v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board,
LASC Case No. BS072845, Court of Appeal Case No. B180308.
(12) Solid Waste
We have provided our clients specialized legal services in solid waste as Southern
California has been increasingly urbanized. Formerly outlying areas which once served as
landfill locations have become surrounded by development, and some have even been developed
themselves. Recent opposition to landfills has forced the region to look further afield for
appropriate disposal sites (and consider rail hauling) and to consider strategies of resource
recycling and recovery, and innovative waste -to -energy, co -generation, and bioremediation
technologies. In keeping with these trends, our expertise has expanded to include this full array
of subjects,. encompassing the expertise from our other practice areas. Thus, our expertise in
property acquisition, land use, environmental review, hazardous waste, and public finance has
assisted our clients in meeting their waste disposal needs.
Expertise
• Ordinances regulating solid waste collection and disposal
• Refuse franchise negotiations and agreements
• Public bidding and franchise selection procedures
• Franchise fees and Proposition 218 issues
• AB 939 compliance issues
• Municipal landfills
• Hazardous waste treatment disposal and remediation
• Operation agreements
• Development of municipal resource recovery and transfer stations (MRF/TS)
• Recycling issues
• Waste -to -energy systems
• Co -generation
• CEQA and NEPA matters
(13) Rent Control
For some 20 years, our attorneys have advised public agencies in the development,
implementation, and administrative application of municipal rent control ordinances (including
so-called "factor based" and "Maintenance of Net Operating Income" ordinances). We serve as
general or special counsel to the Palm Springs Rent Review Commission and the Carson
Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, two cities with, collectively, over 40 mobilehome
parks, and have been in the forefront of litigation to defend municipal rent control. We have also
successfully represented mobilehome park home owners associations in rent control ordinance
administrative and litigation matters.
09999.0016/252174.1 -31-
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Expertise
• Administrative hearings before rent control review boards
• Rent increase applications
• Disputes on capital improvements rent and project maintenance
• Drafting and defending rent control ordinances
• Drafting and defending ordinances on conversion from rental to condominium
ownership
• Conversion economic studies
• Relocation and relocation assistance
• Developing financing programs
• State and Federal housing assistance programs
• Resident park ownership
• Park valuation issues
• Mobilehome park legislation
• Moratoriums
• Subdivision Map Act
• Takings issues
(14) Water
We have the specialized expertise to assist our clients as they struggle with scarce water
resources, long recognized as the most fundamental constraint on long-term development in
Southern California. The development, distribution, recovery, treatment and conservation of
water resources will continue to be a topic of fundamental importance to our clients.
Accordingly, we provide legal guidance in all areas of water law to our water district, sanitation,
and municipal clients, including such issues as groundwater adjudications, groundwater
contamination, reclaimed water, water assessments, water transfers, water use planning and
management, preparation of EIRs, air quality analysis, SB 221 and SB 610 compliance, and
urban water management plans.
Expertise
• Water use, planning and management
• Water transfers
• Special districts
• Joint powers agreements
• Infrastructure construction
• Public financing
• Rate setting and Proposition 218
• Regulatory aspects of wastewater treatment plants
• Reclaimed water
• Water recharge
• Groundwater adjudication
• Water conservation
• Hazardous materials and contamination management
• CEQA compliance
09999.0016/252174.1 -32- 56
IV. - QUALIFICATIONS - AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Urban Water Management Planning Act compliance
• Senate Bill 221 and Senate Bill 610 analysis and compliance
(15) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
Glen Tucker, our firm's senior litigator, is an approved member of the JPIA litigation
panel. Mr Tucker has made presentations at CJPIA Conventions on subjects of interest, and has
advised CJPIA officers on litigation related issues since the 1980s. Mr. Tucker has been
working with CJPIA since 1981 and, together with PERMA (Public Entity Risk Management
Authority) and ICRMA (Independent Cities Risk Management Authority), has handled over
100 cases. Mr. Tucker and other attorneys working under his department in our firm have
handled the full variety of cases assigned through these risk management pools such as CJPIA,
including general risk management (slip and fall and injury cases), civil rights, and personnel
matters. The cases have included complaints seeking damages ranging from under $10,000 to
over $10 million.
We are proud of our record in defending these matters, including securing full defense
verdicts in a large number of the cases we have tried or through earlier termination of the cases
before trial, thereby saving CJPIA and our city clients significant attorneys' fees and potential
liability judgments. Where appropriate, we have also secured favorable settlements on behalf of
the CJPIA and our city clients, avoiding unnecessary additional litigation and trial costs and risks
of unfavorable judgments.
09999.0016(252174.1 -33-
57
33-
57
V.
PERFORMANCE — PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
A. STAFFING
One of our goals in forming our Firm was to avoid the high overhead costs that drive
other municipal law firms to take on private clients in the pursuit of higher rates. From an
administrative standpoint, making our operations cost effective depends on several strategies: (i)
recruit hard-working high quality attorneys and compensate them at a level comparable with the
top firms in our field; (ii) have a low ratio of administrative staff to attorneys (3:1); (iii) utilize
paralegals and clerks to do tasks where attorneys are not needed; (iv) find economical office
space; and (v) utilize technology to the greatest extent possible to save labor costs. We have
implemented all these measures.
Our office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. As a general rule,
there are attorneys in the office until at least 6:30 p.m. most days. When our clients' needs
dictate it, we work weekends. Meeting the clients' needs is our principal criterion.
We currently have 40 attorneys, up from 10 since we formed the Firm in 2003. We have
three paralegals that actively assist with litigation, condemnation, and code enforcement matters
to reduce costs. We also have a team of experienced professional legal secretaries and support
staff who are dedicated to serving the Firm's clients. Our legal secretaries are full-time and each
assists up to three attorneys. We have a full-time Office Administrator who is a board member
of the Association of Legal Administrators and who has an extensive network of contacts in
other law firms and agencies.
Although we expect our growth to continue, we do not foresee the need to add staff to
meet the City's legal needs. In sum, we have positioned the Firm to be able to grow on demand
to meet the needs of our clients, in terms of physical office space, attorneys, secretaries, support
staff, and technology.
B. TIMELINESS AND RESPONSE TIMEFRAMES
Our practice is to respond to inquiries and requests for opinions within the times specified
by the City Council or staff. Telephone calls from Councilmembers or the City Manager should
be returned immediately but at least the same half-day, and those from Department Heads should
be returned in the same day. Given the varied complexity of legal questions confronting the City
and the relative importance of the particular issue to the City, it is difficult to establish a standard
time for written memoranda but our general standard is to respond within two weeks unless other
deadlines are specified. We work as quickly and thoroughly as necessary to respond to the needs
of the City within the timeframes demanded. Often, staff or agenda deadlines will create the
need to respond within hours or days, and we accept the need to respond immediately when
needed. However, this may cause other assignments to be bumped. Flexibility is critical with
the ultimate priority set by the City Manager.
As for ad hoc or unscheduled, urgent meetings, the City Attorney, Assistant, Deputy, or
relevant specialist will generally be available to meet on relatively short notice, in part due to our
close proximity to City Hall.
-34-
58
One of our goals in forming our Firm was to avoid the high overhead costs that drive
other municipal law firms to take ,on private clients in the pursuit of higher rates. From an
administrative standpoint, making our operations cost effective depends on several strategies. (i)
recruit hard-working high quality attorneys and compensate them at a level coin -parable with the
top firms in our field; (ii) have a low ratio of administrative staff to attorneys (3: 1); (iii) utilize
paralegals and clerks to do tasks where attorneys are not needed; (iv) find economical office
space; and (v) utilize technology to the greatest extent possible to save labor costs. We have
implemented all these measures.
Our office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. As a general rule,
there are attorneys in the office until at least 6:30 p.m, most days. When our clients' needs
dictate it, we work weekends. Meeting the clients' needs is our principal criterion.
We currently have 40 attorneys, up from 10 since we formed the Firm in 2003. We have
three paralegals that actively assist with litigation, condemnation, and code enforcement matters
to reduce costs. We also have a team of experienced professional legal secretaries and support
staff who are dedicated to serving the Firm's clients. Our legal secretaries are full-time and each
assists up to three attorneys. We have a full-time Office Administrator who is a board member
of the Association of Legal Administrators and who has an extensive network of contacts in
other law firms and agencies.
Although we expect our growth to continue, we do not foresee the need to add staff to
meet the City's legal needs. In sum, we have positioned the Finn to be able to grow on demand
to meet the needs of our clients, in terms of physical office space, attorneys, secretaries, support
staff, and technology.
Our practice is to respond to inquiries and requests for opinions within the times specified
by the City Council or staff, Telephone calls from Councilmembers or the City Manager should
be returned immediately but at least the same half-day, and those from Department Heads should
be returned in the same day. Given the varied complexity of legal questions confronting the City
and the relative importance of the particular issue to the City, it is difficult to establish a standard
time for written memoranda but our general standard is to respond within two weeks -unless other
deadlines are specified. We work as quickly and thoroughly as necessary to respond to the needs
of the City within the timeframes demanded, Often, staff or agenda deadlines will create the
need to respond within hours or days, and we accept the need to respond immediately when
needed. However, this may cause other assignments to be buynped, Flexibility is critical with
the ultimate priorib
y set by the City Manager.
As for ad hoc or unscheduled, urgent meetings, the, City.Attorx-iey, Assistant, Deputy, or
relevant specialist will generally be available to meet on relati-vely short notice, in part due to Our
close proximity to City Hall.
-34-
59
V. — PERFORMANCE — PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
Response time is one of our strengths. In order to maintain high quality and timeliness of
service, we are careful to make sure that no one attorney has so many city client assignments that
it interferes with giving prompt attention to any one client. Each client must be treated as
number one. As such, we have carefully selected the proposed team of attorneys. One of the
practices we have found useful is to have a primary backup attorney who focuses on the City and
gains sufficient experience that they are able to promptly respond to issues without direct
supervision by the City Attorney. Moreover, we encourage our experienced specialists to
develop their own relationships with the appropriate staff members so that issues can be
responded to directly and promptly. Of course, this requires coordination of information on our
part so that advice is consistent, and although this can be challenging, our experience is that the
benefits outweigh the difficulties.
In addition, because we have an aggregation of specialists with a high degree of
expertise, it is often possible to obtain answers without the necessity for extensive research.
Attorneys who practice exclusively in a field such as personnel or environmental law for a
number of years often address similar issues over and over again. Generally, they are intimately
familiar with statutes and case law which deal with their area of expertise.
All the firms responding to this RFP will say they have adequate systems to assume
responsiveness. How do you assure this? We suggest that the best measure is the satisfaction of
our existing clients with our responsiveness: day -in day -out, large projects and small, making
agenda deadlines, handling litigation. The fact that we have represented two cities for over 35
years (Lawndale and Signal Hill) should be testimony to this, but if this is not sufficient, we
suggest that you talk to these cities and our other clients directly.
C. REPORTS AND REQUESTS FOR SERVICES
In terms of communication structure, a number of cities have what is known as the
"manager's memo." This is a weekly communication from the central management team to the
City Council and includes reports from all of the department heads and the City Attorney. This
regular, formalized reporting system, with written communications from the central management
team to the City Council, has been helpful in eliminating any perception that selective kinds of
information were shared with certain council members and not the council as a whole.
Other operational structures include concepts in the cost containment area. For example,
we have developed a form for initiating City Attorney assignments so that the assignment request
is in writing .with a due date, and the requesting department can get sign -off by the City
Manager. Moreover, we generally utilize an assignment log with each City to maintain a list of
all active assignments, who is working on them and when they are due, in order to provide a
system for monthly status reporting. Another example of operational structures for cost
containment is developing standard contracts and other forms for our cities and making vendors
use them. This provides a quality document, consistency, and minimal attorney review time.
D. COMPUTER RESOURCES
Our Firm is equipped with a state-of-the-art computer network and an array of
technology designed to make us more efficient and to make electronic interaction with our
clients fast, flexible, and economical. We use Microsoft Word for all documents and
09999.0016/252174.1 -35- 60
V. — PERFORMANCE — PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
correspondence and our staff has expertise in all of the types of software used today in the
practice of law. The Firm is connected to the internet via a T-1 circuit providing an "always on"
connection for 24 hour access to email, remote access and client connections. We exchange mail
and files electronically with our clients as a matter of daily routine. We also have the capability
of connecting with the City's local area network via a VPN connection.
As both green and cost savings measures, many of our cities have stopped printing
agendas for staff and now provide agendas electronically. Our attorneys working in these cities
have portable laptop computers, iPads or other portable communication devises which allow
them to access their agendas, notes and other documents during meetings.
09999.0016/252174.1 -36- 61
VI.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
We have no present or contemplated employment which is adverse to the City. We will
not represent clients in matters either in litigation or non -litigation against the City. In fact, we
do not represent private clients in litigation against public agencies. However, we may have past
and present clients or may have future clients, which, from time to time, may have interests
adverse to the City, and we reserve the right to represent such clients in matters not connected
with its representation of the City.
If a potential conflict of interest arises in our representation of two clients, if such conflict
is only speculative or minor, we seek waivers from each client with regards to such
representation. However, if real conflicts exist, we would withdraw from representing either
client in the matter and assist them in obtaining outside special counsel.
We are aware of no affiliations or interests which would conflict in any manner with the
performance of services pursuant to this RFP. We take pride in the fact that we do not represent
developers or others likely to have interests adverse to our municipal clients. We are not aware
of any other public law firms willing to give up this lucrative private practice where higher rates
are available. We have adopted this practice so that our municipal clients can be assured that
their City Attorney and his or her firm has undivided loyalty to them.
B. CURRENT PUBLIC AGENCY CLIENTS
Client
Positions
Start Date
Anaheim
Special Counsel
2013
Arvin
Ci Attorne
2013
Bakersfield
Successor Agency Counsel
2008
Bannin "
City Attorney, Successor "enc Courrset `"
2048
Bell `,'
Ci, ' "ttorre , Successor A"" enc &Commissions Counsel .
2011
Bellflower
Ci" ` Attorne , Successor A enc Counset"
1998
Carson
City Attorney, Successor Agency Counsel "
2043
Cerritos
City Attorrre / Special Counsel. (WRD)
1965(2011
Chino
Special Counsel
2010
Covina
Special Counsel (Labor & Employment)
2004
Culver City
Special Counsel
1980
C ress
City Attorney
1,997
Downey
Special Counsel (WRD)
2011
El Centro
Successor Agency Counsel, Special Counsel
1992
Fillmore
City Attorney, Successor A enc "Counsel
2012
Fresno
Special Counsel
2013
Hesperia
Ci `' Attorney, Successor Agency Counsel
2007
Home Gardens County Water District
General Counsel
2000
Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy
Special Counsel
2005
Indian Springs Mobilehome Park
Special Counsel
2006
Association
Inglewood
Special Counsel
2007
Irvine
Special Counsel (Great Park Audit)
2014
Irwindale
City Attorne , Successor Agency Counsel,
1996
-37- 62
VI. - CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Client Position(s) Start Date
�oustn �uth��i, Finatnc�Autl�orl
Marina Water District
Counsel
2014
[[General
MD iF Ba L[t .Attc me ' y i k x .. -0 -777
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Special Counsel
2011
Newport Beach
Special Counsel
2007
Palisades Bowl Mobilehome Park Assoc.
Special Counsel
2009
Palmdale Water Dzstict ' "`
(reneral C6unsl011
Pasadena
Special Counsel
2007
P.err1$ . , , ...; , ,
Cl .. Attorrle ,:SUCGe5Sor E�a�11C , Counsel
",200(1 " .
Phelan Pinon Hills Comm Services District
Special Counsel
2011
Orange County Council of Governments
General Counsel
2001
Oxnard
Special Counsel
1994
Reedley
Special Counsel
2013
Rialto
City Attorney
2014
San Diego
Special Counsel
2006
San Dimas
Ci Atto ey
1977
San Fernando
Special Counsel
2011
San Luis Rey Municipal Water District
General Counsel
1980
Santa Maria
S ecial Counsel
2014
Signal Hill
City Attorney, Successor Agency Counsel,
Housing Authority, Finance Authority (1994)
1978
C. COMMITMENTS — PROPOSED CITY ATTORNEY
Ms. Soltani's current commitment is as City Attorney to City of Carson.
Carson City Attorney: Council Meetings, 1St & 3rd Monday
09999.0016/252174.1
63
VII.
COMPENSATION
A. GENERAL
Aleshire & Wynder generally charges fees on an hourly basis for all time actually
expended on behalf of a client, usually in a "blended rate" formula that provides a deep discount
of our hourly rates because of the potential volume of work. These rates are typically discounted
further for an agreed-upon number of hours per month of basic "general counsel" services. This
extra discount for a fixed number of hours substitutes for a fixed retainer, without the risks that
the City will be overcharged when a minimal number of hours is required or that the Firm will be
under -compensated when there is a demand for services beyond the expected level.
For "special services" we charge a higher blended hourly rate. We do this because special
services are often areas where even in-house city attorney offices would seek outside legal
services from firms such as ourselves, and generally firms charge significantly higher in this
area. We set our rates below generally prevailing rates for such services, but when blending
these rates with our lower general services rates, we are able to achieve a somewhat higher
overall effective rate and subsidize the lower general service rates.
B. FEE PROPOSAL
General Services 1 st year (1 st 100 hours)
General Services 2nd year (1st 60 hours)
Remaining General Services
Risk Management/Code Enforcement
Special Services (Litigation)
Public Finance
Paralegals
Document Clerks
Reimbursable Expenses (by 3rd party)
1. General Services
$165/per hour for 1 st year
$175/per hour after 1 st year
$185/per hour 1 st year then $195
$185/per hour 1 st year then $195
$205/per hour 1 st year then $215
Contingent Fees
$105/per hour l st year then $120
$50/per hour 1st year then $60
$275/per hour or $320 major transaction
With respect to "general counsel" or "basic" legal services; we propose discounting the
first 100 hours per month of legal services by charging a blended rate of $165 per hour for such
services, which means the hourly rate would be the same irrespective of the attorney performing
the services. For hours of general legal services rendered above 100 hours per month, we would
bill the City at the blended rate of $185 per hour.
We are giving a high number of discounted hours in the first year because our experience
is extra time is spent in the transition year. We propose that in the second year the discounted
hours are reduced from 100 hours to 60 and the rate goes from $165 to $175 per hour. If hours
are not dropping, the number of hours could be negotiated.
-39- 64
VII. - COMPENSATION
2. Special Services or "Extraordinary Services"
With respect to or "special" or extraordinary legal services, again, we generally include as
specialized services everything specified in the RFP including:
(a) Litigation and litigation support on behalf of the City and its related entities
including the Successor Agency and Great Park;
(b) All matters involving the Successor Agency or any housing agency including
audits, ROPS statements, meet and conferring with DOF, legal challenges,
disposition of property and all other matters;
(c) All legal work concerning property acquisitions, condemnation, forfeiture and
foreclosure, easements, covenants and restrictions and other related matters;
(d) Support enforcement of City codes, zoning regulations and building standards
through administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial actions
(e) Public finance matters including assessment districts, bond financing and other
similar maters;
(f) Personnel and disciplinary matters and labor relations matters, including advising
on discipline, representation at hearings, revising personnel rules, negotiating and
drafting MOUs, advising on litigation, impasse procedures and related matters.
(g) Franchising operations, public utility representation and related matters where
legal services can be charged to the entity.
(h) Cost reimbursement from developers for specialized services.
For specialized services, we would generally charge such services at $205 per hour, with the
following caveats:
(a) For risk management matters and code enforcement where outside counsel rates
are generally lower than standard litigation, we would charge $185 per hour.
(b) For public finance, we have a contingent fee option discussed in Exhibit A;
(c) for reimbursed services by a third party, our rate is $250 per hour.
We emphasize that the foregoing is a proposal, and we would be happy to discuss alternate
arrangements. The proposed fees, expense reimbursement, and billing practices are more
thoroughly described in the Statement of Fee Arrangement attached hereto as Exhibit A.
C. REIMBURSEMENT
We will not bill for costs of travel or travel time to City faculties but do with respect to
going to judicial or administrative matters. See Exhibit B attached hereto.
D. COSTS
We generally charge or normal rates for training activities, but have often worked out a
reduced fixed fee for training. Often we have previously prepared materials and do not need to
charge for the preparation of materials.
09999.0016/252174.1 -40-
VII. - COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT "A"
FEE ARRANGEMENT
(1) The payment for up to one hundred (100) hours of general legal service (Monthly Hour Limit) shall
be a maximum of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) per month (billed at One Hundred
Sixty -Five Dollars ($165) per hour). This high discount is due to the need to ramp up services in the first
year. After the 1st year, the discounted rate shall apply to only 60 hours of legal services. The $165 rate
shall increase to $175 per hour after one years of services.
(2) General legal services over the Monthly Hour Limit will be billed at the rate of One Hundred Eighty
Five Dollars ($185) per hour for the first year increasing to $195 per hour until July 1, 2017.
(3) Special legal services shall include litigation matters, public finance, disciplinary actions or
hearings, labor negotiations, redevelopment, housing, cable television, water, toxics, refuse, franchising,
enterprise activities and any major contract negotiation involving more than 10 hours (with City Manager
approval). Except for insurance defense, code enforcement, and public finance, all such matters shall be
billed at the rate of Two Hundred Five ($205) per hour.
(4) Insurance defense/risk management, litigation and code enforcement will be billed at a reduced rate
of One Hundred Eighty Five Dollars ($185) per hour.
(5) Where there is an opportunity to obtain cost recovery through a private party such as a developer,
the hourly rate will be Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($275) per hour or $320 major transaction.
(6) For public finance the fee structure shall be as follows: (i) For land based issues (i.e. CFD,
Assessment or Improvement Districts) one and one-half (1 ''/z) percent of the first $1 million executed and
delivered; three-quarters percent of the next $4 million executed and delivered; one-third percent of the
next $10 million; one-eighth percent of the next $10 million; and one-tenth percent of any amount over
$25 million;subject to a minimum fee of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000); or (ii) For all other
financings the above schedule applies with a 25% discount. In the event that multiple series of bonds or
notes are issued, the foregoing fee schedule would be applied to each issue. Fees shall be contingent
unless otherwise directed by the client. If contingent, payment of the fees is entirely contingent upon the
successful execution and delivery of the bonds or notes to be payable on or after delivery except for out-
of-pocket expenses. In addition to the foregoing, a fee of $6,000 may be charged if a tax opinion is
required. At the discretion of the City, City may choose a non -contingent structure in lieu of the above
schedule at the rate of $400 per hour on a blended rate for all attorney time incurred.
(7) In addition to the foregoing, the Firm would be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses as described
in the attached Exhibit B.
(8) The blended rate for legal assistants (Paralegal), irrespective of matter, shall be One Hundred Five
Dollars($105) per hour for the first year and $120 thereafter.
(9) The blended rate for document clerks, document litigation specialist and city clerk/election
consultant services shall be Fifty Five ($50) per hour for the first year and $60 thereafter.
This arrangement shall remain in effect until July 1, 2018 and thereafter until amended.
09999.0016/252174.1 -41-
VII. - COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT "B"
STATEMENT OF BILLING PRACTICES
The Firm's fees are charged on an hourly basis for all time actually expended and are
generally billed monthly with payment due within thirty (30) days after the date of the bill.
However, where contract rates are established, they prevail over design rates. The current hourly
design rate for the attorneys and staff working on this matter will be set forth in the billing
statement. Annually, you will be provided with the prevailing hourly design rates for the
attorneys who will spend the predominate amount of time on this matter. It should be
understood that hourly rates are reviewed, and when appropriate, adjusted to reflect increases in
seniority and experience as well as inflationary factors. These increases are generally made on
an annual basis effective at the beginning of each calendar year.
The Firm will incur various costs and expenses in performing legal services. These costs
and expenses are separately billed to the client and include fees fixed by law or assessed by
public agencies, litigation costs including deposition, reporter fees, and transcript fees, long
distance telephone calls, messenger and other delivery fees, postage, photocopying (charge of
twenty cents ($.20) per page) and other reproduction costs, staff overtime when necessitated and
authorized by the client, and computer-assisted research fees when authorized by the client, all
based on the actual and reasonable cost (mileage, reproduction and other_ costs are periodically
adjusted in accordance with the Firm's actual costs).
Travel costs including mileage (current IRS rate), parking, airfare, lodging, meals, and
incidentals are charged in connection with administrative or judicial proceedings, or when
traveling outside of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Travel time
may also be charged in connection with such proceedings. In addition, the client will be
responsible for paying the fees of consultants and other outside experts who are retained after
consultation with the client.
It is understood that Firm will generally not charge for mileage or travel time between our
office and City facilities, nor for local telephone calls or calls made to the City. In exchange,
Firm shall not be charged for calls made or received at the City, whether local or long-distance,
or for copying charges since copying onsite will reduce the charge to the client.
The monthly billing statements for fees and costs shall indicate the basis of the fees,
including a detailed and auditable breakdown of the hours worked, the billable rates charged and
description of the work performed. All bills are expected to be paid within thirty (30) days of the
date of the billing statement. In the event any statement remains unpaid for more than thirty (30)
days after the date of the statement, interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum
shall be due and payable thereafter on the unpaid balance.
Registration fees for attorneys attending conferences and seminars are paid by the Firm
and are never charged to the City (unless expressly requested by the City).
09999.0016/252174.1 -42-
67
VIII. - PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES
Albert Robles, Mayor
Lula Davis-Holms, Council Member
Jim Dear, former Mayor current City Clerk
CITY OF CARSON
701 E. Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
(310) 830-7600
Nestor Valencia, Mayor
Ali Saleh, Councilmember
Jerry Groomes, Interim City Attorney
CITY OF BELL
(323) 588-6211
Ken Farfsing, City Manager
Mike Noll, Mayor
Larry Forester, Councilmember
CITY OF SIGNAL HILL
(562) 989-7302
Mr. Paul Phillips, Former City Manager
City of Covina; Current Asst. Director of
California Contract Cities; Former City
Manager of Lawndale
(714)978-8201
Ken Farfsing, City Manager
Mike Noll, Mayor
Larry Forester, Councilmember
CITY OF SIGNAL HILL
(562) 989-7302
kfarfsinggcityofsignalhill. org
Nestor Valencia, Mayor
Ali Saleh, Councilmember
Jerry Groomes, Interim City Attorney
CITY OF BELL
(323) 588-6211
dwillmore(iDcitvofbell. ori
Additional References Available Upon Request
09999.0016/252174.1 -43- 68
EXHIBIT A — EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM ATTORNEYS
JD 1983
University of Texas Law School
June Ailm With Honors 32
Bellflower ('07-12)
Lompoc ('09-12)
MLS 1977 University of Maryland Palos Verdes Est ('05-10)
BA 1976 University of Maryland, Phi Kappa Phi
,,..., .., : ,r:'._, „ ✓.,: ... ,.. .... . , ,..� ,; ,., ,.,.., ...� .,. ,i rw^ . f .r.. t. n fir- ..3 , t ,-. v. Vii?. F�`. ?#. �"'. �. <., m,:.
.,, :.r. .. ,.:•; , �r . ..,, �, . ,..: ,r, , -,,, ..tv , . ,,:, ,,, ,. r ¢ i 5 � t : J =T `1 � , t ;r.. �• r �t,C,i„�, � ,; 7� .r 3�, L d . y ..�<
_ ,.�_.. __ >4 .,,,,a....,, ..,,r ,. : < � .o,,,.� � ,...-s .. 5, , ._,...� .✓r s„ .�... .>_<,o,<nr w, .. ..,,. _.,..,'�a.,, ,/.D.� .,.r_,r..,___ _ _ ,. �._:�,..., .,..,e,_ _s.,.,.�3 �,..,.. t.��, �.. ,. �,a.��..a„�:-a.1.t�. ..ut°x`�s.x;
JD 1975 UCLA Law School Banning ('08-) Lawndale ('78-83)
David J. Aleshire MA 1976 UCLA, Urban Planning 39 Bell ('11 - ) Signal Hill ('78-85)
BA 1972 Stanford University, Phi Beta Kappa Signal Hill ('85-) Irvine ('86-89)
Suisun City ('09-11) Cerritos ('78-85)
Irwindale ('96-03, '06-07) Norwalk ('78-85)
Lawndale ('83-95) San Dimas ('78-85)
Palm Springs ('90-05)
Perris ('00-02)
San Jacinto ('98-00)
�,��, .avd�i, <.,
.>, .,... .,'. ., tr. �. _,... , _,s,. ...,.�.. r.:.,, �..., .<"•' ,,...,, ✓� _ , ._.,, ,. _ .,...,...,<><, _ ,,.., s�. ,.. a. _.aa�.;n� ..i�,x..,�..,�.� . , ,.✓„r,,v.:.�l' �,,:�,.,_ .:...,,.....�, .... ,>-_ .<, ._.:... >.,_„<� aa.. ,.,,���� _<� s✓ S
JD 1978 University of Southern California Menifee ('12-14) Fontana ('92-97)� Los Osos CSD ('05-08)
Julie Biggs MSEd 1.970 University of Southern California 37 Colton ('93-97) Corona ('92-97) Tri -City Healthcare District ('09-10)
MA 1969 University of Southern California Hemet ('98-06) Glendora ('98-00) Jurupa CSD ('07-11)
BA 1966 University of Southern California, cum laude Laguna Woods ('98-06) City of Elk Grove ('06-10)
Goleta ('02-08) City of Ojai ('08-10)
Banning ('04-08)
Wildomar ('08-12)
.... , r �r.aa,.,`.
g,x
'=�`x.,fr.� - .00111
i <
r>� „�;, .._ ._..�:_..: - ��. ,_.,. .. _ `. .,G �,. � a,�.,t �.,..,r�so...., �,.>.Ay _,.�t ;.a"x�—�,e>,,. _:.�:,�,. ,•�.,y���_� �, �_ _.._� .. ,�✓ e�r ,..�__.,..�,„�M1._�:.s.'3_.�a���,��sl?,..<. <z.._:aa�,:” ra. .gran. �.2e:;
Ken Brown JD 1961 Case Western Reserve Univ Law 54
BSS 1957 John Carroll University
:: _ ,. },: wns �
EXHIBIT A - EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM ATTORNEYS
09999.0016/252174.1
-45-
70
Western State University, Law Review, Hesperia ('07-) Perris ('00-02)
Eric Dunn JD
1995
magna cum laude 20 Perris ('02-) Signal Hill ('96-01)
Southern Illinois University,
BA
1989 Twenty -Nine Palms ('97-00)
magna cum laude
...,. ,.. ,x. , /': µr" Jx:f:•:. »Z :' r ,ui.,',� , n.. ....� oa, ... , , .tr F, „..
, -.,. ...... ,-t: ✓ir « .4n 2 t :,' y. if � ... .,, ,..� � ...i
JD
1993 Loyola Law School Arvin ('13-) Morro Bay ('14- )
John Fox
22
BA
1988 Wheaton College Fresno ('04-12)
:, .m,... „. ._ , .." .. .,,.,.. .. .. ,.,. .4. Yrr .. ii �Y,�,�£�.3'. .. n fi, nP'�L• , $ �±,C' t t5"
Loyola Law School, Home Gardens County Water District
Fred Galante JD
1995 Irwindale ('03-) Carson ('03-10)
St Thomas Moore Law Honor Society 20 (`99)
Cal State University, Northridge,
BA
1992 Rialto ('14-) Irwindale ('96-03)
Dean's List
Lynwood ('08-'14) Irvine ('97-01) Orange County Council of Gov'ts ('01- )
Palm Springs ('97-03)
JD
2000 Boston College Irwindale ('14- Community Dev Comm LA County
Adrian Guerra
BS
1996 University of Southern California 15 La Canada-Flintridge ('01-) Housing Authority LA County ('01-'09)
magna cum laude Cerritos ('01-14)
San Dimas ('01-)
Huntington Park ('01-03)
Monterey Park ('01 09)
-
..
y 2 r{..{E I 7 � �' k'��, r N't:.£t r `i1j h` flk,.,6 s?i , l ° $ � � .xP},l+ i %.'3d .. k E, e'��� ✓/ ,
> ,. %_, r,: ✓id.+ 1a�+. jsi.�rf a ,!( n, .,,:: "'�?'.;. �r . 'r.a. � F`yJ C nj'/"'¢tiV;y.� .. 3.t. ,ix . ....?�y . ,� -i.. � � £ � ?3< ... � .,s =. .;.K..,.t. . % 5.�.'.: c
CS , v. t
�
t
. , _ . ., . „ .... ,. _ . _,... ,.
f ;;�
t �., r » .. .., �. ..... a ✓. , a� ,., a.. r,. ....� , v,�i'.,,,� w ._..:...�.� _ _ ,...� � .. _..,-.e:�tc}.=b � .':L,,.,h>u a, �..,._ W.� T.. ,�, ., a....,,, �e:.�: ..�.aar,...0 ,� .�..,:�..k.� �... � ...a ..: .. �... _ .�-,�x�
Joanna JD
2013 University of CA, Berkeley
Hernandez BA
2008 Occidental College 2
magna cum laude
&. 'yw. .b :w fy .'
, . o f.,.., f Yf'
s#
xv t, '•C'.: rr:. � � � �
�
..:.,,.,-4 ... r.. , w r .., r . ., .,,, -.: ,5... ! H... T. �'py C9y`3. \ .. C+
,.: _.. ,,. � _,..,.�,,.�,x ..._ ., ..�, ...� ,..., Xr � „ � .. .s... ,.. ,4, �.' »....r._✓,+b.- ,,..�.�.a ar ,..r .,_�r� .,✓... ti,,: ..� �,,...,.b.,. �f .h..,.,„.,.,, w.,,.,....(.. sa,�,. ,,,, ti ,_. R�..�,.,...,,; , _,.a.� ._a�...v.r3.�.v�Paa s:.,�`�..�,:�. ...,,.�.. �d���� e. ..., .,,,.. ,
JD
2012 University of CA, Davis
Miles Hogan
3
BS
2008 UCLA
.}. ,.. ;:: 'n 'r{*^^?•.. .:<. t ...,/ �v 3 - "�,: �t ' i �' 'z,% . ss@ 7f1't{`�t' r. rc'.�1`'.... .. 'til .., :. ;,, � � s' ,
S ...._ s>u 5.._,. �_.,u•, .. ��v..un :oml w 1 ,a .,, ,.i. i..,.,.e `3 s. � �,,...� , ,w ,u:,.. �r�c. fSric =L.�v.�Le'�,> 2-�'vtdn..C: aw, , ,. ... yo-.. ,.,;o. a,,. a
MA
2011 UCLA, Urban Planning Lawndale ('12- )
Michael Huston
JD
2007 Chicago -Kent College of Law 6 Fillmore ('14)
BA
2003 UCLA_.
cum laude
,vim. .:: .. ,.. ,g,.Y=.,. ,,.;..,, rt51 x,.:..<w 'v'... <., ..k
...�, .,,k ':4 .,, Y'4,Y t; ,. ,.,
`£«Y 1 .S Y 'iwkr tb ..,'X ,., ..„ .3F'. fai ?•§,{ „":."ri>h. NEr"'',�? h1 .? 2'.,. . .., .. rv. ,n"`. 1F'.. .�*i`'`C�A ".:... ,.,.
f , ..i;: ,.,i"',,. .,.. 3"i' ., +3 �%. ✓ 6 I kf,.„ ., ,.. n. , .i .,( " E rq. .» e,
,:nxN'" ;c ,. .
r .:
z 7.�imom
x:.�.,,,.,v.�r�.v.�.a.
JD
1996 University of San Diego Fillmore ('12-) Lawndale ('03-07) Fillmore Housing Authority ('12- )
Tiffany Israel
BA
1993 University of Southern California 19 Lawndale ('07-) Palm Springs ('03-05) Lawndale Housing Authority ('07- )
cum laude Special Counsel: Newport Beach ('07- )
Bakersfield ('10- )
Santa Maria ('13- )
09999.0016/252174.1
-45-
70
EXHIBIT A - EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM ATTORNEYS
Dave Kwon JD 2008 UCLA 7 Signal Hill ('15- )
BA 2004 University of CA, Irvine Menifee ('12-14)
., .,.. .:.,. S r m .,5. `/ S", x& }. ,.q d`f ..., ,., .. .,. rs,, ,N- �� ¢... n Y(e� SJa Y-,^ -.�,> 3� r`•
„ ;.,: ..-,. , ;, a %:. ..:. � ,. � `• .� �' r �. f' ,r .r ,L?f G x'3,»:,.�x -z n "z'-+fs'�''Yr zr.,'. c„ ell: ,, .. .H ..
i.._ r. _. ..�.,-..,..., ._ ,.� ...,,,_.:�.......... .....�.; ., . ..�< ,.,:r;... _ .r .,..... � ..._i ,!;. _ ,,.... ...._....:._.,__r.. _..rc.,�... ,.�,3�,.,..�.,..,,.�:;.{.�„ e`;,,,Z. _.,.x.�y.. ._!°,z•..,✓�:�.,>_. ..f�.�"..> . �,.....�,.� .�.._, ..,a� ;.r..3�.;��.����3`�'��...r, .r,,;3a`.-.
Anne Lanphar JD 1977 University of CA, Hastings 38
BA 1974 Cal State University, Fullerton
. �.. .. ... m .. - _. vrc .�,..... , ,,, >V �......, . _ „f _> . rc.,,u_ .., .., _.,;<, .,_ _ . �. _ ._ �,...._... . . . . . . ... ... ..... �...r�. , > .. > < �,.., .. >~ .>._ _ x...�xs, i , «.,,e ... ,....,z~..rc✓F i ,,,, .., � ..,, _..'';�i � xa... �:.."`'�nd...,J».>udr�..� `s2,�.a .. >u:.a' , °,w..�.
Lona Laymon JD 2001 University of Southern California 14 Yucca Valley Banning ('10- )
BA 1998 University of CA, Irvine, Dual BA, magna
cum laude, summa cum laude, Phi Beta
Kappa
v rr x
�..�. 112,51's
Pam Lee JD 2006 University of Southern California 9 Rialto (14- Anaheim Transportation Network
Cerritos ('14-) ('10-12)
BA 2002 UCLA, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude Irwindale ('09-14) Deputy City Prosecutor:
Yucca Valley ('09-14) Cypress ('07-14)
Lynwood ('09-14) Lynwood ('09214) .
Lawndale ('07-09)
Christy Marie JD¢ Catholic University 13 Yucca Valley ('14-) City Prosecutor:
Lopez Best Oralist, Moot Court Baldwin Park ('07-10; '12-14) Banning, Bell, Yucca Valley, Morro Bay
BA 1999 San Diego State University Banning ('07-10) Suisun City
Irwindale ('05-07)
,..., ., ,...,,. , , , r ,r,=, � :., <, W:r .{ ,� r �"�. �.<. ., 9 .fi.. >w,� . r �ti� SSP �" ".�. 9•
r
> az ��i« .,n ,r,,>�, w .. ...:. .. ....�. _,_._,� ,... �_ ..w „JTvvvtil6sa�r�G✓,�, »v> �� ,,. ym.w„, _^a,, r_. �.s.���n ..r_�p,, +euca �� .. ��
Anita Luck JD 1998 Loyola Law School 17 Perris ('05-14)
BA 1990 University of CA, Santa Barbara
'g—
WOW
a
z...r. 4C 5,>,f%: <. "1 1, ,,, ✓' u. -,`i Sill " fi$
... , .
. A ".'���
a<,.,..<a4 �F, � z,. w:�..c.-.�.n.._.;.,.��,a.�a
Jeff Malawy JD 2007 University of Southern California 8 Fillmore ('14- )
BA 2004 University of CA, Berkeley Hesperia ('10-
BS
'10-BS 2004 University of CA, Berkeley Lompoc ('14- )
Signal Hill ('08-15 )
"'fi]rroc �yY7 4":: b C" ,wAs: x..¢b Z, >�, k. .-.. 4r.<'; ` si „ , Ys °a>. t*`ar < ' �
.?z... ,n, .rs} k�*t ,,. 5. .:}3y». l.'� ``. 5.. ;.H,
� ,,.... ..., f C.. �. l.. Y. L
,. n..., �:,.fit /. J "�� r,rrr,'$�'� 7� ,.,,,.,.. .
a�v.,�..�c.,.z..
James McGrath JD 2008 UCLA
MA 2002 University of CA, Irvine
BA 1997 University of CA, Berkeley
�. ,
,, r .,.?.'Y : �, t "s +r a air i svvr't-�r e ''^z!5 r l ^rc.:::C °r s�st . s ✓'>z'. . , " . " , „ `k
a_
:,» 3 ,Yb-.
(y' or. P 2
..: } f', ''.„u r- ''n�.> � �::'� 5f's ' iS ✓ ,. z ., ” � ,. �:
ro„>.a. ,v.�k..d_...�":
Chris Neumeyer
JD 2007 Georgetown University Law Center 10
BA 1998 University of CA, Berkeley
09999.0016/252174.1 -46-
71
EXHIBIT A — EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM ATTORNEYS
Steve Onstot
JD 1988 University of Southern California 27
BS 1984 University of CA, Davis
BA 1984 University of CA Davis
c� t
'��5 at���Ars_. 11 "I'M 11
Joseph Pannone JD 1980 Loyola Law School 35 Bellflower ('08-) Baldwin Park ('03-07) Special Counsel:
AmJur Award 1979 Lompoc ('09- ) Bellflower ('03-07) Culver City ('90-91; 92- )
BA 1976 Loyola Marymount Morro Bay ('14- Culver City ('80-86) Santa Maria ('12- )
Baldwin Park ('08-13) Mammoth Lakes ('07-12 )
Palos Verdes ('08-10)
So. Pasadena ('98-03)
Culver City ('86-90;'91-92)
Y .""I
r `;.
_
Patricia JD 2004 Loyola Law School 11 Municipal Water District of OC
QdizVa St Thomas More Law Honor Society Palmdale Water District
Order of the Coif
Internt'l & Comparative Law Review
BA 1998 California State University, Fullerton
.. N..
'4'
{. .+S �
f'
Nour Rizvi
JD 2012 University of San Diego 3 Perris ('14- )
BA 2007 University of CA, Irvine
Honors Political Science
..y� ::� :s c ., �t . .,�:.: .,w itz s :�,,. > r' x .v.. ta. a .. �, ., .� , ,�....: , rx. �,*.�r ,..,..
a r ,,,. � R� � �, � �' �. +� � ��, �. �z, �
..,
.4;�.x.,��.
-. _..... ..� ,.qN-..
15 Chief Litigator, Signal Hill Eminent
Sunny Soltani JD 2000 Loyola Law School Carson ('14-) Bell ('12-) Domain
St Thomas More Law Honor Society Carson ('11-14) Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ('06-)
Palisades Bowl Mobile Home Park ('09 -
Order of the Coif Carson Rent Control )
cum laude Review Board ('06-) City of Chino
Spec Litigation Counsel, Palm Desert
BA 1997 UCLA Signal Hill ('10211) ('07- )
With Honors and Great Distinction
, ;,,., , _, x» .,, ..._ .,,...;:'rs a,{,.:�.eL, v,,,t , .r:. .r;.,s..,^, ,a.,_ir,u _<.",,. ;,:,,..4, } ,,a/,, ._. ...,o.�: .<�. _ ; �.,.,,r:,aW9. ...'X. S ...'.£.....:✓, .. .. .,<.,.0 ,._,`�'..:..,.rb..^d7 :�,>,�,....,.. ...,..:,,... L:.-.fikz `s /,:/,, ........,.,�m5_..,c, ,..�. _ms . �..ro.,�.a ..,:�.4s:�i&�.i,>��, .nd.�...._,..l; . a
.:�.. ,✓s;'x ..�,,..aaw
ts i 11 ?
,.
Mark Steres JD 1984 University of Southern California 35 Cerritos Housing Authority LA County
AB 1981 UCLA La Canada Flintridge Community Dev Comm LA County
San Dimas
., .t" .�,.,�.,. + �, xc✓ .. �. :�rs r Y�` ;U''�i>�E,.,p,v Y�?:�9!":" ,�".i� ..FT't5..�.,. ) c a ?F , <;,:n....�:::� fF,lau:,:�1�2-;,. ,:,.F�a.�z�Jr...-� r_ ,? 4„=. :t :.����.�l <. hx:. ,�'2..�aL�✓�j�-..�,:. .o3m
,�..-
.:.
09999.0016/252174.1
-47-
72
EXHIBIT A - EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM ATTORNEYS
Lindsay Tabaian JD 2008 University of Southern California
BA 2005 University of CA, San Diego
magna cum laude
Cypress ('10- )
San Dimas ('14- )
Fillmore ('12-13)
Phi Beta Kappa
�,��v�� y
s. .+Y :,.,, ,33 .^,Y .W .,A vv ,� .ar e.. . t, y! .r v ., , , ✓~b
f'.9 'i, .9.. 3 d[,. .l'_ X35
K`. 'K.xx ."t. zr
}:.:. , ,.. » f" >R ... t. h`-: :YAIY
z*�, t a£ Y'�a , c k✓� r:; 'i:-,. � f a �
, .;,u� � ,. ,..,_;✓.. ., .a%r,°"i .,-: ,,; �;t. ..,. ,.�, _. ,_, .._. .... _,,.,_ .,.»!...� ,,ax<��"3 _...,n< c ». ,�.._� ,.�., ..�. .., ...,�.,. r. t<..c�_,.,+.Zan....,. :a.u�,_ ..,a:,a),. v, ��_... .ti..,,��r„✓'�.�. ,
Colin Tanner
JD 1990 Hastings College of Law 25
BA 1987 University of CA, San Diego
Anthony Taylor JD 2000 University of Southern California 15 Cypress ('14-) Suisun City ('09-11)
Moot Court Honors Suisun City (' 11- )
BA 1997 University of Southern California
summa cum laude
Class Valedictorian, School of
Public Administration
.,,. -;,. .,, . F, ., .,.:,-.,.... ,,. ,:✓.,, ,. .,:: ., t ,.. ,.. n .E..B ,.) '
F L
. s , s r. � .', `Y_,. _.._9. , y.> , _.,....» .. � »,W , _. ,., ... _G:> < w..>,..,1.„ , . ,..,.... .a�sz.",,, , ,,,, ,,, ,, , �.._„ / 1:r:.... axe`;.,. ,✓ ,. ..✓.,,...., .. m , .x�r:r.>....,.... ,,h,.kal ..1'?��s.����,,n...
Glen Tucker
JD 1972 Southwestern University 43
BA 1966 Loyola Marymount
�
�. ., .t S. ...
x r J
r . , , ,..., .. r ,...,,f ,..� , ✓ 4 nt Y!„i ,:C 1 f, rm.. .. f 9Y � a. . ,.
x. a '.a,
, ., �._ .. , .... ,_. .. �.. _., _, ..., .., .�. ,uw �., _�. _ _, 1A., ..,.., �, ... ,. .,..�. �.., ...,, ..a......w ,.,�,. .._ ..._, ✓,.4.. ........_��e _,.d .., a,4. ,. 'Z.._.�_,,,_... �, ,.. �._�,'�,:✓.,�.�.. ,✓�..,:��,?�.a., er.�w�,...�,m��
Laura Walker JD 2002 Hastings College of Law 10
BA 1998 UCLA
. d .,ti ..m�',�». ._... �_. k.+..,, �. .. -2¢ .✓., .. , s. ......✓�". ..r �.>a.».� ✓'r4.5 ., uu x, ,:._U a6 b6 µn w_.,, .,... ,.as..n , a�,e,vw G:'✓,3z..d*...e..'.s,S',f ,..._....,,....,f sl,.,.,...a .f`,�'"»✓a_r%xs °"!cs,�:ra�l��u'�k �v.!o'S
.. ... .i v..,• ., ., .. .....:d..v .. ,., ~u _ r ',u a ..
William Wynder JD 1978 Pepperdine Law School 37 Carson ('03-14) Irwindale ('90-99) Rossmoor CSD ('92-03)
I:•
09999.0016/252174.1
Cum laude
Editor in Chief, Law Review
Best Advocate Moot Court
1975 University of Utah, magna cum laude
Cypress ('97-14) Signal Hill ('90-99)
Lawndale ('94-07)
.E
73
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
This CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
(the "Agreement") is effective as of the day of , 2015 by and between the law firm
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership ("A&W"), and the
CITY OF , a ("City"). The term "City" shall also
include the , and all boards, commissions, financing authorities, and
other bodies of City.
1. APPOINTMENT
City Council hereby appoints as the City Attorney, and hires A&W as its
City Attorney, to render such legal services as are customarily rendered by such officials and as
further specified herein, including attending meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission,
Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority, if any, and other boards and bodies of City, and its
affiliated agencies, as directed by the City. In addition, shall serve as
Assistant City Attorney and shall serve as Agency Counsel.
Notwithstanding the foregoing appointment, the designated City Attorney, Agency
Counsel, and any Assistant City Attorney or Assistant Agency Counsel, may be established from
time to time or modified by resolution of the City Council. A&W represents that it employs, or
will employ at its own expense, all personnel required for the satisfactory performance of any
and all tasks and services set forth herein. A&W shall not replace the designated City Attorney
or Agency Counsel (or any successors to such person) without the City Council's prior approval,
except from time to time necessary due to illness or vacation scheduling. Approval of any such
temporary substitute, or of any Assistant City Attorney or Assistant Redevelopment Attorney
shall be obtained from the City Manager. City Attorney may appoint various deputies as City
Attorney deems appropriate, without the need for amendment hereof.
2. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES
A. A&W shall perform any and all work necessary for the provision of City Attorney
services to City, including without limitation of the following:
(i) Attendance at City Council, Planning Commission, or Redevelopment
Agency meetings, unless excused by the City Manager or his/her designee, and other board and
commission meetings on request of the City Manager or his/her designee; and
(ii) Provide legal advice, written legal opinions, and consultation on all
matters affecting the City to the City Council, City Manager, boards, commissions, committees,
officers, and employees of City and as requested by the City Council, the City Manager, or
his/her designee, in accordance with such policies and procedures as may be established by City
from time to time; and
09999/0016/164800.03 49 74
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
(iii) Be available for telephone consultation with City staff, as needed on legal
matters which are within their area of operation; and
(iv) Prepare or review necessary legal documents such as: ordinances, and
resolutions; all agreements of any nature; all real property instruments of any nature including
purchase agreements and escrows, leases, covenants, deeds, easements and licenses; bond size,
amount, and offering terms and conditions; public works construction documents including bid
specifications, contracts, bonds, insurance, liens and related documents; memorandum of
understanding; franchise agreements; and all similar documents; and
(v) Represent and advise City on pending and potential litigation;
notwithstanding the foregoing, it is expressly understood that A&W shall not be responsible for
any pending litigation matter(s) handled by attorneys previously or otherwise employed by the
City until all files have been transferred to A&W and A&W has specifically appeared in the
matter(s) as attorneys of record on behalf of City; and
(vi) Hold weekly office hours at City Hall at a time agreed to with City
Manager; and
(vii) Attend weekly management staff and agenda review meetings at a time
agreed to with City Manager; and
(viii) Monitor pending and current legislation and case law as appropriate; and
(ix) Supervise outside legal services, if any.
B. A&W, as a full-service law firm, is prepared to, and will, provide representation
to City in all of its legal affairs, including, but not limited to, municipal law, land use,
environmental, toxics, mining, water, tort defense, personnel, labor representation, code
enforcement, criminal prosecution, redevelopment, housing, cable television, finance,
franchising, contracts, enterprise and other matters, except where conflicts exist or where the
City Council may otherwise direct. The City Attorney shall represent City in all of the foregoing
legal matters, and in initiating and defending all litigation unless otherwise directed by the City
Council.
C. The City Attorney will keep City informed as to the progress and status of all
pending matters in accordance with such procedures as the City may establish from time to time.
The City Attorney is expected to manage, control and oversee the delivery of legal services in a
competent, professional, and cost-effective manner. All legal services shall be properly
supervised and all personnel shall be qualified to handle the work assigned. If outside special
counsel is retained, unless otherwise directed by the City Council, such special counsel shall be
supervised by the City Attorney.
D. All legal services shall be coordinated under the direction of the City Manager.
Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, any legal services can only be authorized
by the City Council or City Manager. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed in any
so 75
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
manner as limiting the ultimate and absolute discretion of the City Council, at any time, to assign
or reassign legal matter of City from or to A&W.
3. CITY DUTIES
City agrees to provide such information, assistance, cooperation, and access to books,
records, and other information, as is necessary for A&W to effectively render its professional
services under this Agreement. To the extent City desires services to be rendered on site, City, at
City's expense, will make available sufficient office space, furniture, telephones, computers,
facsimile machines, and secretarial support, as approved by the City Manager, as may be
necessary therefor. City further agrees to abide by this Agreement, and to timely pay A&W's
bills for fees, costs, and expenses. In addition, City understands that the fee structure herein
represents a blending of rates, with certain services offered at discounted rates, on the
assumption that, due to the volume of work, other services will be rendered at higher rates.
Therefore, insofar as possible and unless A&W lacks the experience, capability or resources, it is
the intent of the parties hereto that all matters of City requiring the rendition of legal services
shall be performed by A&W. However, nothing in this Section, or any other part of this
Agreement, shall be construed in any manner as limiting the ultimate and absolute discretion of
the City Council, at any time, to assign or reassign legal matters of City from or to A&W.
4. PERSONNEL
In addition to Julie Biggs acting as City Attorney, A&W will provide the following
additional attorneys to render the predominate legal services hereunder:
TO BE INSERTED
Assignments may be modified as provided in Section 1 above and except as so provided,
A&W will exercise its discretion to utilize whichever attorney(s) (and staff) it determines to be
best suited to its rendition of legal services under this Agreement, consistent with the competent
and efficient rendering of legal services, and with a view toward rendering such services in an
economically efficient manner.
5. COMPENSATION
A&W's fees will be charged on an hourly basis for all time actually expended. The
compensation schedules are set forth in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Blended rates are computed based upon the hours of service
irrespective of the rate of the attorney. Blended rates are also shown for legal assistants.
In general, the arrangement is that there is a base amount of hours which are significantly
discounted and referred to as the general retainer hours. This includes general services, attending
public meetings, preparing ordinances and resolutions, giving general advice to City departments
and similar services. A higher blended rate is charged after the retainer hours are exceeded.
Special services, including a broad range of categories (litigation, personnel, labor,
redevelopment, housing, toxics, refuse, cable, enterprise, etc.), which would otherwise be likely
to be contracted out as special services at higher rates, are billed at a higher blended rate. Public
sl 76
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
finance matters are charged on a contingent basis based upon the size of the matter. The specific
terms are set forth below in Section 6 and in the exhibits.
The foregoing arrangement would remain in effect for at least Fiscal Years and
(July 1, 20___). However, the hourly rates of the attorneys at A&W are reviewed
annually and, when appropriate, adjusted to reflect increases in expertise as well as other
appropriate factors. Such increases are made on an annual basis, effective as of the beginning of
each calendar year. While the hourly rates for services rendered by individual A&W attorneys
may be adjusted as set forth herein, the "blended rates" established in this Agreement shall not
be adjusted except as provided here, and only upon the approval of the City Council.
6. BOND OR FINANCIAL SERVICES
Bond or Financial Services shall mean those situations where A&W acts as Bond
Counsel for City with regard to the issuance of securities by City; after review and accord of the
proposed issue by independent review Counsel if selected by City, A&W shall be compensated
for Bond or Financial Services on a flat fee non -contingent basis of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars
($350) per hour or on a contingent finance option as shown on Exhibit "A". The choice of
options shall be solely at the choice of City.
7. COSTS AND OTHER CHARGES
A&W may incur various costs and expenses in rendering the legal services required by
this Agreement which, if customary and necessary for the performance of legal services
hereunder, shall be reimbursable by City. These costs and expenses are described in more detail
in Exhibit "B". City agrees to reimburse A&W for these costs and expenses in addition to the
hourly fees for legal services. Reimbursable costs shall not include any overhead or
administrative charge by A&W or A&W's cost of equipment or supplies except as provided
herein.
A&W may determine it necessary or appropriate to use one or more outside investigators,
consultants, or experts in rendering the legal services required (particularly if a matter goes into
litigation). City will be responsible for paying such fees and charges. A&W will not, however,
retain the services of any outside investigators, consultants, or experts without the prior
agreement of City. A&W will select any investigators, consultants, or experts to be hired only
after consultation with City.
The cost and expenses referred to herein include certain travel expenses; transportation,
meals, and lodging; when incurred on behalf of the client. Generally, except in connection with
litigation (travel costs to court and for discovery are chargeable), these will only be charged
when outside of the area, and only with the prior agreement of City.
Finally, periodically, when on-site, A&W personnel may be required to make local and
long-distance telephone calls, or make photocopies, or incur other expenses on behalf of the City
as well as other clients. A&W will not be charged for such expenses and, in exchange, will not
charge the City for calls made from our office or other locations to the City.
52 77
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
8. STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT
A&W shall render to City a statement for fees, costs, and expenses incurred on a periodic
basis (generally monthly). Such statement(s) shall indicate the basis of the fees, including the
hours worked, the hourly rate(s), and a brief description of the work performed. Separate billing
categories can be established to track costs associated with City funding categories or to track
project costs, or such other basis as the City may direct. Reimbursable costs shall be separately
itemized.
Payments shall be made by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of the statement, except
for those specific items on an invoice which are contested or questioned and are returned by City
with a written explanation of the question or contest, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
invoice. Payments made more than thirty (30) days after the due date shall draw interest at the
legal rate.
9. PROHIBITION AGAINST SUBCONTRACTING OR ASSIGNMENT
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of A&W, its partners, associates,
and employees, was a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
A&W shall not contract with any other person or entity to perform, in whole or in part, the legal
services required under this Agreement without the written approval of City. In addition, neither
this Agreement, nor any interest herein, may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated,
or encumbered voluntarily, or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors, or
otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Adding attorneys to A&W, changes in the
partnership, name changes and similar changes shall not be deemed a transfer or assignment
requiring approval of City or amendment hereof.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
A&W shall perform all legal services required under this Agreement as an independent
contractor of City, and shall remain, at all times as to City, a wholly independent contractor with
only such obligations as are required under this Agreement. Neither City, nor any of its
employees, shall have any control over the manner, mode, or means by which A&W, its agents
or employees, render the legal services required under this Agreement, except as otherwise set
forth. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of A&W
employees, servants, representatives, or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation, or hours
of service.
11. INSURANCE
A&W shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content
satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement, including any extension thereof,
the following policies of insurance:
(a) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. A policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than a combined single
53 78
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) products
and completed operations.
(b) Workers' Compensation Insurance. A policy of workers' compensation insurance
in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall
indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both A&W and City against any loss, claim or
damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by
or any persons retained by the Contractor in the course of carrying out the work or services
contemplated in this Agreement.
(c) Automobile Insurance. A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance
written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than a combined single limit liability of
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Said policy shall include coverage for owner, non -owner,
leased and hired cars.
(d) Errors and Omissions Insurance. A policy of professional liability issuance
written on a claims made basis in an amount not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00).
Except for the policy of professional liability insurance, all of the above policies of
insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name City, its officers, employers and agents as
additionally insured. Except for the policy of professional liability insurance, the insurer shall
waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers,
employees and agents and their respective insurers. Except for the policy of professional
liability insurance, all of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be
amended or canceled without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by registered mail to
the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, the attorney shall, prior to
the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section to the
City. Failure to do so is cause for termination.
12. INDEMNIFICATION
A. A&W agrees to indemnify City, its officers, employees and gents against, and
will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to
persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities (herein
"claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of
or in connection with the work, operations or activities of A&W, its agents, employees,
subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein or arising from the acts or omissions of A&W
hereunder, or arising from A&W's performance of or failure to perform any term, provision,
covenant or condition of this Agreement, except to the extent such claims or liabilities arise s
from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents or employees.
B. City acknowledges that A&W is being appointed as City Attorney pursuant to the
authority of Government Code Section 36505, and has the authority of that office. Accordingly,
the City is responsible pursuant to Government Code Section 825 for providing a defense for the
City Attorney for actions within the scope of its engagement hereunder. Therefore, City agrees
to undertake its statutory duty and indemnify A&W, its officers, employees and agents against
and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to
54 79
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
persons or property, losses, costs penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities (herein
"claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claims by any person, firm or entity arising out of
or in connection with the work, operations or activities of A&W within the course and scope of
its employment hereunder, but nothing herein shall require City to indemnify A&W for liability
arising from its own negligence. In connection herewith:
(i) City will promptly provide a defense and pay any judgment rendered
against the City, its officers, agency or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of
or in connection with such work, operations or activities of City hereunder;
(ii) In the event A&W, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any
action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against City for such damages or other claims solely
arising out of or in connection with the work operation or activities of City hereunder, City
agrees to pay to A&W, its officers, agents or employees any and all costs and expenses incurred
by attorney, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not
limited to, legal costs and attorneys' fees.
13. NOTICES
Notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by personal service upon the
party to be notified, or by delivery of same into the custody of the United States Postal Service,
or its lawful successor; postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
CITY:
Attention: City Manager
ATTORNEY: Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700
Irvine, California 92612
(949) 223-1170 (office)
(949) 223-1180 (fax)
Attention:
Service of a notice by personal service shall be deemed to have been given as of the date
of such personal service. Notice given by deposit with the United States Postal Service shall be
deemed to have been given two (2) consecutive business days following the deposit of the same
in the custody of said Postal Service. Either party hereto may, from time to time, by written
notice to the other, designate a different address or person which shall be substituted for that
specified above.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION
In connection with the execution of this Agreement, A&W shall not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, marital status, color, sex,
handicap, sexual persuasion, or national origin. A&W shall take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated fairly during their employment, without
55 80
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
regard to their race, religion, color, sex, marital status, handicap, sexual persuasion, or national
origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, promotion,
demotion, transfer, duties assignment; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff of
termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship.
15. TERM, DISCHARGE AND WITHDRAWAL
This Agreement shall continue in effect, subject to modification of fees as provided in
Section 5, until terminated by either party hereto. City may discharge A&W at any time. The
City Attorney shall have no right to hearing or notice, and may be discharged with or without
notice. A&W may withdraw from City's representation at any time, to the extent permitted by
law, and the Rules of Professional Conduct, upon at least sixty (60) days' notice to City.
In the event of such discharge or withdrawal, City will pay A&W professional fees and
costs, in accordance with this Agreement, for all work done (and costs incurred) through the date
of cessation of legal representation. City agrees to execute, upon request, a stipulation in such
form as to permit A&W to withdraw as City's attorneys of record in any legal action then
pending. A&W shall deliver all documents and records of City to City, or to counsel designated
by City, and assist to the fullest extent possible in the orderly transition of all pending matters to
City's new counsel.
16. CONFLICTS
A&W has no present or contemplated employment which is adverse to the City. A&W
agrees that it shall not represent clients in matters either litigation or non -litigation against the
City. However, A&W may have past and present clients or may have future clients, which, from
time to time, may have interests adverse to City, and A&W reserves the right to represent such
clients in matters not connected with its representation of the City.
If a potential conflict of interest arises in A&W's representation of two clients, if such
conflict is only speculative or minor, A&W shall seek waivers from each client with regards to
such representation. However, if real conflicts exist, A&W would withdraw from representing
either client in the matter, and assist them in obtaining outside special counsel.
17. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT AND FORUM
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and performance of
the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of any dispute
hereunder, forum shall be the Superior Court, Riverside County.
18. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT
This Agreement contains all of the agreement of the parties and cannot be amended or
modified except by written agreement. This Agreement shall supercede that certain agreement
for special counsel services previously entered into between the parties. No prior oral or written
understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered in this
56 81
09999/0016/164800.03
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties
by an instrument in writing.
19. CORPORATE AUTHORITY
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they
are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that in so executing
this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.
[SIGNATURE PAGES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S)]
57
09999/0016/164800.03
W•
EXHIBIT B- DRAFT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
of execution by the City.
Dated: , 2015 "CITY"
CITY OF ,
a municipal corporation
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Dated: , 2015
"ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP"
By:
Esq.
58 83
09999/0016/164300.03
r;,
InG RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
COPY
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
Prepared by
Carol W. Lynch
Richards, Watson & Gershon
May 14, 2015
For more information contact:
clynch@rwglaw.com
Telephone 213.626.8484 1 Facsimile 213.626.0078
355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
0
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
Prepared by
Carol W. Lynch
Richards, Watson & Gershon
May 14, 2015
For more information contact:
clench@rwglaw.com
Telephone 213.626.8484 1 Facsimile 213.626.0078
355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
May 14, 2015
Doug Willmore
City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Reference: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Proposal for City Attorney Services
Dear Mr. Willmore:
Richards, Watson & Gershon (RWG) is pleased to respond to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes'
Request for Proposals for City Attorney Services. We propose Carol W. Lynch to continue to
serve as City Attorney and primary contact person and David M. Snow to continue to serve as
Assistant City Attorney. Other attorneys who have performed specialized legal services for the
City are proposed to continue providing that work, including Robin Harris (public finance and
redevelopment dissolution) and Michael Estrada (solid waste, public works, construction, and
contracting).
RWG attorneys have represented the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) for more than forty
years. Our attorneys have worked with the RPV community since before the City's
incorporation. We provided guidance to the community leaders in the incorporation efforts
and represented them in the lawsuit resulting in the California Supreme Court's decision that
enabled the City's incorporation, Curtis v. Board of Supervisors, 7 Cal. 3d 942 (1972). Following
the City's incorporation in 1973, RWG was selected by the City Council to provide City Attorney
services and to represent the City in the numerous post -incorporation lawsuits filed against the
City. RWG and its attorneys have served the City continuously since 1973, implementing the
goals and directives established by the successive City Councils with which we have had the
pleasure of working over the years. We would be honored to continue to do so. Given our
long history with the City, Rancho Palos Verdes is more than just a client to the RWG team. We
are committed to continuing to provide advice to the City Council that will enable the Council to
accomplish the goals it establishes for the City and to continue its long history of effective and
efficient governance.
Identification of Proposer: The person submitting this proposal is Carol W. Lynch, a shareholder
of RWG. Her address is 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.
�uz�y
Her telephone number is (213) 626-8484 and her facsimile number is (213) 626-0078. Carol's e-
mail address is clynch@rwglaw.com, and her direct telephone line is (213) 253-0231.
Identification of Person Authorized to Represent Proposer: I, Kayser O. Sume, am the Chairman
of the Board of Directors of RWG and am authorized to represent the Firm in connection with
this proposal. My contact information is the same as Carol's except that my e-mail address is
ksume@rwglaw.com.
RWG is a professional corporation that specializes in representing public entities of all types.
The Firm was founded in 1954 when the law offices of Richard Richards joined with the law firm
of Watson & Beverly to create a new law partnership. The Firm incorporated in 1978 and has
offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, Temecula, and San Francisco. We currently serve as
City/Town Attorney, Special Counsel, or General Counsel to over 50 cities, towns, counties, joint
powers authorities, airports, school districts, community services districts, water districts, and
other special districts throughout California.
Our proposal to Rancho Palos Verdes reflects the same pledge we have upheld for our clients
for over 60 years: we will provide the highest quality professional legal services in a prompt and
cost-effective manner. Following this transmittal letter is the information requested in the
Request for Proposals.
We appreciate the City's consideration of this proposal. We believe that the experienced team
we propose, backed by the extensive resources of RWG, will continue to provide continued
excellent representation of Rancho Palos Verdes. We look forward to discussing our proposal
with you. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
contact Carol or me.
Very,,truly yours,
Chairman, Board of Directors
M•
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Table of Contents
Letterof Transmittal.....................................................................................................
Tableof Contents..........................................................................................................
GeneralCompany Data.................................................................................................
Specific Company Information......................................................................................
Current Clients/Conflict of Interest..............................................................................
Compensation and Reimbursement.............................................................................
References....................................................................................................................
Agreement....................................................................................................................
RWG Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Attorney Biographies
Current Public Law Client List
Proposed Legal Services Agreement
A. General Company Data
Official Firm Name, Address, Type of Entity, and Federal Employer Tax
Identification Number:
Richards, Watson & Gershon
A Professional Corporation
355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
RWG is a California professional corporation and our Federal Employer Tax Identification
Number is: 95-3292015.
B. Specific Company Information
1. Please describe the nature of your practice or your law firm's practice, and
your qualifications for providing attorney services for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. Please provide a professional chronology of the individual who will be
designated to serve as City Attorney and others who you anticipate will be
involved in providing legal services to the City.
Firm Qualifications
Six Decades of Service.
Founded in 1954, RWG's dedicated team of lawyers has specialized in the representation of
public entities of all types. We take an interdisciplinary approach to the challenges faced by
California municipalities and public agencies from our offices located in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Orange County, and Temecula. Our attorneys deliver practical, solutions -oriented
advice tailored to the unique needs of our public clients. We have built a reputation as the
lawyers of choice for clients seeking reliable, efficient, and effective legal counsel to help realize
their goals.
RWG is proud of its longstanding commitment to helping California shape its future and the role
we have played in the state's legal history. Our attorneys were instrumental during the
incorporation of Rancho Palos Verdes and several other cities in Los Angeles County. The
Firm's lawyers have also been a part of precedent -setting cases, including Roberts v. City of
Palmdale in which the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the transmission of a
•.e
confidential letter from a city attorney to a city council is not a Brown Act "meeting" and that
such a letter is exempt from Public Records Act disclosure.
Firm Expertise
RWG delivers advisory and litigation services with a specialized focus on matters involving
public agency and municipal law; public finance; economic development; redevelopment
dissolution and advice to successor agencies; public works, construction, and contracting;
administrative law and government regulation; eminent domain; labor and employment;
environmental law; and real estate.
Municipal Experience
With a team of attorneys who are experts in municipal law, clients rely on RWG's counsel in a
number of specialty practice areas. Our core practice groups are supplemented by attorneys
with expertise in:
• Affordable Housing
• Appellate Law
• Civil Rights and
Constitutional Law
• Climate Change
• Code Enforcement
• Conflicts of Interest
• General Plans
• Hazardous Materials
• Litigation
• Land Use and Planning
• Municipal Taxation
• Municipal Torts
• Ordinances and
Resolutions
• Police and Fire Practices
• Political Reform Act
• Public Finance
• Public Works,
Construction, and
Contracting
• Telecommunications
• Tort Defense
• Transportation
• Utilities and Franchising
• Water Law
• Writs and Appeals
Client Service Team
RWG is committed to giving the attention of our talented group of attorneys to the City, and to
delivering timely, high quality, and practical advice on a cost-efficient basis. We believe that an
established client service team is an invaluable measure to help ensure that the client's needs
and service expectations are continuously met.
Accordingly, we propose a team comprised of experienced attorneys who have extensive
knowledge of the City and its issues and are best -suited to continue to deliver comprehensive
and efficient representation in each specialty area proposed. Team members have been
selected based on expertise and knowledge of the City, and the team includes a mix of
attorneys with specialties necessary to understand and meet the City's needs.
The following list represents the attorneys proposed by RWG to provide legal advice and
services as defined in the City's RFP.
Proposed City Attorney and Assistant City Attorneys
Carol W. Lynch, David M. Snow and Gena M. Stinnett
Relationship Partner
Carol W. Lynch ( Proposed City Attorney and Point of Contact
Contact information: 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Phone: 213.626.8484
Fax: 213.626.0078
Email: clynch@rw-izlaw.com
Proposed City Attorney — Carol W. Lynch
Carol has been an attorney with the Firm for more than 30 years and has been representing
local public entities throughout her career. She is a shareholder of the Firm and a member and
former chair of the Firm's Public Law Department. The sampling below illustrates Carol's
experience and activities:
• Currently, Carol is the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, where she has
served in that capacity for more than 20 years. She previously served as City Attorney
for the Cities of La Habra Heights and La Puente. Carol also has served as counsel to the
Planning Commission in the Cities of Artesia, Monrovia, and Palmdale and advised rent
control boards in the Cities of West Hollywood and Palmdale.
• In connection with her representation of those entities, Carol has advised City Councils
and City Commissions and Boards regarding election law issues, conflicts of interest, and
the Brown Act, and she has assisted on routine legal issues that arise, including
responding to numerous requests for public records made pursuant to the California
Public Records Act.
• Carol has advised the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Planning Commission on
complex land use projects, including the development of the former Marineland site
into the five-star Terranea Resort and the development of a residential subdivision and
golf course, which now is known as the Trump National Golf Club, and the subsequent
repair of the golf course to restore its 18th hole, which was lost several years ago in a
landslide.
91
• Carol has assisted Rancho Palos Verdes in implementing ordinances that impose
neighborhood compatibility requirements on new homes or significant revisions to
existing homes so that large homes that are out of character with existing
neighborhoods could not be constructed.
• Carol also has assisted Rancho Palos Verdes with the implementation of Measure M,
which is a voter -approved initiative that created an administrative view restoration
process whereby property owners with ocean views could require their neighbors to
trim or remove foliage that significantly impairs those views. The implementation of
Measure M followed the Firm's successful defense of a lawsuit challenging its
constitutionality.
• Carol has advised Rancho Palos Verdes in connection with the development of new
homes in fragile coastal areas that are affected by landslides and in the acquisition of
approximately 1,200 acres of land, which have been placed in a nature preserve, so that
open space on the Palos Verdes Peninsula will be preserved for future generations.
• Carol assisted Monrovia in its efforts to carry out the provisions of its hillside
development ordinance and to review and approve businesses in its historic "Old Town"
in a manner that will enhance the charm and unique character of that special area.
• Carol received her law degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles in 1981 and her
undergraduate degree cum laude from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1973.
Carol was admitted to the California State Bar in 1981 and is a member in good
standing. Carol is a member of the American Bar Association and the Los Angeles
County Bar Association.
Proposed Assistant City Attorney — David M. Snow
David M. Snow. Dave is a shareholder of the Firm and a member of the Firm's Public Law
Department. Dave specializes in advising public entities on complex land use matters, the
California Environmental Quality Act, redevelopment dissolution, and all manner of general
municipal law issues that arise. The sampling below illustrates Dave's experience and
qualifications:
• Dave is the Assistant City Attorney for Rancho Palos Verdes — a position he assumed
after serving as the City's Deputy Director of Planning.
92
• Dave also serves as the City Attorney for the City of Yucaipa and Assistant City Attorney
for the City of Beverly Hills where he advises the city on land use and planning matters.
• Dave serves as General Counsel for the Successor Agency to the Yucaipa Redevelopment
Agency and General Counsel to the Yucaipa Housing Authority, providing legal advice on
an array of issues related to dissolution of the former redevelopment agency pursuant
to the requirements of AB X1 26 and AB 1484.
• Dave is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He currently serves
on the American Planning Association, California Chapter (APA California) Amicus
Committee in reviewing and developing sound planning positions on key California
litigation, and previously served two terms as the Vice President, Policy and Legislation.
APA California is the premier professional organization representing the field of city and
regional planning in California.
• Dave regularly advises clients on the complexities of land use matters including
complying with constitutional limitations, planning and zoning statutes, and CEQA.
• Dave is a regular presenter on CEQA and land use matters, and has served as an adjunct
professor at the University of California, Irvine, teaching a course on land use
development control.
• Dave is a 2001 graduate of the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. He graduated from
Clarkson University in 1989. Dave was admitted to State Bar of California in 2001 and
joined RWG that year.
• Prior to and during law school, Dave worked in local government planning agencies for
over ten years, last serving as the Deputy Director of Planning for the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
Proposed Assistant City Attorney — Gena M. Stinnett
Gena M. Stinnett. Gena is Of Counsel with the Firm and has been representing local
government entities for nine years. Gena currently serves as Assistant City Attorney to Rancho
Palos Verdes. She also serves as Assistant City Attorney and Planning Commission Counsel for
the City of Monrovia, and as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Moorpark. Gena's practice
concentrates on the representation of public agencies in a wide range of government law
issues. The sampling below illustrates Gena's experience and background:
93
• Gena regularly advises cities on the Public Records Act; wireless telecommunications;
general land use, subdivision map and related CEQA issues; the Brown Act; and conflict
of interest laws. Her experience in public records disclosure and retention laws has
guided clients in navigating difficult public records requests involving complex legal
issues. Her wireless telecommunications practice includes the review and preparation
of wireless telecommunications facility ordinances, drafting of cell tower leases, and
advising cities on land use issues related to distributed antenna system installations in
the right-of-way.
• Gena has negotiated real estate transactions and drafted land purchase agreements,
easement agreements, license agreements, right-of-way use agreements, and
covenants, and has experience preparing and reviewing contracts between cities and
various providers of municipal services.
• Gena drafted legislation to bolster Good Samaritan liability immunity for cities' disaster
service workers and testified before the California State Senate Judiciary Committee
about the need for the bill.
• Gena frequently lectures on public entity issues. She has taught seminars for numerous
organizations including the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, the Southern and
Northern Divisions of the California City Clerks Association, and the League of California
Cities Mayors and Councilmembers Executive Forum.
• Gena graduated summa cum laude, Order of the Coif, from Loyola Law School,
Los Angeles. She graduated with great distinction, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, from
the California State University, Long Beach in 1979. Gena was admitted to the State Bar
of California in 2004 and joined RWG in 2006.
Service Team
The following attorneys will serve as the primary attorneys to provide the legal services for the
City as requested in the RFP, each of whom has confirmed his or her availability and willingness
to provide the services requested.
Proposed Senior Counsel
Steven L. Dorsey
Steven L. Dorsey is proposed as Senior Counsel. Steve has over 35 years of experience serving
in the position of City Attorney, including for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from 1982 to
1990. Since joining the Firm in 1973, he has specialized in the areas of conflicts of interest,
public law, public agency construction contract, projects, and subdivisions.
• Steve currently serves as City Attorney for the Cities of Buena Park, Norwalk, and
San Marino. He previously served as City Attorney for the Cities of Cudahy, Rancho
Palos Verdes, and South EI Monte.
• Steve has been very active in the League of California Cities, serving as a member of the
League's Board of Directors, as President of the City Attorneys' Department, Chair of the
Department's Legal Advocacy Committee, member of the Department's Legislative
Committee, and Chair of the City Attorneys' Department Fair Political Practices
Commission Committee. He served on the Editorial Board that wrote the first edition of
the League's Municipal Law Handbook, and edited the chapters on Public Property,
Public Works, and Public Utilities. Steve has also served as a member of the City
Attorney task force that wrote Practicing Ethics, an ethical guide for city attorneys and
was Chair of the Department's task force that prepared the recently adopted ethics
rules for city attorneys.
• Steve has presented numerous seminars for public officials on such topics as the Brown
Act, meeting procedures, conflicts of interest and charitable solicitation regulations. He
taught a course on the Subdivision Map Act for the UCLA Public Policy Institute for many
years.
• Steve is a 1973 graduate of Stanford Law School. He graduated from Stanford University
in 1970. Steve was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1973 and joined RWG that
year.
95
K
'�
Proposed Litigation Counsel
Patrick "Kit" Bobko, Youstina N. Aziz, , Robert C. Ceccon, Norman A. Dupont,
and Ginetta L. Giovinco
Patrick "Kit" Bobko. Kit is a shareholder in the Litigation and Appellate Departments at RWG.
Kit represents public entities in a wide range of public law contexts including election contests,
property tax litigation, land use disputes, cases arising under the California Environmental
Quality Act, and federal constitutional and civil rights cases. In recent years, he has devoted a
significant portion of his practice to representing cities in litigation involving medical marijuana
dispensaries. Kit served his community as a member of the Hermosa Beach City Council from
June 2006 through November 2013, serving twice as his City's Mayor. This gives him a unique
and practical perspective on the working relationship between elected officials and their
contract city attorneys. The sampling below illustrates Kit's expertise and activities:
• Kit led the team of RWG attorneys who obtained a "gang injunction" against two rival
gangs in the City of Monrovia and adjacent unincorporated areas.
• Kit has been in the forefront of the litigation concerning the regulation of medical
marijuana and medical marijuana dispensaries. Kit has handled abatement actions and
litigation against marijuana dispensaries on behalf of cities in Los Angeles, Riverside, and
San Bernardino Counties, including Rancho Cucamonga, Brea, Highland, Agoura Hills,
Jurupa Valley, and Artesia.
• Kit is a past board member of the Independent Cities Association.
• Kit is a 2000 graduate of the George Washington University Law School. He graduated
with an M.A. from the University of South Carolina in 1997 and a B.S. from the United
States Air Force Academy in 1991. Kit was admitted to State Bar of California in 2001
and joined RWG that year.
Youstina N. Aziz. Youstina is an associate in the Litigation Department and represents
municipalities and public entities in litigation matters in both state and federal courts. Youstina
will provide general litigation services, including resolving and prosecuting code enforcement
issues for the City.
• Youstina is actively involved in representing cities in real estate disputes concerning land
covenants and restrictions against private entities, including developers and business
owners.
• Youstina successfully obtained a judgment dismissing a civil rights action against the City
of South Pasadena that involved both state and federal claims. Youstina also obtained
an award of attorney's fees. The case is currently on appeal.
• Prior to joining RWG, Youstina served as a rotating law clerk to two judges in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. During her clerkship, Youstina
assisted in complex federal cases and trial.
• Youstina is a 2012 graduate of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles in 2012. She graduated
magna cum laude from the University of California, Irvine in 2009. Youstina was
admitted to the State Bar of California in 2012 and joined RWG in 2014.
Robert C. Ceccon. Bob is a shareholder and public entity litigator with extensive trial
experience. He has tried more than 25 lawsuits and arbitrated dozens more. He currently
serves as the Chair of RWG's Litigation Department. He represents governmental entities in
lawsuits alleging dangerous conditions of public property, inverse condemnation, and police
liability. A sampling of matters handled by Bob, including those that have gone to trial, is as
follows:
• County of Ventura v. Fishback. Bob was lead trial counsel in an action brought by
Ventura County which sought an injunction and civil penalties. At trial, the County
proved that the defendants illegally dumped over 8,000 truckloads of unpermitted
construction debris into canyons above Simi Valley. The County further proved that the
uncompacted fill material could mobilize, and could lead to a debris flow that would
seriously damage people and property at the base of the hill. When trial concluded, the
court ordered defendants to remove all unpermitted fill material and ordered
defendants to pay the maximum statutory penalty under the Public Resources Code,
which was $21,710,000.
• Dunex v. City of Oceanside. Bob was lead trial counsel for the City of Oceanside in an
action brought by the owners of a mobile home park that was subject to rent control.
Plaintiffs contended that rent control constituted a taking and sought $35,000,000 in
damages. The City demonstrated that plaintiffs had obtained over $10,000,000 on an
investment of $310,000. The City argued that this was a reasonable return on
investment. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the City.
• Alvis v. County of Ventura. Bob was the lead trial counsel for the County of Ventura in
two lawsuits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs seeking tens of millions of dollars in
damages. Those lawsuits arose out of a catastrophic January 2005 landslide in an area
97
known as "La Conchita" that resulted in numerous personal injury and property damage
claims, including ten deaths. Plaintiffs alleged that the landslide was partially caused by
a retaining wall the County built at the base of the hillside adjacent to the landslide. The
County successfully moved for summary adjudication on the plaintiffs' dangerous
condition claims based on design immunity. The County proceeded to trial on the
remaining inverse condemnation claims, and it ultimately prevailed. The California
Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of summary adjudication, in a published
unanimous decision. See, Alvis v. County of Ventura et al., 178 Cal.App.4th 536 (2009).
• Nakamura v. Southern California Edison, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
YC065387. Bob served as lead counsel for plaintiff City of Rancho Palos Verdes in this
action to recover damages that resulted from a wildfire caused by a failed connector on
an Edison power line. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes alleged causes of action for
inverse condemnation, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. The City dismissed the
action in exchange for payment of $1.9 million from Southern California Edison's
contractor, defendant Henkels & McCoy.
• Nieto v. City of Brea. This case involved a plaintiff who struck a pothole in a city street
while riding a bicycle at night, falling forward onto his face. The City contended it did
not have notice of the condition, and that the plaintiff's accident was caused by his
failure to have a light on his bicycle. Following trial, judgment was entered for the City.
• Keene v. City of Rancho Cucamonga. This case involved a plaintiff who alleged she had a
car accident as a result of a sight -line obstruction on public property. The plaintiff
sustained a fractured pelvis as a result of the collision. The City argued that plaintiff had
failed to stop before entering the intersection and that if she had stopped, she would
have had a clear view of the intersection. Following trial, judgment was entered for
City.
• Bob is a 1984 graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. He
graduated from Columbia University in 1981. Bob was admitted to the State Bar of
California in 1984 and joined RWG in 1986.
Norman A. Dupont. Norm is a shareholder of the Firm and, since 1984, has focused principally
on environmental law including Superfund litigation and advice, advice concerning hazardous
wastes under RCRA and California state statutes and NPDES, and Clean Water Act advice to
public and private clients, including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
• Norm has worked on a variety of environmental assessments and risk assessments for
public entities and various redevelopment agencies or the successor agencies, in
connection with real property acquisition or divesture projects.
• Norm's environmental work has also focused on storm water issues for a variety of
public entities, including NPDES permit requirements and conditions. He has also given
advice and represented both public and private entities on issues concerning both the
federal and state Superfund statutes, including work on remediation of a variety of
chemical compounds such as gasoline -related spills, chemical (volatile organic
compound) spills, and other releases.
• Norm has experience in representing both public and private clients before the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), including representation of three
different public entities on matters before DTSC offices in the context of efforts to
obtain soil remediation and closure letters.
• Norm graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978. He
graduated with distinction, Phi Beta Kappa, from Stanford University in 1975. Norm was
admitted to the State Bar of California in 1979 and joined RWG in 2005.
Ginetta Giovinco. Ginetta is a shareholder of the Firm, and the Assistant Chair of both the
Firm's Litigation Department and Coastal Law Department. Ginetta specializes in CEQA and
land use litigation, including writs of mandate and appeals. Ginetta also provides advisory legal
services on land use matters when litigation is anticipated.
• Ginetta has litigated more than 50 cases in federal and state court, including more than
25 land use and CEQA cases. Ginetta regularly advises public agencies on CEQA
compliance in connection with the processing of initial studies, negative declarations,
and environmental impact reports.
• Ginetta is a highly -regarded commentator on litigation matters. She is a co-author of
chapters in the California Administrative Mandamus (3d ed.), California Civil Writ
Practice (4th ed.), and California Civil Discovery Practice (4th ed.) treatises published by
the Continuing Education of the Bar.
••
• Ginetta was named a Southern California Rising Star in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and
2013, a peer-reviewed designation given to no more than 2.5 percent of the region's
lawyers, and as a Southern California Super Lawyer in 2014 and 2015
• Ginetta is a 2003 graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
She graduated summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from The American University in
1997. Ginetta was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2003 and joined RWG that
year.
Proposed Public Works Counsel
Michael Estrada
Michael Estrada. Michael is a shareholder in the Public Law Department, and Chair of the
Public Works Practice Group. The sampling below illustrates Michael's experience.
• Michael has served as City Attorney for the Cities of Bell Gardens, San Fernando, and
Yucaipa. He served as Co -General Counsel of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
Construction Authority from its inception in 1999 until 2002, and as its General Counsel
from 2002-2014.
• Michael concentrates on the representation of public entity clients in a wide range of
government law areas, with an emphasis on public works, public contracts, solid waste,
transportation, real estate, successor agency, CEQA, and land use matters.
• Michael regularly advises our municipal clients in the procurement and implementation
of solid waste and recycling services and programs; he has advised Rancho Palos Verdes
staff on solid waste matters for the past ten years.
• Michael regularly advises our Firm's clients on public works issues. This includes
reviewing and drafting procurement documents, and questions relating to bidding, bid
protests, prevailing wage, change orders, and contract enforcement.
• Michael also regularly advises Firm clients on the procurement of materials and services,
including professional services.
• Michael is our lead advisor and continues to work with various members of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Public Works staff on bidding and contracting issues.
100
• Michael is a 1986 graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. He
graduated with an M.A. in Urban Planning from the University of California, Los Angeles
in 1981 and a B.A. in Urban and Rural Studies from the University of California, San
Diego in 1979. Mike was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1987 and joined RWG
in 1991.
Proposed Real Estate Counsel
Bruce W. Galloway
Bruce W. Galloway. Bruce is a shareholder and has represented clients in a wide range of real
estate transactions since 1986. Bruce's experience includes acquisition and disposition of real
estate for mixed use projects, real estate financing (including loans to tax credit limited
partnerships for housing development), ground leasing, recorded regulatory agreements and
restrictions for affordable housing, subordination agreements, title matters, property tax
exemptions, escrows/closings, management agreements, deeds, easements (including
reciprocal easement agreements or "REAS"), conditions, covenants and restrictions ("CC&Rs"),
and prevailing wage issues and exemptions. Bruce provided advice to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in connection with the acquisition of various properties, including properties that have
been dedicated to the City's Nature Preserve.
• Bruce regularly represents the City of Beverly Hills in connection with office leases and
retail leases, including restaurant leases, as that City owns many buildings over
underground public parking garages in prime retail/office areas.
• Bruce also represented the City of Beverly Hills in connection with a long-term lease
with a non-profit entity for a performing arts center on land owned by the City which
included an historic building; this transaction included a 470 car subterranean parking
garage to be utilized by both the non-profit and the City.
• Bruce represents the City of Seaside in connection with its real estate leasing matters,
including ground leases, and has prepared a form of financeable ground lease for that
City.
• Bruce has reviewed marina ground leases for lenders making loans secured by such
leases, assisted a local Southern California beach city in amending a complex hotel
ground lease on the coast, and is currently negotiating a lease of restaurant space by a
city on a pier that is subject to a state tidelands lease.
101
1115DI
L,
{ Q r fid" I/
• Bruce represents the Burbank Bob Hope Airport in connection with its hangar leases,
ground leases, and space/retail leases at the airport.
• Bruce is currently representing the City of Pasadena in connection with a ground lease
of an historic Julia Morgan building to a hotel developer who will renovate the building
and obtain historic tax credits.
• Prevailing wage issues and possessory interest tax issues arise in every lease transaction
by a public entity, including charter cities, and Bruce regularly addresses such issues.
Bruce is also familiar with the various statutes restricting the term of municipal leases,
and how they may be affected by the status of a city as a charter city.
• Bruce is a 1986 graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. He
graduated cum laude from Claremont McKenna College in 1982. Bruce was admitted to
the State Bar of California in 1986 and joined RWG in 2002.
Proposed Public Finance and Redevelopment Dissolution Counsel
Robin D. Harris
Robin D. Harris is a shareholder in the Public Finance Department with more than 25 years of
experience in public finance. Robin concentrates on representing our clients in a wide range of
financial transactions, including the formation of assessment districts, planning and structuring
of bond issues, redevelopment dissolution, and the levy of taxes and fees. Robin is experienced
in the areas of redevelopment agency tax -allocation bonds, special assessment bonds, Mello -
Roos bonds, certificates of participation and revenue bonds, including bonds issued pursuant to
Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act. Robin provides advice and assistance regarding:
• All aspects of operation of the City's former Redevelopment Agency and compliance
with the Community Redevelopment Law, including financing and affordable housing.
• All aspects of operation of the City's Successor Agency and compliance with the
Dissolution Law, including dissolution of the former Redevelopment Agency;
establishment of a Successor Agency and Oversight Board; reinstatement of City loans,
preparation of a long-range property management plan; preparation of semi-annual
ROPS and administrative budgets and annual reports; review of the due diligence
reviews and the State Controller asset transfer review; monitoring of dissolution -related
statewide litigation and legislation; conveyance of Governmental Use properties to the
City; and administration of the County MOU.
102
• Imposition and continuing implementation of the Abalone Cove sewer fee, and the City-
wide landscaping and lighting assessments, storm drain user fee, and sewer fee,
including options for extending the storm drain fee beyond its sunset date.
• Robin graduated magna cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law in
1986. She graduated summa cum laude from Illinois State University in 1981. Robin
joined RWG in 1986 and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1987.
Proposed Employee Relations/Human Resources Counsel
Saskia T. Asamura and Roy A. Clarke
The City Council previously retained Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to provide legal advice to
the City in connection with employee relations issues and labor negotiations. RWG and its
attorneys have worked cooperatively with LCW, and we are committed to continuing to do so
in the future. However, since the City's request for proposals included legal representation in
connection with employee relations and labor negotiations, we have included this section in
our proposal to the City.
Saskia T. Asamura. Saskia is a shareholder and public entity litigator with over 24 years
experience at RWG. She has a proven track record of effectively defending cities in a variety of
lawsuits, including employment lawsuits brought against public employers and their
management or supervisory staff. Saskia successfully defended the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
and achieved a victory in the California Court of Appeal in the third and final appeal in the case
of Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case Number B237221. She served several years as
the Chair of the Firm's Labor & Employment Department and currently serves as its Assistant
Chair. The sampling below illustrates Saskia's areas of expertise:
• Saskia has handled numerous wrongful terminations, FEHA, EEOC, harassment,
discrimination, retaliation, and other employment-related claims on behalf of public
sector clients. Saskia also assists public clients in connection with disciplinary
proceedings, severance agreements, and dispute resolution before a matter reaches the
litigation stage. Below is a representative sampling of employment cases that Saskia has
handled as lead counsel:
• Albanese v. City of Beverly Hills: FEHA fact -intensive complaint for harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation (gender). After a motion for summary judgment was
filed, the court's detailed order paved the way for a zero dollar settlement.
103
• Cook v. City of West Hollywood: Complaint for harassment and discrimination (race,
gender, and sexual orientation). Summary judgment granted for the City.
• Dutro v. City of Carson: Wrongful termination, harassment, and discrimination
complaint (race, gender) against City and supervisor. Summary judgment was granted
for supervisor; summary adjudication was granted for the City as to all but one claim;
remaining cause of action went to trial and was resolved in the City's favor.
• Harrison v. City of Brea: FEHA complaint for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
based upon failure to promote and alleged placement on involuntary leave. Judgment
for defense was granted after a series of demurrers and was upheld on appeal.
• Saskia is a 1991 graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. She
graduated with Honours from the London School of Economics in 1979. Saskia was
admitted to the State Bar of California in 1991 and joined RWG that year.
Roy A. Clarke. Roy is a shareholder of the Firm and he specializes in advisory matters and
administrative hearings. Roy is the Chair of the Labor and Employment Department. Roy has
20 years of legal experience advising public entities and an additional 20 years working on staff
for public entities. His experience spans all aspects of the employment relationship, including
hiring employees, managing the workforce with policies and personnel practices, paying
employees under wage and hour laws, providing employee benefits, preventing discrimination
and harassment, managing leave programs, and administering discipline and termination. Roy
has additional experience with unions and labor relations, including the administration of labor
relations rules, certification, unit determination, contract administration, negotiations, and
grievance handling. The sampling below illustrates Roy's areas of expertise.
• Roy has conducted administrative investigations of sexual harassment and other
employee misconduct complaints and has conducted discipline hearings before
arbitrators and civil service commissions. He has represented employers in disputed
unemployment and wage claims before state hearing personnel and has represented
local government in hearings and disputes involving the California Public Employees'
Retirement System. He serves as special counsel to commissions and hearing boards on
discipline appeals, unfair labor practice charges, and civil service system administration.
• Roy provides advice and assistance with personnel administration, including work
involving the application, interpretation, and updating of personnel systems, personnel
rules, classification plans, compensation plans, and city policies. Roy has worked with
clients to draft or review employment agreements, personnel rules, employee
104
handbooks, labor relations resolutions, discipline notices, and severance agreements.
He assists with benefits administration, including issues involving the Public Employees'
Retirement System. He also provides advice and representation in discipline matters at
administrative hearings.
• Roy also assists public clients with compliance with employment laws such as those
covering wages and hours (FLSA, California Labor Code), equal employment (Title VII,
FEHA, ADA, ADEA), protected leaves of absence (FMLA, CFRA, PDL, Kin Care, Labor
Code), and other employee rights (privacy, whistleblower). He also has experience with
the Procedural Bill of Rights Acts for police and fire.
• Roy provides training in areas such as the prevention of sexual harassment,
performance evaluations, workplace investigations, and compliance with labor (union)
relations requirements.
• Roy graduated Order of the Coif from the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, in 1994. He
graduated magna cum laude from Pepperdine University in 1989. Roy was admitted to
the State Bar of California in 1994 and joined RWG in 1996.
The biographies of the attorneys listed above are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. If the firm/individual, or any of the attorneys employed by the firm have ever
been sued by cities or other clients for malpractice, been the subject of
complaints filed with the State Bar, or had discipline imposed by the State Bar,
please provide information on the nature of the incident, the dates on which
the matter began and was concluded, and the results.
Neither RWG, nor any attorney while employed at RWG, has ever been disciplined by the
California State Bar. Additionally, neither the Firm nor any attorney while employed at RWG
has ever been successfully sued for malpractice. We are unaware of any complaints to the
State Bar ever being made against any of our attorneys.
3. Describe the staffing at your office, including all permanent and temporary
employees and their general duties and work schedules. Include any staffing
changes you would propose should you be awarded the contract to provide
attorney services for the City.
In addition to Carol, Dave, and the entire team that is proposed, the City will have access to all
of the Firm's attorneys, paralegals, and numerous management and support staff including a
105
records center, word processing department, office services center (including a courier service),
and information technology professionals. We have extensive word processing, teleconference
and video conference, and electronic research resources. This broad range of staff and
professionals, paired with the latest in technology and management practices, allows us to
serve each of our client's unique needs in a timely, cost-effective, and productive manner. No
staffing changes are proposed, if this contract were awarded to the Firm by the City Council.
4. Define the standard time frames for response by the City Attorney to direction
and/or inquiry from the City Council or City Manager.
RWG is committed to responding immediately to requests for legal services. Each of our
attorneys can be reached by telephone, cell phone, and e-mail. We have 24-hour access to
e-mail, the Internet, database services and legal research facilities, as well as word processing.
Using the latest technology, we are able to stay in immediate contact with our clients and one
another and provide economical and timely delivery of legal services.
RWG understands that the City Council and executive staff are "on-call" 24 hours per day and
require similar access to legal counsel. We are committed to returning calls immediately, day
or night, and to promptly respond to questions. With more than 65 attorneys committed to the
practice of public law, we can assign someone to handle questions as they arise, and often that
person already has background knowledge in the area of inquiry, allowing us to provide
answers even more quickly.
5. Describe the systems or mechanisms that would be established for monthly
reporting of the status of projects, requests and litigation.
The City Attorney will provide monthly reports to the City Council and the City Manager
regarding significant projects and litigation. In addition, Carol will provide periodic reports to
the City Council in closed session about pending or threatened litigation and to seek direction
from the City Council at critical junctures in any case where the City Council could choose to
proceed with the case or to pursue an alternate direction, such as settlement. RWG aids public
entity clients in the management of legal expenses in important and tangible ways. First, our
proposed monthly retainer fee and our commitment to keep the rates in effect for the first two
years of the contract provide the City certainty regarding its legal fees for at least two years
with a modest annual adjustment based on the increase of the CPI thereafter
Second, the City Attorney will regularly provide the City Manager with detailed billing
summaries of the monthly and year-to-date costs incurred for each matter handled by our
office. These summaries can also provide a column that shows if the expenditures are on a
106
5,^ VAI L,
� �53
I PRAM n
a*m �'i"� s aol_ it.
pace consistent with the annual budget or are above or below the budget targets. This type of
record-keeping, or other analysis if requested, can help City staff and the City Attorney to
monitor expenses throughout the year and to coordinate the use of legal resources.
Third, RWG's large public entity client base means that any one entity client will pay only a
fraction of the cost for legal work on matters that are common to other public entity clients.
Examples of such matters include annual reports on new legislation and the drafting of
ordinances or policies in response to new court decisions. Virtually all work on redevelopment
dissolution and storm water quality, as examples, was done on a shared cost basis that created
economy for all our affected clients. These cost savings have been passed onto the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes throughout the Firm's representation of the City.
Fourth, our extensive library of forms minimizes the time spent by attorneys on routine
documents such as standard contracts and standard easements. We provide training to staff to
properly utilize these forms and handle routine matters, such as public records requests and
small contracts. This assists in reducing, over time, the use of attorney time for certain routine
matters.
To effectively monitor pending lawsuits and control litigation costs, RWG has developed a Code
Enforcement tracking log that is updated on a monthly basis. This report tracks the status of
each matter and is provided to the Director of Community Development.
6. Describe the computer resources currently utilized within your office. City
utilizes Microsoft Word for Windows word-processing software and
compatibility with Microsoft Word is required. The City will require the City
Attorney's office to connect one or more computers to the City's computer
local area network, or to maintain Internet services such that mail and files can
be transmitted between City staff and City Attorney.
The Firm's network uses the Microsoft Windows operating systems, and the Firm uses the
Microsoft Office suite of applications such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. We have a
centralized document management system that allows for quick and easy access to all
documents, from e-mail to memoranda and pleadings, while simultaneously ensuring robust
security. RWG will continue to maintain computer systems allowing for transmitting electronic
documents to the City with ease. We maintain an e-mail exchange system for transmission of
smaller files, and regularly transfer larger files through a secure file sharing account. RWG will
work with the City to achieve its connectivity goals, and would be pleased to provide computer
equipment that connects to our offices via remote access, along with providing access to the
City's system.
107
C. Current Clients/Conflict of Interest
1. Please list all current or former clients known to the Firm having a substantial
property or business interest in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the past
three (3) years.
The Firm represents the Palos Verdes Library District. One of the District's branches (Miraleste
Library) is located in the City at 29089 Palos Verdes Drive East. The Firm drafted the state
legislation that allowed cities to form landslide abatement districts and assisted the City in
forming the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) and the Klondike Canyon
Landslide Abatement District. The Firm has provided advice to those Districts from time to time
over the years.
2. Please list all public clients for whom you or your firm currently provides
services either under a fee for services or a retainer basis. Please identify any
foreseeable or potential conflicts of interest that could result from such
representation and the manner in which you would propose to resolve such
conflicts.
RWG is very proud of the long-term relationships that the Firm maintains with its public entity
clients. Many of these relationships have lasted 20 years or more. The list that is attached as
Exhibit B includes all currently -contracted public clients for which we have provided legal
services since January, 2014.
We have completed a conflicts check of our public clients, and we have not found any actual or
potential conflicts of interest that we believe would result from representation of any of these
public clients and the continued representation of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that have
not been addressed previously by a conflict waiver approved by the City Council. In that regard,
the Firm represents the City of Los Angeles in connection with Redevelopment dissolution
issues. We do not see any potential conflict of interest arising from this representation. We
brought the issue to the attention of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, and the City Council
consented to our representation of the City of Los Angeles.
we*
3. For the person to be designated as City Attorney, please list all public clients
that person presently represents as city/town attorney or general counsel.
Please list the meeting dates and times for the city/town council or governing
body of these clients.
Carol W. Lynch — City Attorney
• Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m.
• Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, upon request: second and fourth Tuesdays
of each month at 7:00 p.m.
D. Compensation and Reimbursement
Under the City's current agreement with the Firm, the Firm charges $165 per hour for all
general legal services, code enforcement services, and work performed in connection with
Public Records Act requests. Labor and employment related services are billed at the rate of
$185 per hour. Litigation is billed at the Firm's standard hourly rates discounted by 15% with a
maximum rate of $325 per hour for Shareholders. One option available to the City is for the
Firm to continue to provide legal services pursuant to the terms of the existing agreement.
However, if the City would prefer a Retainer Services agreement, RWG proposes the following
two classifications of legal services for billing purposes under that option: Retainer Services and
Special Services.
1. Retainer Services
For Retainer Services, RWG will be compensated at a flat monthly retainer of $20,000 per
month. Retainer services shall include:
• Provide routine legal advice, telephone and personal consultations with Members of the
City Council, the City Manager and City staff.
• Review and/or prepare staff reports, ordinances, resolutions, agreements, contracts,
forms, notices, certificates, deeds, leases and other documents required by the City.
• Attend regular and special City Council meetings.
• Provide advice, as requested, to City Commissions and Committees and attend
occasional meetings of those bodies upon request.
109
• Attend certain meetings with staff, either in person or telephonically, including weekly
meetings of Administrative staff led by the City Manager.
• Perform legal work pertaining to property acquisitions, property disposals, public
improvements, easement dedications, and right-of-way abandonment, other than
complex matters that will require more than ten hours of work for each matter, which
are within the special services that are discussed below.
• Monitor and advise the City Council and staff regarding pending and current state and
federal legislation and court decisions as appropriate.
• Monitor and coordinate outside legal counsel as needed and as directed by the City
Council and City Manager.
• Travel time incurred on Retainer Services matters would be charged to, and included in,
the Retainer.
• Retainer Services shall not include all services that are defined below as Special Services.
2. Special Services
Special Services will be defined as legal services provided in the following matters:
• Real estate matters that require a total of ten (10) or more hours to complete.
• Labor and employment law services.
• Environmental law services, including but not limited to, hazardous waste, Clean Air Act,
and Clean Water Act matters.
• Services in connection with complex land use matters, which are defined to mean
negotiation, drafting, and related CEQA work on: (a) development agreements; (b)
entitlements for land use projects of twenty (20) or more residential units; and (c)
entitlements for projects in excess of two (2) acres.
• Water and water rights law services.
• Public finance.
• Bond Counsel services and Disclosure Counsel services.
110
W
• Legal services that Rancho Palos Verdes has reimbursed by a third -party.
• Any legal services project that the City Manager and the City Attorney agree is
anticipated to require more than ten hours of legal services.
Special Services shall be billed to, and compensated by, Rancho Palos Verdes at a composite
rate for all attorneys of $250 per hour except for the following:
• Bond Counsel services and Disclosure Counsel Services will be billed and compensated
at $350 per hour subject to a cap that is commensurate with fees charged for
transactions of a similar size and complexity in the discretion of the City Manager.
• Code Enforcement is defined as representation of Rancho Palos Verdes in civil or
criminal proceedings to enforce the Municipal Code. Code Enforcement shall be billed
to, and compensated by, Rancho Palos Verdes at a composite rate for all attorneys of
$200 per hour and $150 per hour for paralegals.
• Litigation is defined as representation of Rancho Palos Verdes in all aspects of the
initiation, advancement, or defense of claims in litigation, arbitration, or mediation.
Additionally, litigation will include representation of Rancho Palos Verdes in
administrative proceedings before other public agencies. Litigation shall be billed to,
and compensated by, Rancho Palos Verdes at the Firm's standard rates less fifteen
percent with a rate cap of $325 per hour for all attorneys and $150 per hour for
paralegals.
• Public Records Act requests will be billed at the current rate of $165 per hour.
• Travel time incurred on Special Services would be compensated at the Special Services
rate.
After the first two years of the Agreement, adjustments in the above rates for special services
shall occur on an annual basis in an amount equal to the percentage change in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles — Riverside — Orange County area, for
the 12 -month period ending January of the same calendar year, not to exceed 3% in any year.
3. Reimbursable and/or Other Costs
Expenses for non -local travel will be charged at our actual costs. Mileage for non -local travel
will be charged at the standard rate established by the IRS for deducting such travel expenses,
111
ov
1101,` � �$
Ka E
,. L
41
which currently is 57.5 cents per mile. Copying costs will be charged at 5 cents per page.
Facsimile charges will be $1 per page with a maximum charge of $25 for any one facsimile. All
other costs, such as long distance telephone charges, messenger and delivery services, and
legal research services will be charged only at the Firm's actual out-of-pocket expenses. The
Firm will not charge for word processing and similar clerical tasks.
4. Other Entities.
Legal services and costs for any other entities created or controlled by the City Council would
be contracted and billed at the same rate structures.
E. References
Please provide three (3) professional references from persons and/or entities within
California for whom the Proposer has provided project services similar to those
services requested in the RFP within the last five (5) years. Include the name of the
business, name of contact person, telephone number of contact person and
description of services provided.
Business Name I Contact Information I Services Provided
City of Monrovia Steve Sizemore Carol advised the City's Planning
Director of Community Commission and provided advice to the City
Development regarding land use and planning issues.
(626) 932-5539
Abalone Cove Landslide Dr. Robert Douglas In representing the City of Rancho Palos
Abatement District ACLAD Board Member Verdes, Carol has worked with ACLAD over
(310) 544-2291 he years regarding common issues,
including obtaining easements for
dewatering wells and enabling the
maintenance and replacement of the wells.
Palos Verdes Peninsula Mr. William Swank In representing the City, Carol worked with
Land Conservancy President the Land Conservancy in acquiring
(213) 400-4869 properties for the Nature Preserve and
drafting easements.
112
David M. Snow — Professional References
Business Name
Contact Information
Services Provided
City of Yucaipa
Ray Casey
Dave serves as the City Attorney, and
City Manager
provides a full array of municipal law
(909) 797-2489
services to the City.
City of San Luis Obispo
Katie Lichtig
Dave and Katie worked together at the City
City Manager
of Beverly Hills when Katie served as that
(805) 781-7114
City's Assistant City Manager
City of Beverly Hills
Susan Healy Keene, AICPGeneral
ongoing CEQA and land use
Community
advice, including advice on developmental
Development Director
agreements and Environmental Impact
(310) 285-1120
Reports.
F. Agreement
The form of the Firm's proposed legal services agreement is attached as Exhibit C.
113
ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES
114
Carol W. Lynch I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Environmental Compliance
Land Use
Planning, Zoning and Subdivision Map Act
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Rent Control
Education:
B.A., cum laude, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1973
J.D., Loyola University School of Law,
Los Angeles, 1981
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E elynch@rwglaw.com
rwglaw.com
W www.rwglaw.com
Carol W. Lynch is a shareholder in the Public Law
Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon with
more than 30 years of experience representing
local public agencies. Since joining the Firm, she
has specialized in municipal law, particularly land
use issues; planning law, environmental issues and
rent control.
Ms. Lynch serves as the City Attorney of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes. She previously served as
City Attorney for the Cities of La Habra Heights
and La Puente.
With the implementation of the Rancho Palos
Verdes View Restoration Ordinance, she has
become quite familiar with the legal issues arising
from disputes between people who have trees and
people who have views. In connection with her
representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, Ms.
Lynch also has become extremely familiar with
issues arising from landslide movement, including
inverse condemnation.
Ms. Lynch also advises the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes regarding permits issued by the City for
telecommunications facilities, including cellular
antennas. Ms. Lynch participated in the successful
defense of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
against a lawsuit that alleged damages against the
City under the Civil Rights Act and a
corresponding claim for attorney's fees. The
United States Supreme Court resolved those issues
in favor of the City in City of Rancho Palos
Verdes v. Abrams, 125 S.Ct. 1453 (2005).
Ms. Lynch assisted the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in acquiring approximately 1,200 acres to
be preserved as open space.
Ms. Lynch received her law degree from Loyola
University School of Law, Los Angeles in 1981
and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University
of California, Los Angeles in 1973. She is a
member of the American Bar Association and the
Los Angeles County Bar Association.
115
David M. Snow I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
CEQA
Land Use
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Public Agency and Municipal Law Litigation
Planning, Zoning and Subdivision Map Act
Climate Change
Redevelopment/Dissolution
Education:
B.S., Clarkson University, 1989
J.D., Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 2001
Certificates, Land Use Planning, Transportation
Planning for Air Quality, and Economic
Development, University of California,
Riverside
Member of American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E dsnow@rwglaw.com
David M. Snow is a shareholder in the Public Law
Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon.
Mr. Snow specializes in advising public agencies
on the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and matters involving land use
regulation. Mr. Snow joined RW&G in 2001 with
over ten years of prior experience in municipal
government, focusing on zoning, land use,
redevelopment, and environmental matters.
Before joining the Firm, Mr. Snow served as the
Deputy Director of Planning for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, where he managed the
City's Planning and Code Enforcement
Departments while attending law school. During
Mr. Snow's eleven year planning career, he gained
broad experience in processing complex master
planned communities and large-scale commercial
projects, construction management, CEQA
management, coastal issues and other
environmentally constrained projects.
Mr. Snow is an active member of the State Bar of
California and the Los Angeles County Bar
Association. Mr. Snow serves as the City
Attorney for the City of Yucaipa, Assistant City
Attorney in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
in the City of Beverly Hills (where he is counsel
to the Planning Commission and Cultural
Heritage Commission). Mr. Snow is also general
counsel to the Successor Agency of the Yucaipa
Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Snow regularly serves as special counsel
advising public agencies on complex development
and infrastructure projects and the associated land
use, zoning and environmental issues.
Mr. Snow is a member of the American Institute
of Certified Planners (AICP), the American
Planning Association (APA), APA California
Chapter Amicus Committee, and served two terms
as APA California's Vice President of Policy and
Legislation.
116
'C 3 �',
S .,
LI
��\\£(\�Y�3!
IA
Gena M. Stinnett I Of Counsel
Practice Areas:
CEQA
E -Documents and Public Records
Land Use, Planning, Zoning and Subdivision Map
Act
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Public Works
Redevelopment
Solid Waste
Telecommunications
Education:
B.A., with great distinction, Phi Kappa Phi Honor
Society, California State University, Long
Beach, 1979
J.D., summa cum laude, Order of the Coif, Loyola
Law School, 2004
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E gstinnett@rwglaw.com
rwglaw.com
W www.rwglaw.com
Gena M. Stinnett is Of Counsel in the Public Law
Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon. Ms.
Stinnett serves as the Assistant City Attorney for
the Cities of Beverly Hills, Moorpark and Rancho
Palos Verdes. She also serves as Assistant City
Attorney and Planning Commission counsel for
the City of Monrovia. Ms. Stinnett concentrates
on the representation of public agencies in a wide
range of government law issues.
Ms. Stinnett is Chair of the Firm's E-
Docwnents and Public Records Practice Group
and a member of the Firm's
Telecommunications Practice Group. Ms.
Stinnett's public records practice includes
advising public agencies on complex public
records requests including those dealing with
electronic document production. Her
telecommunications practice includes advising
public agencies on local wireless
telecommunication regulations and cell site
leasing.
Before becoming an attorney, Ms. Stinnett
worked in the broadcast industry.
Ms. Stinnett has lectured extensively on a
variety of public law issues at conferences and
seminars including:
• "Records Retention and Management,"
California Special Districts Association Board
Secretary/Clerk Conference (February 28,
2014).
• "Public Records: Retention, Legal Holds and
Disclosure," IRWA Los Angeles Chapter 1
Seminar (October 22, 2013).
• "Complying with Brown Act Requirements,"
City Clerks Association of California
Northern Division "Nuts & Bolts" Workshop
(March 2, 2012 and March 1, 2013).
117
• "Responding to Public Records Requests,"
City Clerks Association of California Northern
Division "Nuts & Bolts" Workshop (March 2,
2012 and March 1, 2013).
• "Preparation and Control of Disasters from
Begirming to End," Orange County City
Attorney's Association (July 21, 2011).
• "Legal Aspects of Public Records Requests,"
International Code Council/Los Angeles Basin
Chapter Training Matrix (September 28, 2010).
• "Disasters Beginning to End: Preparing for
Disasters - Knowing the Law," City Attorneys
Association of Los Angeles County's Annual
Spring Conference (March 13, 2010).
• "All Things Electronic - Advising Public
Officials on Email Best Practices and
Electronic Records," Orange County City
Attorneys Association (January 21, 2010).
• "E -mailing: Best Practices for Elected
Officials," California Contract Cities
Association's 29th Annual Fall Conference
(September 26, 2009).
• "All Things Electronic - Advising Public
Officials on Email Best Practices and
Electronic Records," City Attorneys
Association of Los Angeles County (June 18,
2009).
• "Best Practices for Use of Email," League of
California Cities Mayors and Councilmembers
Executive Forum (May 28, 2009).
• "Electronic Records," Orange County City
Clerks (April 13, 2009).
• AB 1234 Ethics Training (Public Records Act),
RWG Webinar (2008).
• "Public Records Act Update," Southern
California City Clerks Association
(September 13, 2007).
• AB 1234 Ethics Training (Public Records
Act), California Contract Cities Association
Conference (May 19, 2007).
• AB 1234 Ethics Training (Public Records
Act), UCLA Extension Public Policy Program
(April 20, 2007).
Ms. Stinnett's publications include:
• "Right -of -Way Turf Wars: Enter DAS
Facilities," RW&G Advisor (Summer/Fall
2010).
• "Lack of Transparency Can Be Expensive for
Local Agencies," RW&G Advisor (Summer
2009).
• `Bolting the Doors Can Be Costly: `Effective
Denial of Access' Theory Affords CPRA
Plaintiffs Attorney Fees," Public Law Journal,
Vol. 32, No. 2, Spring 2009.
• "An Ounce of Prevention: Email Best
Practices," Outlook (Municipal Management
Association of Southern California), January
2009.
• "California Supreme Court Enunciates
Principles that Govern CEQA Analysis for
Long -Term Future Water Supply," RW&G
Advisor (Summer/Fall 2007).
• "Ignorance is Bliss: A Comment on Pavlovicb
v. Superior Court," 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1733
(2003).
• "Why California Shopping Centers Can't
Protect Mickey Mouse From Union
Handbilling: A Comment on Glendale
Associates v. NLRB," 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.
1799 (2004).
118
Steven L. Dorsey I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Brown Act, Conflicts of Interest and Ethics
E -Documents and Public Records
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Public Works, Construction and Contracting
Education:
A.B., Stanford University, 1970
J.D., Stanford University, 1973
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E sdorsey@rwglaw.com
W www.rwglaw.com
Steven L. Dorsey is a shareholder in the Public Law
Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon. Since
joining the Firm in 1973, Mr. Dorsey has specialized
in public agency law. He currently is City Attorney
for the Cities of Buena Park, Norwalk and San
Marino. He also serves as counsel for several joint
powers authorities.
Mr. Dorsey is very active in the League of California
Cities and has served as a member of the League's
Board of Directors. He also has been President of the
City Attorneys` Department, chair of the
Department's Legal Advocacy Committee, a member
of the Department's Legislative Committee and chair
of the City Attorneys' Department Fair Political
Practices Commission committee.
Mr. Dorsey was a member of the editorial board that
wrote the first edition of the League's Municipal Law
Handbook, and personally edited the chapters on
Public Property, Public Works and Public Utilities.
Mr. Dorsey was also a member of the City
Attorneys' Department committee that authored
Practicing Ethics: A Handbook for Municipal
Lawyers and chaired the committee that updated this
publication in 2014. Previously, he chaired the
committee that drafted the Ethical Principles for
City Attorneys.
Mr. Dorsey's practice emphasizes representation of
public agencies on conflict of interests and ethics
issues. Mr. Dorsey has lectured on these topics on
many occasions, including providing a series of
presentations with members of the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Public Integrity Division.
119
Patrick K. Bobko I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Appellate Law
Litigation
Public Agency and Municipal Law Litigation
Writs
Education:
B.S., United States Air Force Academy, 1991
M.A., Philosophy, University of South Carolina,
1997
J.D., The George Washington University Law
School, 2000
T
213.626.8484
F
213.626.0078
E
pbobko@rwglaw.com
W
www.rwglaw.com
Patrick "Kit" Bobko is a Shareholder in the
Litigation Department and the Appellate Practice
Group at Richards, Watson & Gershon. Mr.
Bobko has extensive experience litigating civil
cases before federal and state courts as well as
before state and local administrative agencies.
Mr. Bobko has represented cities, police
departments, water districts, and other public
entities throughout California. He has handled
election contests, contract disputes, public and
private land use cases, and civil rights actions in
both the state and federal courts. Mr. Bobko has
extensive experience in First Amendment cases
and has been at the forefront of the "medical
marijuana" litigation on behalf of cities and local
governments.
Mr. Bobko served his community as a member of
the Hermosa Beach City Council from June 2006
through November 2013, serving twice as his
City's Mayor. Mr. Bobko was a candidate for
Congress in 2011. Prior to his legal career Mr.
Bobko was a Captain in the United States Air
Force.
120
Youstina N. Aziz I Associate
Practice Areas:
Litigation
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Education:
B.A., magna cum laude, University of California,
Irvine, 2009
J.D., Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 2012
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E yaziz@rwglaw.com
W www.rwglaw.com
Youstina N. Aziz is an associate in the Litigation
Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon. Ms.
Aziz represents municipalities and public entities
in litigation matters in both state and federal
courts.
After earning her law degree, Youstina served as
a temporary law clerk in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California. Thereafter, from 2013 to 2014,
Youstina served as a rotating law clerk in the
United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
Youstina received her law degree from Loyola
Law School, Los Angeles, where she served as a
senior research editor on the Loyola of
Los Angeles Law Review. Youstina was also a
member of the Dean's Honor list for the 2011-
2012 academic year and a member of the Saint
Thomas More Honor Society. During law school,
Youstina externed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California and for the Office of the United States
Trustee.
Youstina received her undergraduate degree from
the University of California, Irvine as an
international studies major and a political science
minor.
121
. x� 7�. i yr.q 5'� a �F �,� s� � i �° d �? � � r✓, � � ; p � �d � k � � � a � �s{""�" � �� �
Ata %�i� \ \ �'�� \ \ a. ,% 4 L .
0...iv4M �a �- a``C�`��«:K�'c�;. �, �i..a\.X.v�\c`�..% �.. o .,� .r/ o ,/.k',s�i rl��.s �.. �fr/,..a',?�aF�
Robert C. Ceccon I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Business Litigation
Employment Litigation
Governmental Tort Liability Litigation
Litigation
Police Practices
Public Agency and Municipal Law Litigation
Public Works, Construction and Contracting
Education:
B.A., Columbia University, 1981
J.D., University of California School of Law,
Los Angeles, 1984
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E rceccon@rwglaw.coin
W www.rwgiaw.com
Robert C. Ceccon is a shareholder and current
Chair of the Litigation Department at Richards,
Watson & Gershon. Mr. Ceccon has tried more
than 25 lawsuits, and has arbitrated dozens more.
Mr. Ceccon's primary area of practice involves
representing governmental entities in litigation.
He has represented the following entities:
Barstow, Beverly Hills, Brea, Buena Park,
Calimesa, Carson, Compton, Hesperia, Indio,
Lynwood, Malibu, Palmdale, Pasadena, Rancho
Cucamonga, Redondo Beach, Rialto, Stanton,
Temecula, Upland, West Hollywood and the
County of Ventura. He represents public entities
in lawsuits involving dangerous conditions of
public property, police liability, and employment
law. He has also represented private entities in
litigation, including Hewlett Packard Company
and DHL.
Mr. Ceccon acted as lead trial counsel for the
County of Ventura in two lawsuits brought by
more than 80 plaintiffs arising out of the La
Conchita landslide of January 10, 2005, which
resulted in 10 deaths and numerous claims for
personal and property damage. Mr. Ceccon
successfully defended the County against all
claims.
Mr. Ceccon is an expert on the California
Government Claims Act and is author of two
books for the California Continuing Education of
the Bar: Action Guide: Handling Claims Against
Government Entities, and co-author of California
Government Tort Liability Practice.
Mr. Ceccon was a member of the Moot Court
Honors Program and the Federal
Communications Law Journal while at UCLA
School of Law.
122
r
Robert C. Ceccon I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Business Litigation
Employment Litigation
Governmental Tort Liability Litigation
Litigation
Police Practices
Public Agency and Municipal Law Litigation
Public Works, Construction and Contracting
Education:
B.A., Columbia University, 1981
J.D., University of California School of Law,
Los Angeles, 1984
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E rceccon@rwglaw.coin
W www.rwgiaw.com
Robert C. Ceccon is a shareholder and current
Chair of the Litigation Department at Richards,
Watson & Gershon. Mr. Ceccon has tried more
than 25 lawsuits, and has arbitrated dozens more.
Mr. Ceccon's primary area of practice involves
representing governmental entities in litigation.
He has represented the following entities:
Barstow, Beverly Hills, Brea, Buena Park,
Calimesa, Carson, Compton, Hesperia, Indio,
Lynwood, Malibu, Palmdale, Pasadena, Rancho
Cucamonga, Redondo Beach, Rialto, Stanton,
Temecula, Upland, West Hollywood and the
County of Ventura. He represents public entities
in lawsuits involving dangerous conditions of
public property, police liability, and employment
law. He has also represented private entities in
litigation, including Hewlett Packard Company
and DHL.
Mr. Ceccon acted as lead trial counsel for the
County of Ventura in two lawsuits brought by
more than 80 plaintiffs arising out of the La
Conchita landslide of January 10, 2005, which
resulted in 10 deaths and numerous claims for
personal and property damage. Mr. Ceccon
successfully defended the County against all
claims.
Mr. Ceccon is an expert on the California
Government Claims Act and is author of two
books for the California Continuing Education of
the Bar: Action Guide: Handling Claims Against
Government Entities, and co-author of California
Government Tort Liability Practice.
Mr. Ceccon was a member of the Moot Court
Honors Program and the Federal
Communications Law Journal while at UCLA
School of Law.
122
�a
amon r
. L
Norman A. Dupont I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Climate Change
E -Documents and Public Records
Environmental Compliance
Environmental Law
Environmental Litigation
Water Rights and Water Law
Education:
B.A., with Distinction, Phi Beta Kappa, Stanford
University, 1975
J.D., magna cum laude, Georgetown University
Law Center, 1978
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E ndupont@rwglaw.com
W www.i-wglaw.com
Norman A. Dupont is a shareholder at Richards,
Watson & Gershon and is the Assistant Chair of
the Firm's Environmental & Energy Department.
Mr. Dupont has over 29 years experience in the
environmental law field, including the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation & Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act,
amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
("RCRA"), the Clean Water Act, the Porter -
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Proposition
65 claims, brownfields redevelopment projects,
Hazardous Substance Account Act claims,
stormwater (MS4) and waste water regulation, and
other environmental laws.
Mr. Dupont represents both public and private
sector clients in a wide range of environmental
transactions and litigation matters. Mr. Dupont has
represented both public agencies and private
clients dealing with new "emerging" chemicals
such as perchlorate, NDMA, and 1, 2, 3, TCP.
Mr. Dupont served as Editor -in -Chief of the ABA
Section of Environment, Energy and Resources
publication Trends from 2011-2013. He continues
to serve on the editorial board of Trends, and also
is a vice -chair of the Section's Water Resources
Committee.
Mr. Dupont has written and lectured extensively
on a variety of environmental issues, including
recent U.S. Supreme Court cases deciding
environmental law and constitutional issues.
(Articles follow on next page)
123
Articles:
"Supreme Court Decides Rails to Trails Case: A
New Governmental Attorney Estoppel Doctrine or
a Case of Revisionist History? "(Trends, Vol. 45,
No. 6) (July/August 2014), American Bar
Association Section of Environment, Energy, and
Resources
"Complex Environmental Cases Before the
Supreme Court: Just How Do You Explain the
`Spaghetti -Like' Matrix?" (American Bar
Association Section of Environment, Energy, and
Resources, 43rd Annual Spring Conference) (2014)
"The Court's 2013 Term and Environmental Law:
A Whimper, Not a Bang" (Trends, Vol. 43, No. 1)
(September/October 2013)
"Federal Preemption of State and Local
Environmental Laws," (Chapter 7, Principles of
Constitutional Environmental Law, American Bar
Association) (2011)
"Connecticut v. AEP: The Second Circuit Confirms
Standing of States, the City of New York, and
Private Land Trusts" (Constitutional Law
Committee Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 1) (February
2010)
"The Supreme Court's environmental case this
term: Will it be a `takings' away of beach
restoration?" (Trends, Vol. 32, No. 2) (December
2009)
"Supreme Court Sticks to the Narrow Issues on
Environmental Cases" (Los Angeles Daily Journal)
(June 2009)
"Moving At A Glacial Pace" (Los Angeles Daily
Journal) (June 2009)
"NEPA and Climate Change: Are We at the
`Tipping Point? "' (Natural Resources &
Environment, Volume 23, Number 4, American
Bar Association) (Spring 2009)
"Supreme Court Rules on Federal Preemption of
State Unfair Practices Act: A Renewed
Constitutional Presumption Against Preemption"
(ABA, Constitutional Law Committee Newsletter)
(2009)
"The Ninth Circuit's Burlington Northern
Decision on Arranger Liability - Don't Cry
`CERCLA' over Spilt Bourbon?" (Environmental
Litigation & Toxic Torts, American Bar
Association) (2008)
"High Court Leans Left on Environmental Issues"
(Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438) (2007)
"The Dormant Commerce Clause and United
Haulers - A Constitutional Doctrine on Terminal
life Support" (United Haulers Assoc., Inc. v.
Oenida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management
Authority, 550 U.S. _, 127 S. Ct. 1786 (2007)
United Haulers)
"Who's Really Blowing Smoke - Scalia Needs a
New Dictionary" (The Recorder) (2007)
"Rapanos and the Ebbing of the Constitutional
`high water' Mark for the Commerce Clause
Limitation on Federal Wetlands Regulation"
(Rapanos v. U.S., 126 S. Ct. 2208, 2220-21)
(2006)
"`Plain Meaning' Construction of Environmental
Statutes" (Natural Resources & Environment,
American Bar Association) (2006)
"9th Circuit Sticks to the Clean Water Pragmatism
of `Rapanos "` (Rapanos v. U.S., 126 S. Ct. 2208,
2220-21) (2006)
"Ruling Hints Roberts Court Isn't Hide -Bound
Conservative" (Los Angeles Daily Journal) (2006)
"New Orleans After Katrina: A Superfund Site?"
(Natural Resources & Environment, American Bar
Association) (2006)
124
Ginetta L. Giovinco ( Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Litigation
Writs of Mandate
CEQA
Education:
J.D., University of California, Los Angeles,
School of Law, 2003
B.A., summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa,
The American University, 1997
T
F
E
W
213.626.8484
Ginetta L. Giovinco is a shareholder in the
Litigation Department at Richards, Watson &
Gershon and is Assistant Chair of the Firm's
Litigation and Coastal Departments.
Ms. Giovinco represents municipalities and public
entities, as well as private sector clients, in litigation
matters in both state and federal courts. Ms.
Giovinco has focused her practice on writ matters
and land use issues, including CEQA.
She co-authored chapters in the C.E.B. treatises
California Administrative Mandamus (3d ed.),
California Civil Writ Practice (4th ed.), and
California Civil Discovery Practice (4th ed.).
Ms. Giovinco was named a Southern California
Rising Star in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, a
peer-reviewed designation given to no more than
2.5% of the region's lawyers.
Ms. Giovinco's representative appellate and writ
cases include:
Eiskamp v. Pajaro Valley Water Management
Agency, 203 Cal.AppAth 97 (2012), published
Court of Appeal decision upholding the dismissal of
a challenge to an ordinance that increased
groundwater augmentation charges for well
operators.
South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City
of Dana Point, 196 Cal.AppAth 1604 (2011),
published Court of Appeal decision holding that a
mitigated negative declaration prepared for a
rezoning project was not required to study the
impacts of an existing sewage treatment plan on the
project.
213.626.0078 Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho
ggiovinco@rwglaw.com Cucamonga, 175 Cal.AppAth 1306 (2009),
www.rwgiaw.com published Court of Appeal decision upholding City's
right to select qualified conservation entity to
receive mitigation lands dedicated by developer
pursuant to CEQA.
Ms. Giovinco is admitted to practice in:
• All California courts; Central, Eastern,
Southern and Northern Districts of the
United States District Court.
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
125
s
Michael Estrada I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Municipal Law
Public Works
Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Dissolution
Solid Waste
Transportation
Education:
B.A., Urban and Rural Studies, University of
California, San Diego, 1979
M.A., Urban Planning, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1981
J.D., University of California, Berkeley,
School of Law, 1986
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E mestrada@rwglaw.com
W www.rwgiaw.com
Michael Estrada is a shareholder at Richards,
Watson & Gershon, and a member of its Public
Law Department.
Mr. Estrada concentrates on the representation of
public agency clients in a wide range of areas,
with an emphasis on public works and prevailing
wage, public contracts generally, affordable
housing, real estate, solid waste and recycling, the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
land use, and successor agency matters.
Mr. Estrada has previously served as City
Attorney to the cities of Bell Gardens (1993-
1994), San Fernando (1995-1997; 1999-2012) and
Yucaipa (2010-2012), and as General Counsel to
the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
Construction Authority (1999-2014).
Mr. Estrada is chair of the Firm's Public Works
Practice Group, and regularly advises public
agency clients on public works issues, with an
emphasis on procurement and prevailing wage
issues, and public contracting generally.
Mr. Estrada has extensive expertise in
redevelopment transactions and implementation
activities. Mr. Estrada assisted redevelopment
agencies throughout the state with redevelopment
transactions for a variety of commercial and
residential projects, including numerous
affordable housing transactions. He now provides
counsel on various issues related to the
implementation of AB X1 26 and the dissolution
of redevelopment agencies.
126
t V&
Bruce Galloway is a shareholder at Richards,
Watson & Gershon and a member of the Firm's
Real Estate Department. As a transactional real
estate attorney, Mr. Galloway has extensive
experience in real estate financing (including
construction, permanent and mezzanine loans, as
well as loan syndications and participations),
leasing (including office, industrial, retail and
ground leases), acquisitions and dispositions,
workouts and foreclosures, and construction -
related documents. Mr. Galloway also has
extensive experience in representing public
entities in connection with the acquisition,
disposition, development and financing of real
estate, as well as low income housing loan and
grant programs.
Bruce W. Galloway I Shareholder
Practice Area:
Real Estate
Education:
B.A., cum laude, Claremont McKenna College,
1982
J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, University of
California, Berkeley, 1986
T 213.253.0249
F 213.626.0078
E bgalloway@rwglaw.com
W www.rwglaw.com
127
.,
eIr
a
Robin
..'
Robin D. Harris I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Assessments, Taxes and Proposition 218
Compliance
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Public Finance
Redevelopment Dissolution
Education:
B.S., summa cum laude, Illinois State University,
1981
J.D., magna cum laude, University of Illinois
College of Law, 1986
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E rharris@rwglaw.com
W www.rwgiaw.com
Robin D. Harris is a shareholder in the Public
Finance Department at Richards, Watson &
Gershon with more than 25 years of experience in
public finance, public agency law, and
redevelopment law. Ms. Harris concentrates on
representing our clients in a wide range of
financial transactions, including the formation of
assessment districts, planning and structuring of
bond issues, and the levy of taxes and fees. Ms.
Harris has extensive experience regarding the
implications of Propositions 13, 62, 218, and 26
on such financing mechanisms. Ms. Harris is
experienced in the areas of tax -allocation bonds,
special assessment bonds, Mello -Roos bonds,
certificates of participation and revenue bonds,
including bonds issued pursuant to Marks -Roos
Local Bond Pooling Act.
Ms. Harris has also concentrated on representing
redevelopment agencies in all aspects of their
operations, including affordable housing
requirements. Ms. Harris is providing extensive
advice regarding the implications of the
Dissolution Law, AB X1 26 and AB 1484, and is
assisting numerous successor agencies in the wind
down process.
Ms. Harris is a member of the National
Association of Bond Lawyers.
128
Saskia T. Asamura I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Appellate Law
Civil Rights and Constitutional Law
Construction Defects
Employment Litigation
Inverse Condemnation
Land Use
Litigation
Public Agency and Municipal Law Litigation
Public Works
Education:
B.S., Honors, London School of Economics, 1979
J.D., University of California School of Law,
Los Angeles, 1991
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E sasamura@rwglaw.com
W www.rwgiaw.com
Saskia T. Asamura is a shareholder in the Litigation
and Labor and Employment Departments at
Richards, Watson & Gershon. As a litigator, Ms.
Asamura specializes in the area of inverse
condemnation, takings, due process, equal
protection, civil rights, and other constitutional, tort
and nuisance cases involving property damage and
personal injury. These include claims arising out of
flooding, landslides, sinkholes, dangerous conditions
of public property, impairment of access,
precondemnation activities, and challenges to local
ordinances and regulations, among many others. She
has successfully represented numerous cities and
public agencies in these and other types of civil
litigation, including challenges to administrative,
regulatory, legislative, and quasi -adjudicatory
actions of local government bodies, construction
defects and public works cases, contamination and
remediation issues, and general public sector
litigation matters of all types, at both the trial and
appellate level in state and federal court.
Ms. Asamura also specializes in employment
litigation. She is Assistant Chair of the Firm's Labor
and Employment Department and previously served
as its Chair. She represents clients in all types of
employment litigation such as wrongful termination,
discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and other
claims under the FEHA, Title VII, First
Amendment, ADA, and the Tort Claims Act. She
also handles these and other issues arising in the
public housing context. She litigates public sector
retirement issues, and advises on disciplinary
matters for public clients.
Ms. Asamura joined RW&G in 1991 after clerking
in 1990, and became a shareholder in 1999. While in
law school, Ms. Asamura represented the UCLA
School of Law in the National Moot Court
Competition, with her team taking First Place and
Best Brief awards at the Regional Championships,
and then represented UCLA at the Final Competition
at the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York. Ms. Asamura has co -taught the Pretrial
Advocacy clinical course at the University of
Southern California Law School.
129
Roy A. Ctarke I Shareholder
Practice Areas:
Employment
Labor and Employment
Personnel Advice
Public Agency and Municipal Law
Education:
B.S., magna cum laude, Pepperdine University,
1989
J.D., Order of the Coif, Loyola Law School,
Los Angeles, 1994
T
213.626.8484
F
213.626.0078
T
415.421.8484
F
415.421.8486
E
rclarke@rwglaw.com
W
www.rwgiaw.com
Roy A. Clarke is a shareholder in the Labor and
Employment Department at Richards, Watson &
Gershon and Chair of the Firm's Labor and
Employment Department. Mr. Clarke's practice
covers labor and employment law with an
emphasis on advisory matters and administrative
hearings. His experience spans all aspects of the
employment relationship, including hiring
employees, managing the workforce with policies
and personnel practices, paying employees under
wage and hour laws, providing employee benefits,
preventing discrimination and harassment,
managing leave programs, administering
discipline and termination. He has additional
experience with unions and labor relations,
including the administration of labor relations
rules, certification, unit determination, contract
administration, negotiations and grievance
handling. Mr. Clarke has worked with clients to
draft or review employment agreements,
personnel rules, employee handbooks, labor
relations resolutions, discipline notices and
severance agreements.
Mr. Clarke has conducted administrative
investigations of sexual harassment and other
employee misconduct complaints. Mr. Clarke has
conducted discipline hearings before arbitrators
and civil service commissions. He has represented
employers in disputed unemployment and wage
claims before state hearing personnel and has
represented local government in hearings and
disputes involving the California Public
Employees' Retirement System. He serves as
special counsel to commissions and hearing
boards on discipline appeals, unfair labor practice
charges and civil service system administration.
Mr. Clarke is Assistant City Attorney for the City
of Fairfield. He has served as Acting City
Attorney for El Cerrito and Interim General
Counsel for the Mid -San Gabriel Valley
Consortium (a joint powers agency). In addition,
130
Roy ha
Agency
provided back-up for City Council and
Board meetings on
various clients. He serves
employment counsel for tli
Beverly Hills, Rancho Palos
and Mill Valley.
an ad hoc basis at
is regular labor and
Cities of Fairfield,
Verdes, Agoura Hills
Prior to RW&G, Mr. Clarke served as Staff
Attorney and Risk Manager for the City of Beverly
Hills, working primarily in the Human Services
Office. Mr. Clarke was also Corporate Counsel for
a Fortune 100 Corporation, responsible for
personnel and general business matters.
131
EXHIBIT B
CURRENT PUBLIC LAW DEPARTMENT CLIENT LIST
132
CURRENT RWG PUBLIC LAW DEPARTMENT CLIENT LIST
CURRENT CITY/TOWN ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIONS
Agoura Hills
Hidden Hills
Moorpark Temecula
Artesia
Highland
Norwalk Westlake Village
Beverly Hills
Indio
Rancho Cucamonga Yucaipa
Brea
Jurupa Valley
Rancho Palos Verdes
Buena Park
La Mirada
Ross
Calimesa
Manhattan Beach
San Marino
Covina
Mill Valley
Seal Beach
Fairfield
Monrovia
South EI Monte
CITIES, TOWNS & COUNTIES — SPECIAL COUNSEL
Alameda County
Huntington Park
Orinda
South Lake Tahoe
Albany
Industry
Palm Desert
South Pasadena
Anaheim
Inglewood
Palmdale
Taft
Antioch
Irvine
Parlier
Tehachapi
Avalon
Laguna Beach
Pasadena
Torrance
Blythe
Long Beach
Pismo Beach
Turlock
Calexico
Los Angeles
Redondo Beach
Tustin
Commerce
Manteca
San Buenaventura
Vallejo
Compton
Marin County
San. Francisco
Ventura County
Culver City
McFarland
San Francisco County
Vernon
Cupertino
Menlo Park
San Juan Capistrano
Vista
Downey
Montclair
San Luis Obispo
Wasco
East Palo Alto
Monterey Park
Santa Fe Springs
West Hollywood
Fremont
Morro Bay
Seaside
Westminster
Fresno
Newport Beach
Solana Beach
Whittier
Hawthorne
Oceanside
Soledad
Holtville
Orange
Sonoma County
133
SUCCESSOR AGENCIES*
Agoura Hills
Artesia
Blythe
Brea
Buena Park
Calexico
Calimesa
Ceres
Compton
Culver City
Dinuba
Fairfield
Gonzales
Hawthorne
Highland
Holtville
Hughson
Huntington Park
Indio
Industry
La Mirada
Lancaster
Manteca
Monrovia
Moorpark
Morgan Hill
HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCIES*
Agoura Hills
Artesia
Brea
Buena Park
Calimesa
Fairfield
Highland
Huntington Park
Indio
La Mirada
Los Angeles
Monrovia
Norwalk
Orange
Palm Desert
Palmdale
Pasadena
Poway
Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Palos Verdes
San Fernando
Seal Beach
Seaside
South EI Monte
South Tahoe
Moorpark
Norwalk
Palm Desert
Pasadena
Rancho Cucamonga
San Fernando
Temecula
Turlock
Tustin
West Hollywood
Whittier
Yucaipa
Seaside
South EI Monte
West Hollywood
Yucaipa
Successor agencies are agencies that were constituted as a result of the dissolution of former redevelopment
agencies. We have not separately listed these successors' respective redevelopment agencies that we
previously represented.
HOUSING AUTHORITIES
Artesia
Indio
Palmdale Whittier
Compton
Manteca
Pasadena Yucaipa
Fairfield
Monrovia
Poway
Highland
Norwalk
Temecula
Huntington Park
Palm Desert
Upland
134
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
Agoura Hills Calabasas
Foothill Transit
Community Center
Gateway Integrated
Burbank -Glendale-
Resources
Pasadena Airport
Management Plan
Authority
Authority
California Housing
Hub Cities
Opportunities Agency
Consortium
California Statewide
1-5 Consortium of
Comm. Development
Cities
Authority
Las Virgenes-Malibu
Central Basin Water
Council of
Rights Panel
Governments
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Central School District
Claremont Unified School District
Modesto City Schools
Marin Clean Energy
Authority
Marin Emergency
Radio Authority
Marin Telecomm.
Agency
Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension
Construction
Authority
Salida Area
PublicFacilities
Financing Agency
San Diego Association
of Governments
San Francisquito
Creek Authority
Schools Infrastructure
Financing Agency
Southeast Water
Coalition
135
-;
f 11,
k N .V^
,01C ®rm
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Conservation
Parks & Comm.
Mountains Recreation
Services
& Conservation
Jurupa Comm.
Authority
Services District
Santa Monica
Marinwood Comm.
Mountains
Services District
Conservancy
Nipomo Comm.
Fire
Services District
Orange County Fire
Valley Center Parks &
Authority
Recreation District
Rancho Cucamonga
Public Health
Fire Protection
First 5 LA
District
L.A. Care Health Plan
Ross Valley Fire
Service
Utilities
Libraries
Heber Public Utility
District
Palos Verdes Library
District
Placentia Library
District
Vector Control
Greater L.A. County
Vector Control
District
Water & Waste
Management
Beaumont -Cherry
Valley Water District
Bighorn -Desert View
Water Agency
Castaic Lake Water
Agency
Green Valley County
Water District
Imperial Irrigation
District
Water & Waste Mgt.,
continued:
Indio Water Authority
Marina Coast Water
District
Sonoma County
Waste Management
Agency
South Orange County
Wastewater Authority
136
EXHIBIT C
PROPOSED LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
137
[PROPOSED]
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into as
of , 2015, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and the law
firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon ("RWG"), a Professional Corporation. In consideration of
the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following purposes and facts that
each party agrees are true and correct:
A. The City desires to retain RWG to provide legal services for the City, and RWG
has agreed to provide such services, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
2. Scope of Work. RWG shall perform all legal services for the City as directed by the
City Council except as provided in Section 6 with respect to conflicts. Legal services shall
include the following:
A. Attendance at City Council meetings;
B. Legal research and legal advice to the City Council, City Manager, and designated
City Staff;
C. Preparation and review of ordinances, resolutions, and agreements as requested;
D. Representation of the City and City officials and employees in claims and
litigation filed by or against the City as requested;
E. Oversight of legal matters handled by outside counsel;
F. Perform the duties and exercise the authority of a city attorney as provided in the
California Government Code, other statutes and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code;
G. Legal services for entities created by the City Council and for the Successor
Agency to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency; and
H. Such other legal services as may be directed by the City Council or City Manager
from time to time.
3. Term. This Agreement shall commence as of September 1, 2015 and shall continue in
effect for three years, unless terminated earlier by the City or RWG. City or RWG may
138
terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, on written notice to the other party.
City shall endeavor to provide sixty (60) days written notice to RWG but shall not be obligated
to do so. RWG shall provide ninety (90) days written notice to City prior to termination of this
Agreement. In the event of termination RWG shall comply with all provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for the termination of a client relationship, shall assist the City in transition
to a new firm, and shall be compensated for such assistance at the rates provided for in this
Agreement.
4. DesijZnation of City Attorney. Carol W. Lynch shall be designated as City Attorney for
the City, and David M. Snow shall be designated as Assistant City Attorney. Ms. Lynch and Mr.
Snow will be the RWG attorneys with responsibility for providing legal services for the City and
Ms. Lynch will be the primary contact for the City Council and the staff. Other RWG attorneys
will be assigned to work on legal matters for the City on an "as -needed" basis under Ms. Lynch's
direct supervision.
5. Compensation. RWG shall be compensated for the performance of the legal services
pursuant to this Agreement as follows:
A. Compensation Rates. RWG shall be compensated for the performance of legal
services in accordance with the Compensation Rate Schedule for City of Rancho Palos Verdes
("Compensation Rate Schedule"), attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein as though set forth in full. The terms of this Agreement and the Compensation Rate
Schedule shall apply to legal services performed for entities affiliated with the City that may be
established.
B. Compensation Review.
1) RWG and City acknowledge that they have agreed on the amount of the
compensation rates set forth in Exhibit A based on estimates of future City needs. Prior to June
30, 2017, or as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, RWG and City shall meet to evaluate
RWG's performance and to confirm the amount of RWG's compensation going forward. The
City Council may evaluate RWG's performance any time at its discretion.
2) Commencing on July 1, 2017, and on each July 1 thereafter, the rates set
forth in Exhibit A shall automatically be increased by a percentage amount equal to the
percentage increase in the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics'
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles Anaheim Riverside
statistical area ("CPI") for the twelve month period ending on the immediately prior April 30.
Any other adjustments in the rates shall require prior written approval of the City Council. In no
event shall the rates set forth in Exhibit A automatically increase by more than three percent
(3%) in any given year.
139
6. Conflicts of Interest. RWG shall comply with all applicable laws and professional rules
and standards relating to any known conflict of interest involving the City and matters upon
which RWG is providing legal services under this Agreement. RWG shall not reveal
confidential information of the City except with the consent of the City Council or as otherwise
required by law. RWG shall notify the City Manager of any conflict of interest related to matters
upon which it is providing legal services under this Agreement upon discovery of any such
conflicts. In the event that such conflict is not or cannot be waived or resolved, City shall retain
legal counsel, and RWG shall assist and cooperate with legal counsel retained by the City
Council on the matter for which the conflict arose.
7. Client Files.
A. At the conclusion of this Agreement, the original client files for the work
performed under this Agreement for the City shall be made available to City. RWG will be
entitled to make copies of the client files. At the conclusion of this Agreement (whether or not
City takes possession of the client files), City shall take possession of any and all original
contracts, and other such important documents that may be in the client files and RWG shall
have no further responsibility with regard to such documents.
B. If City does not take possession of the client files at the conclusion of the
Agreement, RWG shall store such client files for a period of at least one (1) year. At the
conclusion of such one (1) year period, RWG may send to City a notice, advising of RWG's
intention to dispose of the client files. The City shall have sixty (60) days from the date of such
notice to take possession of the client files. If City does not take possession of the client files
during that time, City agrees that RWG may dispose of the client files without further notice.
C. This section shall survive the expiration of this Agreement.
8. Indemnification. RWG agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected officials,
officers, agents and employees from any and all losses to the extent caused by the wrongful or
negligent action or inaction of RWG or any person employed by RWG in the performance of this
Agreement.
9. Insurance.
A. Coverage Levels. RWG shall maintain at all times during the term of this
Agreement policies of insurance with at least the minimum coverage specified below:
1) General liability insurance coverage with a minimum limit of liability of
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in the
general aggregate.
140
2) Professional liability coverage with a minimum limit of liability of Two
Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence or claim and Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000.00) in the aggregate, providing coverage for damages or losses suffered by City as a
result of wrongful errors or omissions or neglect by RWG that arises out of the professional
services required by this Agreement. Such insurance may be subject to reasonable terms,
limitations and conditions and a self-insured retention or deductible to be borne entirely by RWG
which shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) per claim.
3) Automobile liability insurance for non -owned automobiles in an amount
of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000).
4) Workers' compensation coverage in compliance with California law.
B. Prerequisites. The general liability and the automobile liability policies of
insurance specified above shall:
1) Name the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, its officers,
agents and employees as additional insureds.
2) Provide minimum thirty (30) days notice of cancellation, said notice to be
provided by insurer, except for non-payment of premium for which ten (10) days notice shall be
provided by insurer.
3) Be maintained in full force and effect throughout the term of this
Agreement.
4) Be placed with insurance carriers authorized to transact business in
California with an A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII or otherwise acceptable to City.
10. Independent Contractor. No employment relationship is created by this Agreement.
RWG shall be an independent contractor of City, except that at all times providing services under
the Agreement, RWG's shareholders and employees shall be acting as public officials.
11. Arbitration. In the event of any dispute between the parties, such dispute shall be
submitted to binding arbitration to the maximum extent permitted by law. In the event the
parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, an arbitrator shall be selected through the rules of
the American Arbitration Association. The Arbitrator shall have the authority to set procedures
and discovery in the arbitration. This section shall survive the expiration of this Agreement.
141
y.�''.-"��k'v�r�sj-,.,r�fr�Uri,✓,.yr/v�'�y/car✓,y1j�J:,'`s'.,o��r.:C�"'�+�f�"c��z/''�' ar,�, '°ft�y�'�z.fi;,.�--�,t'�.ca�;�.. ty�
fit,
��� �� ���o��C���y�G �-c�F3;vy° gni �+��; i�%.� s"�' f�$3:�� ��r�i�a��r•. �; ,� �6 �'��'��es��a � �/' � .�.
�f'<�i✓o �� ��`�.,.,�//�m�`��i��.��-Y.;rv'�,���y'�p ��r �'��j �a��G ,F `��'r/�fi��fr3�� r��'���,���f������ �raa`,` �,. ���/, '"���,a,t
�, t �,' ✓ b xfi /..���% � i �' �6 ��� �� h9� � � syf,�!' / �p � .�� r� � .re'�9^� os'' � G p ��'�"
12. General Provisions.
A. Assignment/Delegation. This Agreement contemplates the personal professional
services of RWG and neither this Agreement, nor any portion thereof, shall be assigned or
delegated without the prior written consent of City's City Council.
B. Interpretation. The following rules of legal construction shall apply:
1) This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and
shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of
California.
2) The article and section captions and headings in this Agreement have been
inserted for convenience only, and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of
interpretation or construction.
3) Whenever in this Agreement the context may so require, the masculine
gender shall be deemed to refer to and include the feminine and neuter, and the singular shall
refer to and include the plural.
C. Attorney's Fees. The parties acknowledge and agree that each will bear its own
costs, expenses and attorney's fees arising out of and/or connected with the negotiation, drafting
and execution of this Agreement, and all matters arising out of or connected therewith.
D. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to have been given by
depositing such notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
TO CITY COUNCIL: TO RWG:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Carol W. Lynch
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
E. Signatories. Each signatory warrants and represents that he is competent and
authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he purports to sign.
F. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the
parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written,
are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering
into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's
own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
142
H. Modification of Agreement. This Agreement and the provisions set forth herein
may be modified only by way of a written amendment to this Agreement that has been approved
and executed by and on behalf of both RWG and the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives
to sign below.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Attest:
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON,
a professional corporation
Kayser O. Sume
Chairman, Board of Directors
143
i
Q2:
,�,�•_ � �,, � z asp; ��'s.
EXHIBIT A
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
COMPENSATION RATE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
EFFECTIVE [ ], 2015
To be completed upon selection of rate structure by the City Council.
144
UPAWI
JONES & MAYER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835
(714) 446-1400 • (562) 697-1751 • FAX (714) 446-1448
145
Richard D. Jones*
Partners
Martin J. Mayer
Kimberly Hall Barlow
James R. Touchstone
*a Professional Law
Corporation
OfCounsel
Michael R. Capizzi
Deborah Pernice-Knefel
Dean J. Pucci
Steven N. Skolnik
Peter E. Tracy
JONES & MAYER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835
(714) 446-1400 9 (562) 697-1751 0 FAX (714) 446-1448
Richard L. Adams II
Jmnaar Boyd -Weatherby
Baron J. Bettenhausen
Christian L. Bettenhausen
Pard R. Coble
Keith F. Collins
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Doug Willmore, City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Michael Q. Do
Thomas P. Duarte
Kathya M. Firlik
Elena Q. Gerli
Krista MacNevin Jee
Ryan R. Jones
May 13,'2015
Robert Mum
Gary S. Kranker
Gregory P. Palmer
Harold W. Potter
Denise L. Rocawich
Yolanda M. Su nmerhill
Re: Request for Proposal for City Attorney Services
Dear Mr. Willmore:
G. Ross Trindle, III
Ivy M. Tsai
Emily Y. Wada
Consultant
Mervin D. Feinstein
Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to respond to the Request for Proposals
(RFP) to provide City Attorney Services for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Enclosed please
find our firm's proposal.
Jones & Mayer is exclusively a municipal law firm, and for over thirty years has provided
legal services in all areas of the law associated with the representation and legal needs of our
cities and other governmental entities.
The firm currently serves as City Attorney for the cities of Bishop, Blythe, California
City, Clearlake, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Grand Terrace, La Habra, Maywood, Nevada City, West
Covina, Upland, Westminster and Whittier. Jones & Mayer also serves as Successor Agency
Counsel to the former Redevelopment Agencies for the cities of California City, Costa Mesa,
Grand Terrace, La Habra, Westminster, West Covina, Maywood and Upland. We believe that
each of our client cities benefit from the firm's extensive experience in municipal law, including
but not limited to zoning and land use, condemnation proceedings, teal estate acquisitions,
personnel and labor matters, complex and tort litigation and code enforcement.
146
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Doug Willmore, City Manager
May 13, 2015
Page 2
We are also General Counsel for the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments in Los Angeles County, and we represent a number of
other joint powers authorities. The firm also represents individual cities and counties as special
counsel or on single litigation matters. Jones & Mayer is a premier municipal law firm focused
on providing the full spectrum of legal services to cities and municipal agencies around the
state.
Jones & Mayer is the best qualified firm to serve as Rancho Palos Verdes's City Attorney
because we have the right combination of experience and flexibility to provide high quality,
comprehensive, and affordable services to the City. Due to the firm's exclusive focus on
municipal law, our attorneys have extensive experience handling the wide variety of issues that
cities confront. We are fully prepared to provide the legal services identified in the RFP, and to
do so in a timely and cost efficient manner. Our office will also perform such other legal duties
as may be required by the City Council, or as may be necessary to complete the performance of
the functions identified in the Scope of Services. This includes continually working with the
City Manager and staff in the prevention of lawsuits to reduce litigation against the City. The
City Attorney will also act as attorney for the City in all actions or hearings in the courts and
before all legally constituted tribunals, whenever the City is a party thereto or requires
representation.
We propose Christian L. Bettenhausen, to serve as the City Attorney for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bettenhausen has over fifteen years of experience in the field of
municipal law, representing cities and other public agencies. He will be the project manager on
all items and attend all City Council meetings. Yolanda M. Summerhill is the proposed
Assistant City Attorney. We have provided full details of our qualifications as a firm, along
with specifics on our proposed legal team, in the attached response. Our 31 lawyers (four are
Of Counsel) and other professional staff, would welcome the opportunity to provide high
quality and responsive legal services to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Jones & Mayer will, of course, attend all City Council and Planning Commission
meetings, staff meetings and other meetings as requested. It is our desire to develop
relationships with Council Members and key members of City staff. In furtherance of this goal,
we seek to be a regular presence in City Hall. The firm's members believe in being involved
with the communities it represents, and participate in local chambers of commerce and charities
in each of its municipalities. The firm annually budgets funds for local charities located in our
client cities, as part of our commitment to those communities. The firm was recently
recognized as business of the year in the cities of Fullerton and La Habra for its many
contributions to those communities.
We invite your close review of the two-part proposal contained in this transmittal, and we
believe you will find that Jones & Mayer will exceed the City's needs and expectations.
147
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Doug Willmore, City Manager
May 13, 2015
Page 3
We look forward to an opportunity to meet with you and the City Council to discuss how
we can provide on-going legal services to your City. If there are any questions concerning our
firm's proposal and/or the separate cost proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank
you once again for this opportunity and we look forward to working with you in the future.
Very truly yours,
JONES & MAYER
4
Richard D. J s
Owner/President
RDJ/rj a
•
J&M
JONES & MAYER
GENERAL PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY ATTORNEY
LEGAL COUNSEL SERVICES
3777 North Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, California 92835
www.j ones-mayer.com
714-446-1400 - Telephone
562-697-1751 - Telephone
714-446-1448 - Facsimile
149
General Company Data
1. Firm Name:
Jones & Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92835
2. Proposer's Point of Contact:
Richard D. Jones
3777 N. Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92835
3. Type of Entity:
Jones & Mayer is Professional Corporation
4. Jones & Mayer Federal Employer I.D. Number:
33-0945054
Specific Comnanv Information
1. Nature of Jones & Mayer's Practice
Jones & Mayer submits this response for proposal to provide City Attorney services for the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes. Jones & Mayer is a premier municipal law firm focused on providing
the full spectrum of legal services to cities and public agencies around the state.
Jones & Mayer currently serves as City Attorney for the cities of Bishop, Blythe, California City,
Clearlake, Colusa, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Grand Terrace, La Habra, Maywood, Nevada City,
Upland, West Covina, Westminster and Whittier. Each of our cities benefit from the firm's
extensive experience in municipal law, zoning, land use and redevelopment, and redevelopment
dissolution, including condemnation proceedings, real estate acquisitions, project negotiations,
drafting and implementing owner participation, and disposition and development agreements.
The firm also serves as Successor Agency Counsel for the cities of Costa Mesa, La Habra,
Westminster, Maywood, Grand Terrace, California City and Upland.
3
150
Jones & Mayer is General Counsel for the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments in Los Angeles County, and represents a number of
other joint powers authorities. The firm represents individual cities as special counsel in areas of
the law where we have particular expertise, or on single litigation matters in situations where a
city's attorney has a conflict of interest. We maintain our focus on the representation of public
entities.
Jones & Mayer attaches great importance to assisting cities in achieving their public policy and
governance goals, and has successfully done this on behalf of our client cities for nearly 40
years. In doing so, we are able to constantly refine our role in assisting cities to achieve their
goals through an approach that balances risk exposure with mission achievement.
We have the staffing expertise and depth necessary to assist city staff in the planning, preparation
and approval of all ordinances, resolutions, ballot measures, contracts, development agreements,
deeds, leases, and other legal documents needed to achieve the Council's goals and objectives.
Our approach is not simply to caution against risk, but to help cities navigate through potential
obstacles to achieve the policy and governance ends identified by the City Council and executive
staff. Examples of our work in these areas have included: helping cities with major
development and land use issues; utilizing health and safety receiverships to address difficult
code enforcement properties; implementing utility user and transient occupancy tax measures to
raise revenue; working with staff and community on group home regulations and homelessness
issues; helping cities seek charter city status or to amend charters; imposing and enforcing
marijuana dispensary prohibitions; and most recently, working with cities to help guide them
through the challenges created by the state's elimination of redevelopment agencies.
We propose Christian L. Bettenhausen as the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mr. Bettenhausen has been with Jones & Mayer since 2000. He currently serves as City
Attorney for the cities of Blythe and California City. He has also served as the Assistant City
Attorney for the City of Westminster for the past 12 years. During his entire tenure with the firm
he has been focused exclusively in the field of municipal law. Before joining Jones & Mayer,
Mr. Bettenhausen was an associate with the law firm of Carroll, Gilbert and Bachor, a business
and civil law firm. Prior to that, Mr. Bettenhausen served as a judicial extern to Presiding Justice
David G. Sills, at the 4th District Court of Appeals.
Mr. Bettenhausen would be the Project Manager on all items and attend all City Council
meetings. Mr. Bettenhausen's experience and qualifications will be discussed below. Yolanda
Summerhill is proposed to serve as the Assistant City Attorney. Greg Palmer and Elena Gerli,
from the firm's aggressive City Prosecutor/Code Enforcement Section, are proposed to handle
the City's code enforcement needs. Our Civil Litigation Section is headed up by James R.
Touchstone, who would be responsible for addressing any pending and potential future litigation
needs.
2. Qualifications of Proposed City Attorney and Each Person Proposed as Deputy or Backup
Christian L. Bettenhausen (Proposed City Attorney)
4 151
Mr. Bettenhausen has been with Jones & Mayer since 2000. He currently serves as City Attorney
for the cities of Blythe and California City, and as Assistant City Attorney for the City of
Westminster. During his entire tenure with the firm he has been focused exclusively in the field of
municipal law. Mr. Bettenhausen is extremely knowledgeable in most areas of the law affecting
cities. On a daily basis he works directly with City Council members, City Managers and
department heads to identify and solve problems. Over the years he has worked with every
department in the City, and understands the specific issues affecting each. He has drafted numerous
ordinances, resolutions and agreements, and has provided legal advice and memorandums on
numerous subjects.
• Legal Training/Education
B.A., Business Administration, Pepperdine University, 1989
Juris Doctorate, J.D., Western State University College of Law 1998,
Graduated Magna Cum Laude; 2nd in his class.
Member of the California Bar Since 1999
• Years of Municipal Law Experience
Mr. Bettenhausen has 18 years of legal experience overall; 15 years practicing
exclusively in the field of municipal law.
• Knowledge of Municipal Law
Mr. Bettenhausen has particular expertise with respect to the Brown Act, Conflict of Interests
(Political Reform Act, 1090), the Public Records Act, and he provides training in each of these
areas. He is one of three attorneys in the firm that provides the statutorily mandated AB 1234 ethics
training.
Mr. Bettenhausen has extensive knowledge with respect to zoning and land use matters. For many
years he served as the primary legal advisor to the Fullerton, Costa Mesa and Westminster Planning
Commissions. He is frequently called upon to provide legal advice on issues such as development
agreements, CUP revocations, variances, the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA\environmental issues,
site plan review, design review, easements, and historical resources. He works with staff in drafting
and reviewing all resolutions, ordinances, zoning code and general plan amendments. He also
handles zoning land use litigation, writs taken from City Council decisions and landlord tenant
litigation.
Over the years Mr. Bettenhausen has negotiated and drafted most of the agreements cities confront,
including development agreements, professional service agreements (architectural, engineering,
audit services, construction management), real property purchase and sale agreements, leases,
easements, deeds, city loan documents, RFPs, RFQs, public works contracts, employment
agreements, affordable housing covenants, density bonus agreements, CDBG, HUD and HOME
agreements, power purchase agreements, software licensing agreements, and contracts for the
purchase of goods and services, just to name a few.
5 152
He is also regularly involved in the resolution of public works disputes. Issues typically concern
problems related to competitive bidding, stop notices, retentions, insurance questions, and
enforcement against sureties/performance bonds. Mr. Bettenhausen was actively involved in four
major construction projects in Westminster (new police station, theater/banquet facility, parking
garage and chamber of commerce building), for a combined cost of around $80-85 million dollars.
He worked directly with the -City Manager, public works director and community development
director in helping to negotiate and draft all of the associated agreements. This included agreements
for construction management, gross maximum price, architect and engineering services, bid
documents for various. trades, and long term leases for the newly constructed buildings. Some of
the projects required substantial assistance in helping to resolve disputes involving construction
defects, bidding challenges, change orders, stop notices and insurance issues.
• Type and Length of Clientele Representation
Mr. Bettenhausen has 15 years experience practicing municipal law. He has served as City Attorney
of Blythe since 2010, and as City Attorney of California City since 2013. He has been serving as
the Assistant City Attorney of Westminster since 2003.
• Civil Litigation Experience and Track Record; Knowledge and Practice Relating to
Various Fields of Municipal Law
Our Civil Litigation Section is headed up by James R. Touchstone, who would be responsible for
addressing any pending and potential future litigation needs. His primary practice areas include
litigation of evil rights' actions, police representation, tort defense, business disputes, and
employment/discrimination claims. He has also represented public clients in civil appellate
matters. His representation has included the defense of a number of civil rights' lawsuits
alleging a variety of claims ranging from excessive force claims arising from officer -involved
shootings to false arrest claims. Mr. Touchstone has tried over 30 cases to verdict in both state
and federal court on behalf of municipalities and private clients. These trials have included
officer -involved shootings, excessive force cases, alleged First Amendment/retaliatory demotion
cases, employment discrimination cases, eminent domain matters, and civil forfeiture matters. In
addition, Mr. Touchstone has argued several cases before the California Courts of Appeal and
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, Mr. Touchstone has prosecuted numerous
administrative hearings on behalf of various municipalities, including two major cases for
revocation of the conditional use permits of two large nightclubs, and revocation of massage
establishment permits.
Harold W. Potter is Jones & Mayer's senior litigator, and has been a practicing trial lawyer in Los
Angeles and Orange Counties for nearly 25 years. Mr. Potter defends and advises public agencies
in all phases_ of public entity liability, including civil rights' violations, dangerous conditions of
public property and general litigation matters. He has also prosecuted eminent domain actions,
defended First Amendment actions brought on behalf of firefighters, and other business litigation
matters, as well as other tort -related actions. Mr. Potter has expertise in the defense of police
officers in civil rights' violations including excessive force, high-speed pursuits, officer -involved
shootings and disciplinary matters. Mr. Potter has tried over 35 jury trials, and has a 97% rate of
success.
153
• City Prosecution/Code Enforcement
Our office has provided code enforcement services for over 20 years. We currently provide City
Prosecution Services for all of our client cities, plus the cities of Brea, Buena Park, Indio, Irvine,
Lakewood, Newport Beach, Rancho Cucamonga, Rolling Hills Estates, Santa Fe Springs, and
Tustin. For each of these cities Jones & Mayer provides a full range of city prosecution services,
including office conferences, court appearances, and preparation of correspondence.
In providing our clients with city prosecution services, we adhere to a general policy of doing
whatever is reasonable to avoid filing of criminal charges. In all cases except those involving a
serious health or public safety threat, we will continue to attempt to resolve matters by securing
voluntary compliance with the City's municipal code through informal means, typically via
conferences conducted prior to initiating prosecution. This approach has saved our client cities a
significant amount of expenses during our tenure as City Prosecutor.
• Health & Safety Receiverships
In addition to traditional prosecution services, Jones & Mayer is one of the leading law firms
specializing in Health & Safety Receiverships across the State. Authorized by the California
Health & Safety Code, a Receivership is an immediate judicial remedy that virtually eliminates
emergency health and safety housing threats in your community. In addition, one enormous
benefit of this approach, in lieu of code enforcement prosecution, is that the fees and costs
associated with these cases is absorbed by the property owner whose property is creating the
threat. Our firm has used this legal mechanism to rehabilitate hundreds of non-compliant
properties in cities across the state of California.
• Land Use and Planning Litigation, CEQA Challenges
Jones & Mayer is regularly involved land use lawsuits, and has successfully defended our client
cities in a wide variety of cases. These have involved the successful defense of city council
decisions approving residential, commercial, industrial and governmental projects, the revocation of
land use entitlements, challenges to zoning ordinances and inverse condemnation actions. Jones &
Mayer has successfully defended a number of suits involving CEQA challenges. For example, Mr.
Bettenhausen successfully defended the City of Westminster in a CEQA lawsuit challenging the
approval of a new community college, and in a separate lawsuit challenging the CEQA approval of
a large commercial office complex. The firm has also successfully defended the city with respect to
approvals of big box retailer projects, including a CEQA challenge to the Costco in La Habra,
which is now in operation. Jones & Mayer has also been involved in a number of adult use cases,
and cases involving the regulation or closure of nightclubs. An example was the successful defense
of a lawsuit brought by attorney Roger Diamond on behalf of a nightclub owner in the City of
Whittier, challenging the revocation of the nightclub's conditional use permit.
Most recently, Mr. Bettenhausen was able to successfully negotiate the settlement of a CEQA
dispute in California City, between the developer of a 40 acre solar project and the nearby residents.
On the subject of group homes, the firm is currently engaged in the defense of two ordinances in the
City of Costa Mesa, which regulate group homes and prohibit long-term stays at motels. While
7 154
those cases are still active, the courts (both state and federal) have preliminarily upheld the
enforcement of the ordinances which were drafted by our attorneys.
• Experience in Redevelopment Litigation
In our role as successor agency counsel, Jones & Mayer is deeply familiar with the impacts and
issues faced by our clients due to the dissolution of redevelopment in 2011. We have been
involved with every aspect of dissolution for our successor agencies. This includes arguing meet
and confer sessions with the California Department of Finance on topics ranging from the due
diligence review to the recognized obligation payment schedule: Moreover, our firm has
successfully engaged the California Department of Finance on multiple occasions on enforceable
obligations under the due diligence reviews and recognized obligation payment schedules. In
one instance, we were successful indecreasing a successor agency's Department of Finance
demanded remittance of approximately $13,647,080, from its other funds and accounts, to only
$1,650,498. In another instance, in spite of the California Department of Finance's aggressive
efforts to claw back funds, the Department of Finance overturned its decision to claw back
$5,000,000.00 in housing assets and $2,000,000.00 that a client Successor Agency was able to
retain.
Additionally, because of our long time representation of successor agencies, we are familiar with
drafting documents such as recognized obligation schedules, long range property management
plans, and various resolutions required by the dissolution process. We have also assisted in the
drafting of long range property management plans, and provided counsel on strategies in
implementation of long range property management plans to the benefit of the affected taxing
entities and, ultimately, the host cities.
With respect to litigation involving redevelopment dissolution, we are in the process of
concluding a matter involving complex financial analysis of a successor agency's accounts in
which the distribution of funds for the purpose of paying enforceable obligations listed on a
recognized obligation payment schedule was listed as unencumbered cash on a due diligence
review. We expect final positive resolution of this matter in the coming months.
• Experience in the Area of Contracts and Franchises
Christian L. Bettenhausen and several other attorneys at Jones & Mayer have drafted numerous
franchise- agreements in many different contexts, including oil/gas, cable, and waste hauling. All
of this is in addition to the many other agreements cities face on a day-to-day basis, such as
public works' contracts, contracts for the purchase of goods and services, professional service
agreements, development agreements, land purchase and sale agreements, long and short term
leases of city property (golf courses, theater & banquet facilities, community center rooms, ball
fields), easements, agreements documenting city loans or grants, restrictive covenants and
density bonus agreements on affordable housing properties, trust deeds, software purchase and
licensing agreements, RFPs, RFQs, MOUS, employment agreements, etc. Simply put, the
negotiation and drafting of all kinds of city contracts is a daily part of our practice.
155
Experience in Personnel, Disability, Workers' Compensation, Discrimination and
Employee Relations and Negotiations
Jones & Mayer provides legal counsel and representation in all facets of labor and employment
law applicable to public sector employers. These include pre-employment selection processes;
performance improvement plans; performance appraisal; employment contracts; creation and
updating of personnel rules and regulations, employment contracts; employment discrimination
claims; representation in administrative hearings concerning discipline and/or disability claims;
fitness for duty examinations; labor negotiations and memoranda of understanding; unfair labor
practice and Public Employees Relations Board proceedings; and, employment and labor related
litigation.
Attorneys Martin J. Mayer, Paul R. Coble and Greg P. Palmer would be available for the
provision of these services, each of whom is a well-known expert in this field. These attorneys
regularly represent municipal clients throughout the. State on a wide variety of labor and
employment issues. They lecture extensively on personnel issues both in the state of California
and nationally. Lectures -include subjects such as FLSA, FEHA and the ADA. Just among those
three attorneys, we have been involved in literally hundreds of administrative investigations,
hearings and appeals, and have produced numerous articles and documents on these issues. For
example, Mr. Palmer has represented Chiefs of Police in more than 200 disciplinary appeal
hearings and arbitrations with a 90% success rate. He and Mr. Coble have handled countless
disciplinary hearings involving police, firefighters and other City employees. Additionally, Mr.
Touchstone and Ms. Barlow have also successfully tried cases in this area, with a very high
degree of success.
Jones & Mayer is not a workers' compensation defense firm. However, we are very familiar with
the legal issues involved, and work closely with workers' compensation adjusters and counsel on
issues involving discrimination, retaliation and related claims.
• Preparation and Review of Ordinances and Resolutions
The preparation and review of ordinances, resolutions and other city policies is a daily part of
Jones & Mayer's practice. For the past 40 years our attorneys have prepared ordinances and
resolutions on almost every subject imaginable. Mr. Bettenhausen routinely drafts and reviews
ordinances and resolutions on a wide range of topics. These have included ordinances and
regulations amending a City's land use and zoning codes, resolutions approving land use projects
and making appropriate findings, regulations affecting the sale and cultivation of marijuana, fee
schedules, urgency ordinances, resolutions declaring an emergency, ordinances creating nuisance
abatement procedures, ordinances regulating massage establishments, adult use regulations,
vicious dog ordinances, and many other similar topics.
• Public Records Act, Brown Act, Elections Code
Proposed City Attorney Mr. Bettenhausen, has particular expertise with respect to the Brown
Act, Conflict of Interests (Political Reform Act, 1090), the Public Records Act, and he provides
training in each of these areas. He is one of three attorneys in the firm that provides the
statutorily mandated AB 1234 ethics training. He regularly advises city council members on
9 156
conflict of interest questions when they arise to determine if recusal is necessary. Mr.
Bettenhausen is well versed on the myriad of issues stemming from local election law and has
successfully guided municipalities through numerous local elections and ballot measures. Mr.
Bettenhausen regularly advises city elections officials with respect to the requirements of the
Elections Code on ballot initiatives, filing requirements, impartial analysis, and other aspects of
elections law. A number of other attorneys in our firm have experience in these areas of the law
as well.
Proposed City Attorney Christian L. Bettenhausen's Scholastic Honors and
Affiliations
Member of the California State Bar Association
Licensed to practice in United States District Court for the Central District of
California
Licensed to practice in United States District Court for the Southern District of
California
Graduated Magna Cum Laude
Law Review
Received 5 Separate American Jurisprudence Awards in the fields of :
Real Property Torts
Wills
• Suits for Malpractice
Civil Procedure I and II.
The firm has never been successfully sued for malpractice. One complaint has been submitted to
the State Bar concerning Senior Associate Harold W. Potter. The complaint related to a 2007
case that involved a personal injury client who contracted leukemia after a minor rear -end
collision. The State Bar found no wrongdoing and dismissed the complaint. No attorney
employed by Jones & Mayer has ever been the subject of discipline from the State Bar.
• Intended Office Location
Jones & Mayer maintains three offices, one in Fullerton, one in Central California (Arroyo
Grande) and one in Roseville. Our Fullerton office would primarily serve the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
3777 N. Harbor Boulevard 8150 Sierra College Boulevard, Suite 190
Fullerton, CA 92835 Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (714) 446-1400 Telephone: (916) 771-0635
Fax: (714) 446-1448 Fax: (916) 771-0690
10
157
102 E. Branch St., Suite G
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Telephone: (805) 270-4294
Fax: (805) 980-4784
As a long time provider of contract legal services to public entities, we pride ourselves on being
available both in person, via e-mail and by phone whenever needed by the client. We also have a
number of lawyers in the firm who reside near Rancho Palos Verdes, making them immediately
accessible in the event of an emergency.
We will set up a regular schedule of office hours in City Hall to get to know the management and
staff of the City and to build and maintain a strong working relationship with the City Manager
and City Council. A strong and regular presence in City Hall and in the community helps to
create understanding and confidence between the legal team, Council and staff.
Additionally, Jones & Mayer employs a highly skilled team of experienced attorneys who will be
available to assist the City of Rancho Palos Verdes under the supervision of Proposed City
Attorney Christian L. Bettenhausen.
Yolanda Summerhill (Proposed Assistant City Attorney)
Senior Associate, Bar #200876 — admitted 6/21/99
Yolanda Summerhill currently serves as Assistant City Attorney for the cities of Costa Mesa and
Upland, and is the legal advisor to the Planning Commission of both those cities. Ms.
Summerhill has been with the firm since 2000. During that time she has practiced in all areas of
municipal law including conflicts of interest under the Political Reform Act & Government Code
Section 1090, Ralph M. Brown Act, Public Records Act, competitive bidding, public contracts,
election law, adopting the General Plan, negotiating and drafting development agreements,
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") compliance, annexation of county islands,
modification of Master and Specific Plans, complying with Federal and State affordable housing
obligations and drafting zoning ordinances. Among those zoning ordinances she has drafted
regulations that streamlined the development of small lots in multi -family residential zones along
with restrictions on massage parlors and motels.
She is currently advising a client city on the adaptive reuse of a 77 -acre former correctional
facility to a mixed use project that proposes 750 dwelling units; 208,350 square feet of
commercial land uses; 8.5 (7.3 net) acres of open space; and offsite infrastructure improvements.
With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the State of California, Ms. Summerhill has
advised former redevelopment agencies through the dissolution process pursuant to Assembly
Bill xl 26 and SB 1484. In spite of the California Department of Finance's aggressive efforts to
claw back funds, the Department of Finance overturned its decision to claw back $5,000,000.00
in housing assets and $2,000,000.00 that the Successor Agency was able to retain.
Ms. Summerhill provides training to public officials and city staff on the prevention of sexual
harassment in the workplace, on compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and training on election
11 158
issues. When Ms. Summerhill joined the firm, she handled a number of code enforcement cases
in the cities of Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Rancho Cucamonga, West Covina, and
Westminster through civil and criminal actions including injunctions, red light abatement actions
and health and safety receiverships.
Ms. Summerhill graduated from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 1998. She
received the American Jurisprudence Award in Legal Research and Writing. She was selected
as one of three finalists successfully chosen in a regional competition for a clerkship with some
of the Northern California's most distinguished legal departments. She chose a public agency,
the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and has been representing public agencies ever since.
Ms. Summerhill is a member of the California State Bar Association and is licensed to practice
in United States District Court for the Central District of California. She earned a B.A. degree in
Economics from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1995, a Juris Doctorate, J.D.
degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 1998.
Other attorneys from Jones & Mayer providing services to Rancho Palos Verdes:
Richard D. Jones
Owner, Bar #061649 - admitted 12/16/74
Richard D. Jones started the firm in 1986 and has managed it since its inception. He was
admitted to the Bar in November 1974. Mr. Jones serves as City Attorney for Fullerton, La
Habra, Westminster and Whittier. He serves as General Counsel for the Gateway Cities Council
of Governments and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. He has extensive
experience in virtually every issue municipalities confront, including providing advice on the
Brown Act, conflict issues and procedural issues. His expertise includes personnel matters,
negotiations with labor organizations, development of general plans and zoning. Mr. Jones has
assisted in the acquisition and expansion of one municipality's boundaries by over 1,500 acres.
Mr. Jones has negotiated Development and Disposition Agreements with Wal-Mart, Home
Depot and Super K -Mart, as well as the development of a 75 acre retail complex. Issues such as
condemnation, relocation and housing set aside matters are a regular part of his practice. Mr.
Jones has lectured to the League of California Cities and other conferences on a variety of topics,
including labor negotiations, punitive damages and seeking gang injunctions.
Mr. Jones has gained considerable expertise in water law through his service as a board member
of California Domestic Water Company, a wholesale water distributor to municipalities in
Orange and Los Angeles Counties, and through his nearly twenty years of representing cities
with their own municipal water utilities.
Mr. Jones attended University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, graduating in 1974. He
was admitted to the Bar in the same year. He subsequently joined the law firm of Shay &
Stirling, which eventually became Shay, Stirling, Jones & Jones. He started the predecessor of
Jones & Mayer in 1986 and began serving the needs of municipalities in 1976. Since 1985, the
firm has almost exclusively served cities and other public entities in a wide variety of legal
services. Mr. Jones' professional affiliations are shown on his resume. Mr. Jones has lectured
12 159
on Brown Act, Planning Issues and Ethics to the League of California Cities and other
organizations.
Martin J. Mayer
Partner, Bar #073890 - admitted 5/02/77
Martin J. Mayer's firm, Mayer & Coble, merged with the Law Office of Richard D. Jones in
January 2001. Mr. Mayer attended law school at St. John's University in New York, was
admitted to the New York Bar in 1966, and practiced law in New York for several years. He
was admitted to the California Bar in May 1977. After working for the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council for the Compton Judicial District for a year and a half, he spent four years
with the League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division, as Director of the Criminal Justice
Planning Unit. He has provided legal services to Police Departments, Police Chiefs and Sheriffs
exclusively for the last 30 years. Mr. Mayer limits his practice to representing cities, counties
and the State as legal advisor to their Chiefs of Police or Sheriffs and in that capacity represents
approximately seventy agencies throughout California. Mr. Mayer also supervises the code
enforcement and police services team of the firm.
Mr. Mayer lectures extensively on matters involving civil liability and law enforcement on
behalf of the California POST Commission, California Peace Officers' Association, California
State Sheriffs' Association, the Department of Justice, and Americans for Effective Law
Enforcement. In addition to his lecture activities, Mr. Mayer serves as Legal Advisor to the
California Police Chiefs' Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association and the
California Peace Officers' Association. Mr. Mayer also serves as a member of, and legal advisor
to, the Advisory Council for the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
(Western Region) which is funded by the National Institute of Justice and the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Kimberly Hall Barlow
Partner, Bar #149902 - admitted 12/04/90
Ms. Barlow is a partner with Jones & Mayer. Ms. Barlow currently serves as City Attorney for
the City of West Covina; and as Assistant City Attorney for Whittier and Fullerton; Counsel to
the La Habra Personnel Board; and Counsel to the Downey Oversight Board. She has previously
served as City Attorney for the Cities of Costa Mesa, Stanton, and Upland. Ms. Barlow
originally joined the firm in August 1993 as head of its litigation department, and has served as
City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney for a variety of client cities since that time. Ms.
Barlow manages the general municipal services attorneys in the firm.
In addition to supervising and training junior associates, Ms. Barlow has handled virtually every
kind of litigation matter on behalf of the firm's public entity clients, including dangerous
condition and negligence claims, use of force and civil rights' litigation, condemnation matters,
employment discrimination, wrongful termination and other personnel litigation, construction
disputes, adult use, tax matters, voting rights act cases, and both administrative and traditional
petitions for writ of mandate. Ms. Barlow also defends the most complex writ and inverse
condemnation actions, including CEQA and other land use litigation.
13 160
She has provided legal services to the firm's clients in virtually every area of municipal law,
including contracts of every type, franchise agreements, every type of municipal utility service,
contracted municipal services, election law, public records requests, Brown Act and Political
Reform Act compliance, airport law, personnel issues, insurance coverage, disaster recovery,
CERCLA litigation, formation of financing districts and bond issues, and real property
acquisition. She has also represented our public entity clients in negotiations and administrative
proceedings with various state and federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection
Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, the EEOC and DFEH,
Department of Finance and Auditor/Controllers, Cal -OSHA, and regional water quality control
boards.
Ms. Barlow received her law degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of
Law.
James Touchstone (Proposed Litigation Manager)
Partner, Bar #184584 - admitted 11/26/96
James Touchstone joined the law office of Jones & Mayer in February 2009. Mr. Touchstone is
the Litigation Department Manager for the firm. Mr. Touchstone has been practicing law for
over 15 years. His primary practice areas include litigation of civil rights' actions, police
representation, tort defense, business disputes, and employment/discrimination claims. He has
also represented public clients in civil appellate matters.
Mr. Touchstone represents various municipalities, and their respective police departments,
throughout California. These municipalities include the cities of Blythe, Costa Mesa, Fullerton,
La Habra, Westminster, and Whittier. Mr. Touchstone has also represented the cities of Arcadia,
Azusa, Bell, Rancho Palos Verdes, Covina, Corona, Fontana, Maywood, Ontario, Rialto, Shafter,
Woodland, and Yorba Linda. Mr. Touchstone's representation of these municipalities has
included the defense of a number of civil rights' lawsuits alleging a variety of claims ranging
from excessive force claims arising from officer -involved shootings to false arrest claims. In
addition, he assists police agencies in drafting of policies and procedures to ensure compliance
by these agencies with the most recent state and federal case law. Mr. Touchstone has also
defended hundreds of Pitchess motions in both the trial and appellate courts. He also provides
general legal advice to police agencies on a variety of day-to-day issues that arise during the
course of performing law enforcement duties. Finally, Mr. Touchstone provides representation
to police agencies on_ civil forfeiture actions, which complement traditional law enforcement
activities.
In Mr. Touchstone's 15 years of practicing law, he has tried over 30 cases to verdict in both state
and federal court on behalf of municipalities and private clients. These trials have included
officer -involved shootings, excessive force cases, alleged First Amendment/retaliatory demotion
cases, employment discrimination cases, eminent domain matters, and civil forfeiture matters. In
addition, Mr. Touchstone has argued several cases before the California Courts of Appeal and
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, Mr. Touchstone has prosecuted numerous
administrative hearings on behalf of various municipalities, including two major cases for
14 161
revocation of the conditional use permits of two large nightclubs, and revocation of massage
establishment permits.
Mr. Touchstone received his law degree from the University of California, Davis, School of Law
(King Hall) in 1996. While in law school, Mr. Touchstone served as editor for the Law Review
from 1994 to 1996. He received the American Jurisprudence Award for bankruptcy. Mr.
Touchstone received his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Riverside, in
1990.
Mr. Touchstone is a member of the California Peace Officers' Association, the Board of
Directors for Law Enforcement of Ontario ("LEO") and the Board of Directors for the Chaffey
College Foundation. In addition, Mr. Touchstone has served as a lecturer at the University of
California, Riverside Extension Program, on the subject of civil procedure and as a guest lecturer
at Campbell University on the subject of police liability.
Gregory P. Palmer (Proposed City Prosecutor)
Senior Associate, Bar #133647 - admitted 6/14/88
Gregory P. Palmer joined the firm in March 1999. Mr. Palmer currently is the police legal
advisor for a large number of cities throughout California. He has represented various police
departments on disciplinary matters, internal affairs' investigations, Public Records Act requests
and Pitchess motions since 1991. Mr. Palmer attended Western State University College of
Law, and was admitted to the Bar in June 1988. Mr. Palmer has extensive experience acting as a
legal advisor to more than 100 Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs throughout the State of California.
In that capacity, he has provided legal assistance in all aspects of operating a police department.
He has represented Chiefs of Police in more than 200 disciplinary appeal hearings and
arbitrations with a 90% success rate. He has also handled disciplinary hearings involving
firefighters and public works' employees. He is experienced in excessive force, dishonesty,
insubordination, off-duty criminal conduct and other matters. He has extensive experience in
court on Pitchess motions and has prepared and argued three dozen appellate court writs
challenging improper trial court decisions on these motions. Mr. Palmer is also conversant in all
aspects of the criminal prosecution of city code enforcement cases. He has performed as the City
Prosecutor or Assistant City Prosecutor in eleven local cities. He has developed unique expertise
in prosecuting sexually -oriented businesses, both criminally and by administratively suspending
or revoking city permits.
Harold W. Potter, Jr.
Senior Associate, Bar #120107 - admitted 12/10/85
Harold W. Potter is the senior litigator for Jones & Mayer. Mr. Potter has been a practicing trial
lawyer in Los Angeles and Orange Counties for nearly twenty-five years. Mr. Potter attended
Western State University College of Law and was admitted to the Bar in December 1985. Prior
to joining the firm, Mr. Potter served for many years as Deputy City Attorney for the city of
Long Beach and defended all phases of public entity liability, including civil rights' violations,
dangerous conditions of public property and general litigation matters. He has also prosecuted
eminent domain actions, defended First Amendment actions brought on behalf of firefighters,
162
15
and other business litigation matters, as well as other tort -related actions. Mr. Potter joined the
firm in February 1996. Mr. Potter has expertise in the defense of police officers in civil rights'
violations including excessive force, high-speed pursuits, officer -involved shootings and
disciplinary matters. Mr. Potter has tried over 35 jury trials, and has a 97% rate of success. Mr.
Potter has also represented the Glendale Civil Service Commission for five years and the
Burbank Civil Service Commission for four years.
Krista MacNevin Jee
Senior Associate, Bar # 198650 — Admitted 12/07/98
Krista MacNevin Jee is an Associate Attorney with the law office of Jones & Mayer, and is part
of the firm's litigation team. Ms. Jee participates in all levels of litigation at Jones & Mayer,
including all aspects of pre-trial motions and discovery, as well as preparing cases through trials
and appeals. Ms. Jee has handled various municipal litigation matters, including dangerous
condition of public property, nuisance, employment discrimination/harassment, inverse
condemnation, declaratory relief, elections, land use, and the California Environmental Quality
Act. Ms. Jee specializes in First Amendment issues, working closely with Ms. Barlow in
drafting and defending ordinances dealing with adult uses and signs and in advising clients on
cities' rights to control limited and non-public fora. She has also written or co -written multiple
amicus curiae briefs on the firm's behalf for law enforcement clients and the League of
California Cities, as well as numerous letter briefs relating to petitions for grant of review or
certiorari, and for publication or de -publication. Ms. Jee has significant expertise in addressing
medical marijuana dispensaries, succeeding in having- a number of these operations closed by
Court order. In addition to her extensive complex litigation work, Ms. Jee served for many years
as Counsel to the Whittier Planning Commission.
Paul R. Coble
Senior Associate, Bar #128173 - admitted 6/17/87
Paul R. Coble joined the firm when Mayer & Coble merged with the Law Office of Richard D.
Jones in January 2001. During Mr. Coble's lengthy career as a police officer, he attended
Loyola Law School, and was admitted to the Bar in June 1987. Following his retirement from
the Los Angeles Police Department, Mr. Coble acted as a deputy city attorney assigned as the
legal advisor to the Santa Ana Police Department. In this capacity he advised the Chief of
Police, senior management, and other levels of the department regarding all phases of their
duties. He played a key role in the development and execution of the operational plan for
enforcement of the City's camping ordinance, the result of which was the elimination of a large
homeless encampment without a single arrest, citation or civil suit. Thereafter, Mr. Coble was a
partner in the law firm of Mayer, Coble & Palmer (subsequently Mayer & Coble), specializing in
providing city prosecutor services and legal advice and litigation support to police and sheriff's
departments. Mr. Coble maintains a broad based civil practice, with particular emphasis on
providing counsel to cities, counties and special districts, together with the focus on police labor,
employment and tort defense.
16 163
Thomas Duarte
Senior Associate, Bar #185057 - Admitted 12/06/96
Thomas Duarte has been with the firm since 1996 and is experienced in all aspects of municipal
law, transactional law, and civil litigation. Mr. Duarte is the City Attorney for the City of Costa
Mesa, and serves as the Assistant City Attorney for the City of La Habra. In particular, he
provides city attorney services at city council meetings and provides training and guidance to
city councils and department heads on conflict of interest laws and the Brown Act. He also
serves as regular legal counsel for the Costa Mesa and Fullerton Planning Commissions and
provides direction and advice to all staff relating to planning and land use matters. He also serves
as Assistant General Counsel for the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and attends Board meetings on an as -needed basis. He
is also General Counsel for the Southeast Area Social Services Funding Authority.
Mr. Duarte's duties also include drafting and reviewing contracts and other types of transactional
documents; researching and preparing legal opinions; analyzing, researching and interpreting
legislation; and advising boards, departments, officers and employees on legal questions relating
to their respective powers, duties, functions, and obligations. Mr. Duarte trains and advises
council and commission members in conflicts law and Brown Act compliance.
Mr. Duarte has gained extensive experience in land use as a result of serving as regular counsel
at planning commission meetings, and back-up counsel at city council meetings. He has dealt
with the procedures relating to conditional use permits, variances, site plans, zone changes,
design reviews, condominium conversions, general plan amendments, and lot line adjustments,
among other things. Mr. Duarte has worked closely with community development and planning
staff in all of our primary cities on preparation, implementation and enforcement of specific
plans, general plan amendments, environmental documents under CEQA, development
agreements, and low-income housing project development.
Mr. Duarte attended Thomas Jefferson School of Law and joined the firm immediately following
his graduation in July 1996. He was admitted to the Bar in December 1996. Mr. Duarte attends
planning commission meetings on the second and fourth Monday and Wednesday of each month,
and COG meetings on the first Wednesday of each month.
Ivy M. Tsai
Associate, Bar # 223168 - admitted 12/11/02
Ivy M. Tsai joined the law office of Jones & Mayer in July 2004. As a deputy city attorney and
assistant counsel to the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, her areas of practice include
municipal law, transactional law, and civil litigation. Ms. Tsai's duties include drafting and
revising municipal code sections, drafting and reviewing agreements, handling Public Records
Act requests, preparing legal opinions and analysis on a variety of issues affecting public entities,
and providing litigation support drafting pre-trial motions and handling discovery matters. She
has served as legal counsel to Planning Commissions in Costa Mesa and Fullerton for several
years.
17 164
Prior to joining Jones & Mayer, Ms. Tsai was a litigation associate at a firm specializing in
consumer fraud and automobile "lemon law" actions. She was primarily responsible for
handling discovery matters, including propounding and answering discovery, meeting and
conferring with opposing counsel, and drafting and arguing motions to compel.
Ms. Tsai externed with the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, where she
drafted proposed opinions for civil and traffic violation appeals and assisted with the drafting of
proposed opinions for criminal appeals. She was a law clerk for the Employee Division of the
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, where she drafted legal pleadings and discovery requests
and performed document review.
Ms. Tsai graduated from UCLA School of Law in May 2002 and became one of California's
youngest attorneys at age 22 after passing the July Bar. While at UCLA Law, Ms. Tsai was a
teaching assistant for the Lawyering Skills' course. As such, she mentored students in legal
research and writing. She was also a managing editor of the Asian Pacific American Law
Journal.
Elena Q. Gerli
Associate, Bar #228866 - admitted 12/07/03
Ms. Gerli joined the law office of Jones & Mayer in October of 2003. She is currently Deputy
City Prosecutor for the Cities of Fullerton, Westminster, and La Habra, and her primary duties
include Code Enforcement, prosecution of municipal code violations, and prosecution of
massage and chiropractic parlor license violations, assisting staff at hearings such as public
nuisance abatements and license or use permit revocations, and drafting of ordinances. In
addition, Ms. Gerli works with Ms. Krista MacNevin Jee in litigation matters relating to medical
marijuana dispensaries for the Cities of Westminster and Costa Mesa, among others. In addition,
Ms. Gerli assists Mr. Dean J. Pucci in drafting and litigating receivership applications. Ms. Gerli
is also responsible for much of the First Amendment work at Jones & Mayer.
Ms. Gerli graduated from Brown University in 1990 and from the UCLA School of Law in 2003.
Ms. Gerli is admitted to practice law in the California Supreme Court, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
3. Office Staffing
Currently, the firm consists of 30 attorneys, 5 attorneys "of counsel," and 2 paralegals. The firm
maintains 16 additional support staff employees performing secretarial, accounting, and
administrative functions who work Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Professional
staff is available after hours through our answering service and/or by cell phone, thus providing
the City 24/7 access to its legal counsel. We constantly evaluate staffing needs for the firm based
on client needs. We will hire enough staff to ensure that the clients' needs are met in a timely
way.
18 165
4. Timeframes for Response
Jones & Mayer has a proven track record of establishing effective relationships with those
serving in all levels of city government. We believe that communication is critical at every level,
and a close working relationship with the City Manager allows our .office to efficiently and
effectively respond to issues as they arise. Our attorneys are dedicated to affecting a close
working relationship through efficient communications via phone, e-mail, and electronic
transmission of documents. We believe in a close working relationship to help avoid the
evolution of problems into costly litigation.
The City Attorney will work directly with and advise the City Council, City Manager and staff in
all matters pertaining to their offices, departments, and as to the scope of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes' authority within constitutional and statutory frameworks. In addition, the City
Attorney will furnish legal services at all meetings of the City Council and give advice or
opinions on the legality of all matters under consideration by the Council or by any of the boards
and commissions or officers of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This includes attending all
City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and other committee meetings as
needed. The City Attorney also will respond and communicate with the City Manager and staff
on a variety of legal issues on a daily basis.
All attorneys carry mobile phones 24 hours -a -day and the office has a 24 -hours -a -day answering
system. E-mails are sent directly to our mobile phones. We typically respond to calls the same
day. The City Attorney would then provide a weekly status report of all ongoing projects and
requests to keep the City Council and City Manager informed of all significant developments in
substantial transactional and litigation matters involving the city.
Coordinated calendaring and communication assures that response time and deadlines are clearly
defined and that projects are timely completed. A staff attorney is assigned to each project and is
given the designated deadline before work commences. All projects and requests are logged into
a computer program and are updated daily by the office staff. With the City Attorney designated
as the point person for contact, the city is able to receive updates at any time with regard to the
status of pending matters.
With regard to litigation, regular status reports are provided through Jim Touchstone in our
litigation department. Litigation expense estimates will be generated on a case-by-case basis. The
City Council and the City Manager will be kept apprised of all substantive developments. All
other non -litigation assignments are coordinated through the City Attorney, and reports on the
status of assignments are provided as needed. Ready access to our attorneys and the ability to
obtain updates and details are two of the distinguishing features of our combined representation.
A sample litigation report to a city council is attached as Appendix B to this General Proposal,
and a sample of a client memorandum is attached as Appendix C.
Finally, since our attorneys focus exclusively on representing cities and other public entities, we
are in constant touch with changes in the laws affecting cities. We are aware when important
new cases are decided, and when new legislation is being proposed or has been adopted. We also
regularly work together with other public agencies to advocate on behalf of the interests of cities
in important legal cases before the state Appellate Courts and State Supreme Court. We
19 166
proactively report new legal developments to our clients in various ways. The firm is frequently
called upon to prepare legal memoranda explaining the impact of a new law. When one of these
memoranda is prepared for one of our client cities, we will generally send the same memo to all
our cities affected by the issue. If necessary, the memoranda are tailored to the specific
circumstances, codes and rules applicable to a city. Recent legal developments are also discussed
at weekly department head meetings. The firm also puts out a regular Client Alert Memo on
changes in the law affecting public safety. But if it is clear a new case or statute is going to have
a specific impact on one of our client cities, the issue will be discussed with the City Manager
and will be brought to the City Council for discussion if warranted. Our goal is to be proactive in
providing our clients with the information they need to make informed effective decisions.
5. Monthly Reporting
James Touchstone, head of Jones & Mayer's litigation department, provides monthly reports on
the status of all litigation cases. Litigation expense estimates will be generated on a case-by-case
basis. The City Council and the City Manager will be kept apprised of all substantive
developments. All other non -litigation assignments are coordinated through the City Attorney,
and reports on the status of assignments are provided as needed. Ready access to our attorneys
and the ability to obtain updates and details are two of the distinguishing features of our
combined representation.
6. Computer Resources
All Jones & Mayer offices have a networked system which uses both Microsoft Word and Word
Perfect, as desired by a specific client. We utilize the entire Microsoft Office Suite, but can
adjust our technology to your needs. We have broadband Internet access and utilize Microsoft
Exchange Server, which allows our attorneys to have access to e-mails regardless of where they
may go. The attorneys also have the ability to connect to our secure network via GoToMyPC in
order to have secure access to all documents, e-mails, etc., from locations outside of the home
office, 24 hours a day. We store all files and documents in Laserfiche in addition to retaining
hard copies of files for a minimum period of time after file closure. We can also access and edit
documents via tablets and smartphones. These technology resources, as they are consistently
being refined and updated by our highly -trained technology staff, ensures Jones & Mayer's
compatibility with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and guarantees that electronic files will be
transmitted with ease in the format that is preferred by the client.
Current Clients/Conflict of Interest
1. Jones & Mayer knows of no current or former clients that have a substantial property or
business interest in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes within the past three years. Furthermore,
neither the firm nor any of its attorneys have given political contributions of money, in-kind
services, or loans to any member of City Council within the last three years. Jones & Mayer and
its attorneys do not make any political contributions to members of a City Council. The firm
strictly follows the ethical guidelines promulgated by the League of California Cities that city
attorneys should not make political contributions to the cities they serve or seek to serve.
20 167
2. Our current and past client list is attached to this Proposal as Appendix D. Our representation
of our current clients does not pose a likely risk of a conflict of interest with the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes. However, in the event that such a conflict did arise, outside counsel would be
retained to completely eliminate the conflict.
3. Proposed City Attorney's Current Schedule.
A. Mr. Bettenhausen currently serves as City Attorney for the City of Blythe, which meets
once a month on the second Tuesday of the month. There should be no conflict with this
meeting.
B. Mr. Bettenhausen also serves as City Attorney of California City, which meets on the first
and third Tuesday of each month. California City has already indicated that they are willing
to change their meeting date in the event Mr. Bettenhausen is appointed City Attorney in
Rancho Palos Verdes. If any additional changes are needed to accommodate the City's
needs, priority will be given to Rancho Palos Verdes. Accordingly there should be no
conflict in providing legal services to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Compensation and Reimbursement
1. Retainer for Basic Legal Services.
Based on the City's most recent budgets, the City appears to be spending around $500,000
annually on Basic Legal Services. Our proposal would provide the City with a greater ability to
control those costs.
We would propose to provide legal services to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes under the
following arrangement, 2 options:
Option l: We would propose a flat retainer of $13,875 a month ($166,500 annually), which
would cover the first seventy five (75) hours of all Basic Legal Services provided to the City
each month. Any Basic Legal Services provided over the initial seventy five (75) hours
would be billed at a rate of $195.00 per hour.
'Lgq,io®
Option 2: We would propose a flat retainer of $24,975 a month annually), which
would cover the first one hundred thirty five (135) hours of all Basic Legal Services provided
to the City each month. Any Basic Legal Services provided over the initial one hundred
thirty five (13 5) hours would be billed at a rate of $195.00 per hour.
Jones & Mayer is flexible with respect to number of hours to be included in the retainer. We are
willing to adjust the hours up or down based upon what the City believes its anticipated need will
be. In such case the monthly retainer fee would be adjusted based on the number of hours
chosen. The City Manager would then oversee the provision of services to ensure the retainer is
not exceeded.
21 168
Basic Legal Services are defined below and as set forth in the RFP. Basic Legal Services include
most of the day-to-day services provided by the firm to the City. The firm would provide a
detailed breakdown of all time spent and work performed in our monthly billing report so that
the City is aware of the actual time spent under the retainer.
When legal work is applicable to a number of clients, each client will be billed an equal share of
the total cost involved. In addition, the City will benefit from, and not be billed for, our prior
work product that is applicable to the City's current legal needs.
2. Special Services.
A. Special Services. Special Services would be provided at a rate of $195 per hour.
Special Services are by definition unique, and out of the ordinary. It is further defined
below, and on page 3 and 8 of the RFP. Any special projects billed outside of the
retainer would require prior approval of the City Council or City Administrator. It is
anticipated that a substantial majority of the legal services provided by Jones & Mayer
would fall within the Basic Legal Services.
B. Litigation. All litigation (both civil and criminal) would be billed at a rate of $225.00
per hour.
3. Definitions.
A. General Legal Services.
General Legal Services would be included in our monthly retainer. They are those
services which involve regular, recurring legal and factual issues. General legal services
include: Attendance at City Council, Planning Commission and other subordinate City
agency meetings, attendance at regular Staff meetings, representing the City in
intergovernmental projects, providing legal counsel and advice, both written and oral, to
elected and appointed Officials as to City business, work with City Staff on all agenda
items for City meetings, negotiation, drafting, review and revision of City agendas,
agreements, contracts, instruments, ordinances, reports, resolutions, orders, forms,
notices, deeds, leases and other documents as requested by City, and providing legal
advice concerning Brown Act, CEQA, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act and
other conflict of interest compliance, supervision and coordination of legal services
performed by special counsel, and recurring City Council and Staff in -service. -training as
requested by the City.
B. Special Services.
Special Services include those matters which concern a unique subject matter, present
unique legal and/or factual issues, or which require more than 10 hours to complete.
Special Services differ from general legal services in that they typically occur on an
irregular non-recurring basis. These services include any work that is of unusual
22 169
complexity, or which require an extraordinary dedication of attorney time. Some
examples might include work on ballot initiatives, negotiation and drafting of complex
development agreements, public financing, franchising, EIRs, or major updates to the
City's General Plan or Zoning Code, etc. The City Attorney may not unilaterally
designate any matter as a special project. The decision as to what constitutes a Special
Service/Special Project will be made by the City Manager or the City Council.
4. Expense Reimbursement.
We generally do not bill fax, word processing, small reproduction matters (under 100 pages), or
simple computer legal research costs. The firm will charge the client for actual necessary costs
incurred for all of the following: all costs incurred related to litigation or special projects,
including but not limited to, court filing fees, attorney services (includes service of process fees,
arbitrators, and mediators), messenger services, Lexis -Nexis research outside of our prepaid
service fee, overnight/express delivery services, mileage, travel expenses, if applicable, including
hotel, air travel and car rentals, parking fees, actual costs for large reproduction projects if
performed by an outside service, or $0.10 per page (b/w) and $0.15 per page (color) if performed
in house, and any other expense not listed above which becomes necessary to the successful
resolution of a client matter.
5. Labor Rates:
Basic Legal Services (over the Retainer) $ 195.00 Per Hour
Special Services/Project $ 195.00 Per Hour
Litigation $ 225.00 Per Hour
Paralegal: $ 100.00 Per Hour
6. Rate Guarantee. We would guarantee our rates for the first two years of a contract. Each
year thereafter we would propose a CPI adjustment only.
In addition to timely quality work, Jones & Mayer understands that public agency clients must
have cost-effective responses. Jones & Mayer only serves public agency clients, and
understands the current economic climate for municipalities in California.
Our dedication to client service and responsiveness does not come with a sacrifice of our
commitment to cost-effective and efficient service. We are always mindful of the demands on
municipal resources and the need to provide value in our services. We work with client
representatives to formulate appropriate budgets on individual projects if we are billing by the
hour or for work which is not included within an agreed monthly retainer. On complex litigation
matters, we provide cost estimates for each segment of the litigation, from the pleading stage
through trial, and notify the client in advance of embarking on motions or other procedures that
would involve significant expense. Our objective is to be a long-term resource for our clients by
providing them the most efficient and cost-effective representation available. As we work with
City staff on the annual budget, we will seek Council input on any special projects, which would
23 170
need to be included in the budget above the monthly retainer and anticipated litigation costs to
ensure that adequate funds are budgeted for Council priorities.
Further, the City Attorney will be proactive in advising staff and the City Council to avoid
unnecessary litigation, ensure that the Council is fully informed about the legal risks and
alternatives to any proposed course of action, and offer solutions to the myriad of issues which
face the City daily.
Professional References for Christian L. Bettenhausen
Oscar Galvan, Councilmember
City of Blythe
235 N. Broadway
Blythe, CA 92225
(760) 922-6161
oegalvan@frontier.com
Tri Ta, Mayor of Westminster
8200 Westminster Boulevard
Westminster, CA 92683
(714) 898-3311
taductri@hotmail.com
CLOSING
Tom Weil, City Manager
City of California City
21000 Hacienda Boulevard
California City, CA 93505
(760) 559-5761
cilymgr@califomiacity.co
We greatly appreciated the opportunity to submit this proposal, are confident of our ability to
exceed the City's expectations in its legal counsel, and look forward to the opportunity to discuss
this more fully in person.
In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions or concerns,
or if we may be of further assistance in any way.
Very truly yours,
Q
Richard D. Jon
JONES & MAYER
24 171
Appendix A -A.
Resumes
172
CHRISTIAN L.
BETTENHAUSEN
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Municipal Law
Land Use and Zoning
Transactional/ Business Law
Public Contract Law
Redevelopment
Conflicts of Interests
Airport Law
Education
J.D., Western State University
College of Law, 1998, Magna
Cum Laude; Law Review;
American Jurisprudence Awards:
Property, Torts, Wills, and Civil
Procedure
B.A. Business Administration,
Pepperdine University, 1989
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States District Court for the
Central District of California
United States District Court for the
Southern Districts of California
Professional Affiliations
State Bar of California
(714) 446-1400
Mr. Bettenhausen serves as City Attorney for the City of Blythe, and as
Assistant City Attorney for the City of Westminster. He is also the
primary legal advisor to the Fullerton and Costa Mesa Planning
Commissions. For the past eleven years Mr. Bettenhausen has also
served as the general legal counsel for the Fullerton Airport, and more
recently the Blythe Airport.
Mr. Bettenhausen's practice is focused exclusively on representing
municipalities and other public agencies. His practice is primarily
advisory and transactional, but he occasionally litigates land use and
real estate matters. He is knowledgeable in most areas of the law
affecting cities, and regularly advises city councils and staff. He has
particular expertise in land use and zoning matters, real estate law,
public contract law, competitive bidding, public works contracts,
drafting leases and development agreements (DDAs, OPA's),
redevelopment law, affordable housing matters (CDBG, HUD,
covenants), drafting ordinances and resolutions, and Airport Law. He
has been actively involved in the resolution of a number of disputes on
large public work projects/buildings.
Mr. Bettenhausen regularly teaches on the Brown Act, Public Records
Act, and provides the statutorily mandated Conflict of Interest training
for the firm's cities.
Mr. Bettenhausen received his undergraduate degree in Business
Administration from Pepperdine University in 1989. He received his
Juris Doctor degree in 1998 from Western State University College of
Law. He graduated Magna Cum Laude, and second in his class. While
in law school he served on Law Review, and received five American
Jurisprudence awards in Real Property Law, Tort Law, Wills, Civil
Procedure I and Civil Procedure II. Mr. Bettenhausen was admitted to
practice law in the state of California in 1999. He has been with the
firm of Jones & Mayer since July of 2000.
Prior to Jones & Mayer, Mr. Bettenhausen worked for the firm of
Carroll, Gilbert and Bachor, practicing civil and business litigation. He
also interned for Presiding Justice David G. Sills, at the Fourth District
Court of Appeal.
173
YOLANDA M.
SUMMERHILL
Senior Associate
CA State Bar # 200876
Admitted June, 1999
Practice Areas
Municipal Law
Brown Act
Land Use
Political Reform Act
Public Contracting
Public Records Act
Proposition 218 Compliance
Contract & Transactional Law
Redevelopment Dissolution
Education
J.D. University of San
Francisco,
School of Law, 1998
American Jurisprudence
Awards in Legal Research,
Writing & Analysis
B.A. University of California
at Los Angeles, Economics,
1995
Yolanda Summerhill joined the firm in 2000 and, during
that time, regularly advised the firm's thirteen cities on
land use, conflicts of interest under the Political Reform Act
& Government Code Section 1090, Public Records Act,
competitive bidding, public contracts, and election law.
She routinely advises city councils, commissions, boards,
and committees on procedural requirements of the Ralph
M. Brown Act.
Ms. Summerhill has also worked on a number of large-scale
development projects including the adoption of specific
plans, zone changes, general plan amendments; ensuring
CEQA compliance, negotiating and drafting development
agreements and the acquisition of real property. She is
currently working on the adaptive reuse of a widely
contested commercial/residential/open space project that
previously served as a state detention facility.
Ms. Summerhill recently worked with the City of Upland to
obtain voter approval of a water rate increase as well as
previously ensuring compliance with Proposition 218 in
both the cities of La Habra and Westminster. Ms.
Summerhill is well versed in matters involving the Public
Records Act including the Public Records Act's critical
timelines and various exemptions. She is also familiar with
Elections Code matters including various substantive
matters on voter documents (e.g., ballot labels,
designations, and summaries); timelines for submission of
resolutions; and initiative, referendum, and recall.
She has researched and drafted dozens of ordinances on a
multitude of issues beginning with the more traditional
areas such as public contracting procedure, zoning
regulations, sign regulations, legal non -conforming uses,
conflicts of interest, and conduct of meetings to the more
innovative regulations including disclosure requirements
during labor negotiations, ordinance requiring proportion
of general fund spent on capital infrastructure, electronic
cigarette regulation, medical marijuana dispensaries and
sober living facilities.
Bar Admission Ms. Summerhill currently serves as Assistant City Attorney
for the cities of Upland, Costa Mesa and Maywood as well
U.S. District Court for the as Successor Agency Counsel for six agencies.
Eastern District of California
With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the State
California Supreme Court of California, Ms. Summerhill has advised former
redevelopment agencies through the dissolution process
pursuant to Assembly Bill and SB 1484. In spite of the
California Department of Finance's aggressive efforts to
174
Past & Present Professional claw back funds, the agency overturned its decision to back
Affiliations $5,000,000.00 in housing assets and $2,000,000.00 that the
Successor Agency was able to retain.
State Bar of California,
Orange County City
Attorneys Association,
Los Angeles County City
Attorneys Association,
Hispanic Bar Association,
Orange County Bar
Association,
City of Westminster Financial
Review Committee,
Board of Directors, Gary
Ms. Summerhill provides training to public officials and
city staff on the prevention of sexual harassment in the
workplace, on compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and
training on election issues. Ms. Summerhill has worked on
a number of public nuisance abatements in the cities of
Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Rancho Cucamonga, and
West Covina, Westminster through civil and criminal
actions including injunctions, red light abatement actions
and health and safety code receiverships.
Center, Ms. Summerhill graduated from the University of San
Project Access Sponsor Francisco School of Law in 1998. She received the American
Jurisprudence Azvard in Legal Research and Writing. She
was selected as one of three finalists successfully chosen in
a regional competition for a clerkship with some of
Northern California's most distinguished legal
departments. In the formation of her legal career, she
opted to work for a public agency, the East Bay Municipal
Utility District, and has been representing public agencies
ever since.
She is fluent in Spanish, semi -fluent in Portuguese, an avid
runner and proud mother of 2 boys.
175
RYAN R. JONES
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Municipal Law
Litigation
Employment Law
Police Litigation
Education
J.D., Pennsylvania State University
School of Law, Carlisle, PA, 2003
B.A., Economics/International Area
Studies, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA, 1999
Bar and Court Admissions
United States Supreme Court
California Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
United States District Court, Eastern
District of California
Other Professional
Affiliations
State Bar of California
Placer County Bar Association
U.S. Air Force Reserves
Trustee, Eureka Union School
District
Mr. Jones serves as City Attorney for Bishop and Clearlake, and as
Assistant City Attorney for La Habra. Mr. Jones's practice focuses
exclusively on the representation of cities and other public agencies as
both a transactional attorney and in civil litigation.
As a municipal law attorney, Mr. Jones is experienced in drafting
and revising municipal code sections, redevelopment law, zoning
and land use issues, drafting and reviewing agreements, and
advising cities on the variety of laws affecting municipal entities
such as the Public Records Act, AB 1234, the Brown Act, conflict
of interest laws, election law, and employment law.
Mr. Jones is also a knowledgeable civil litigation attorney who
specializes in representing public clients in both state and federal
court. He has successfully litigated complex cases including
employment discrimination, breach of contract, Health & Safety
Code receiverships, and municipal tort defense. Mr. Jones has tried
numerous civil and criminal matters in all phases of litigation to
include motion practice, trial practice, and post -trial appellate
matters.
Mr. Jones joined Jones & Mayer after returning from a military
assignment where he served as a judge advocate at the Pentagon and
was deployed to Afghanistan. While deployed, Mr. Jones served as
a legal advisor on Detainee Review Boards and helped establish the
Afghan judicial system by training Afghan judges and prosecutors
in Kabul and Bagram Air Base.
Prior to joining Jones & Mayer, Mr. Jones obtained extensive public
law and trial experience as an attorney with the Roseville -based law
firm Cota Cole LLP, and as a judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force.
As an active duty JAG, Mr. Jones served as the chief prosecutor for
Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina. He was then selected to
serve as the Base's chief criminal defense counsel.
Mr. Jones graduated from UCLA earning a bachelor's degree in
economics. Prior to attending law school, he worked on Capitol
Hill on staff for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as a
legislative correspondent and deputy press secretary. Mr. Jones
then attended law school at Penn State and earned his juris doctor.
During law school, Mr. Jones worked for the Office of the General
Counsel for NASA in Washington, DC, where he worked
extensively on labor and employment issues. He was also selected
for the Army JAG Corps Summer Intern Program at Fort Hood,
Texas, and worked in the legal office for the 1 st Cavalry Division.
Mr. Jones is an active community servant. He currently serves as a
Major in the U.S. Air Force Reserves and performs his active drills
at Travis Air Force Base as a judge advocate with the 349th Air
Mobility Wing. He is a member of the Rotary Club of Roseville,
and serves as trustee on the Eureka Union School District, which
services students in the Roseville and Granite Bay area.
176
MARTIN J.
Partner
Practice Areas
Police Litigation
Employment Law
Municipal Law
City Prosecution
Education
J.D., St. John's University, N.Y., 1966
B.A., City University of N.Y.
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court
United States Federal District Courts
New York Court of Appeal
Professional Affiliations
Los Angeles County Bar Association
California State Bar Association
New York Bar Association
(714) 446-1400
Martin J. Mayer is a name partner in the firm of Jones & Mayer (J&M)
and serves as legal counsel to sheriffs and chiefs of police in
approximately 70 law enforcement agencies throughout California. He
serves as General Counsel to the California State Sheriffs' Association
(CSSA), the California Police Chiefs' Association (CPCA), and the
California Peace Officers' Association (CPOA), and has done so for
approximately 25 years. Mr. Mayer focuses his practice on providing
legal advice, guidance and representation to law enforcement agencies
throughout the state and has been acknowledged as an expert in the
field of police litigation.
He works through the chiefs of police or sheriffs and provides on-going
legal assistance on all relevant issues impacting on the operation of law
enforcement agencies. He serves as counsel in defending and assisting
such agencies when they are sued in state and/or federal court and has
represented agencies on appeal issues in various courts of appeal
throughout California, as well in the California and United States
Supreme Courts.
He is a graduate of the City University of New York and St. John's
University School of Law. He began his professional career in New
York City in 1966 as a deputy Public Defender and served in that
capacity for five years. After relocating to California in 1975 he
became the Director of the Criminal Justice Planning Unit for the
League of California Cities. In 1980 he entered the private practice of
law focusing on issues arising out of law enforcement activity. Mr.
Mayer is a graduate of the 6th FBI National Law Institute at Quantico,
Virginia (designed for police legal advisors) and was the first attorney
in private practice to be invited to participate in the program. He also
served for nine years as a POST reserve with the Downey Police
Department.
Mr. Mayer writes and lectures extensively, in California and nationally,
on legal issues which impact on law enforcement including, but not
limited to, the use of force, pursuits, discipline and due process, public
records, personnel files, and the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill
of Rights Act (POBR). He recently co-authored two books — one on
POBR and another on the new Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights
Act (FBOR).
Mr. Mayer presents seminars on behalf of numerous statewide law
enforcement associations, as well as the California Commission on
Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST). He has served on
numerous POST committees as a subject matter expert and has
participated in several POST telecourses, which are used for training
peace officers throughout the state. Mr. Mayer has also lectured on
behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and
the National Sheriffs Association (NSA).
He was honored in 2005 with the "Governor's Lifetime Achievement
Award for Excellence in Peace Officer Training," which is awarded on
behalf of the Governor of California and the POST Commission.
Recently Mr. Mayer was selected as one of Southern California's
"Super Lawyer" for the year 2011 - 2012 in the areas of government
law, employment law and police litigation.
177
KIMBERLY
HALE, BARLOW
Partner
Practice Areas
Municipal Law
Employment and First Amendment
Litigation
Writs and Appeals
Land Use, CEQA and Zoning
Education
J.D. University of California, Los
Angeles, School of Law, 1990,
Order of the Coif,
Outstanding Graduate
Student of the Year
B.A. with Honors, California State
University, Fullerton, 1986
Bar and Court Admissions
United States Supreme Court
California Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the
Central, Southern, Eastern, and
Northern Districts of California
Professional Affiliations
Orange County City Attorneys
Association
Los Angeles County City Attorneys
Association
International Municipal Lawyers
Association
(714) 446-1400
Graduating third in her class from UCLA Law School, Ms. Barlow
joined the Law Office of Jones & Mayer in 1993. Her practice is
devoted almost exclusively to municipal law and litigation. In that
capacity, Ms. Barlow has served in the capacity of Assistant City
Attorney and City Attorney for 20 years. Ms. Barlow handles
specialized litigation on behalf of the firm's public entity clients,
including first amendment and civil rights litigation, adult use
ordinances, tax matters and administrative and traditional petitions for
writ of mandate.
She has successfully defended numerous complex writ cases involving
alleged violations of the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest laws,
CEQA claims, licensing and permit decisions, including revocations of
conditional use permits, and inverse condemnation claims. She also
regularly prepares ordinances, resolutions, complex transactional
documents such as for purchase and lease of public property,
development agreements and memoranda of understanding.
Ms. Barlow currently serves as the City Attorney for the City of West
Covina and as Assistant City Attorney to a number of the firm's other
city clients. She also serves as Successor Agency Counsel for seven
cities and as Counsel to the Downey Oversight Board. In addition to
providing the full range of legal services for these clients, Ms. Barlow
conducts citywide training in discrimination and harassment
prevention, ethics, Brown Act and conflicts, and HIPAA compliance.
She also investigates personnel complaints, particularly involving
harassment claims. Further, she serves as counsel to civilian personnel
boards hearing employee grievances. She previously served as City
Attorney for the Cities of Costa Mesa, Stanton and Upland.
Ms. Barlow has previously served on the League of California Cities
Legal Advocacy Committee, and as an officer of the Orange County
City Attorney's Association. She also served for seven years on the
Executive Committee of the Utility Users Tax Technical Task Force,
which was a sub -committee of the California League of Cities Revenue
and Taxation Committee. She previously served as a judicial clerk for
the Honorable Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Early in her career, Ms. Barlow practiced with the
law firm of Irell & Manella as a litigation associate focusing on
insurance, construction, environmental and real estate litigation. She
also has served on several local community non-profit boards,
including WTLC, a domestic violence shelter and transitional housing
provider.
178
JAMES R.
TOUCHSTONE
Partner
Practice Areas
Litigation
Municipal Law
Education
J.D., University of California,
Davis, School of Law (King
Hall) 1996; Law Review Editor
1994-1996; American
Jurisprudence Award,
Bankruptcy
B.S., Business Administration,
University of California,
Riverside, 1990
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the
Central District of California
United States District Court for the
Southern District of California
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California
Professional Affiliations
American Bar Association, Section
of Litigation
State Bar of California
Litigation Section, State Bar of
California
Federal Bar Association
San Bernardino County Bar
Association
(714)446-1400
James Touchstone is a partner in Jones & Mayer. Mr. Touchstone is
the Litigation Department Manager for the firm. His primary practice
areas include litigation of civil rights actions, police representation, tort
defense, business disputes, and employment/discrimination claims.
Mr. Touchstone's representation has included the defense of a number
of civil rights lawsuits alleging a variety of claims ranging from
excessive force claims arising from officer -involved -shootings to false
arrest claims. He has significant trial experience in both State and
Federal Court. In addition, he assists police agencies in drafting of
policies and procedures to ensure compliance by these agencies with
the most recent state and federal case law. Mr. Touchstone has also
defended literally hundreds of Pitchess motions in both the trial and
appellate courts. He also provides general legal advice to police
agencies on a variety of day-to-day issues that arise during the course
of performing law enforcement duties. Finally, Mr. Touchstone
provides representation to police agencies on civil forfeiture actions,
which complement traditional law enforcement activities. He has also
represented clients in civil appellate matters.
Mr. Touchstone has been practicing law since 1996, when he received
his law degree from the University of California, Davis, School of Law
(King Hall). While in law school, Mr. Touchstone served as editor for
the Law Review from 1994 to 1996. He received the American
Jurisprudence Award for bankruptcy. Mr. Touchstone received his
undergraduate degree from the University of California, Riverside, in
1990. He joined the law offices of Jones & Mayer in February 2009.
Mr. Touchstone is a member of the California Peace Officers'
Association, the Board of Directors for Law Enforcement of Ontario
("LEO") and the Board of Directors for the Chaffey College
Foundation. In addition, Mr. Touchstone has served as a lecturer at the
University of California, Riverside Extension Program, on the subject
of civil procedure and a guest lecturer at Campbell University on the
subject of police liability.
179
GREGORY P.
FERMI D"919
Practice
_ ,I -
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Police Legal Advisor
City Prosecutor
Personnel and Employment
Pitchess Motions
Writs and Appeals
Education
J.D. Western State University
College of Law, Fullerton, 1987
B.S.L. Western State
University College of Law,
Fullerton, 1985
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
Professional Affiliations
Los Angeles County Bar
Association
California Police Chiefs
Association
California State Sheriffs'
Association
California Police Officers'
Association
(714)446-1400
Gregory P. Palmer joined the Law Offices of Jones & Mayer as a
Senior Associate in 1999. Prior to that, Mr. Palmer spent almost ten
years with the Law Offices of Mayer, Coble & Palmer. He has
extensive experience acting as a legal advisor to more than 100 chiefs
of police and sheriffs throughout the State of California. In that
capacity, he has provided legal assistance in all aspects of operating a
police department. Mr. Palmer has represented Chiefs of Police in
more than three hundred disciplinary appeal hearings and arbitrations
with a ninety percent success rate. He has also handled several
disciplinary hearings involving firefighters and public works
employees. Mr. Palmer is experienced in handling excessive force,
dishonesty, insubordination, off-duty criminal conduct, and other
matters. He has appeared in court on "Pitchess" motions hundreds of
times, and has prepared and argued a dozen appellate court writs
challenging improper trial court decisions on these motions. Mr.
Palmer has also briefed and argued approximately twenty
administrative writ petitions on discipline cases and AB 301 issues.
Prior to entering the practice of law, he was a police officer for ten
years in La Palma, California.
Mr. Palmer is also conversant in all aspects of the criminal prosecution
of city code enforcement cases. He has performed as the City
Prosecutor in two local cities and Assistant City Prosecutor in several
more cities. Mr. Palmer has developed unique expertise in prosecuting
sexually -oriented businesses, both criminally and by administratively
suspending or revoking city permits.
Mr. Palmer has handled several high profile cases. In 1997, he
prosecuted the First Southern Baptist Church and its pastor for illegally
housing the homeless on its grounds. This case gained national
notoriety and the city prevailed on appeal. He filed an injunctive action
and negotiated the final closure of the last remaining X-rated theater in
Orange County. Mr. Palmer has also assisted in municipal code
prosecutions arising out of the multi -department task force approach to
critical problem areas. In 1998, Mr. Palmer and fellow members on the
Buena Park Neighborhood Improvement Task Force were nominated
for the Orange County Human Relations Commission Community -
Oriented Policing Award.
Mr. Palmer has lectured at POST -approved programs, conferences, and
numerous police departments on topics such as civil liability, sexual
harassment, legal update, force, discipline, and "Pitchess" motions. He
has also lectured on topics related to city prosecutor functions to code
enforcement associations in Southern California and Texas. He is the
author of the 2012 revision of the CPOA's "Pitchess Motion Manual,"
and in 2005 he was named the State Chair of the CPOA, Police Legal
Advisors Committee. Mr. Palmer is the instructor of the CPOA
Pitchess Motion Update and Public Records Act Classes.
••,
POTTED
Practice Areas
Public Entity Liability Litigation
Civil Rights Litigation
Employment Law Litigation
Education
J. D., Western State University
College of Law, Fullerton, 1984
B. A., Point Loma Nazarene
University, San Diego, 1979
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the
Central District of California
Professional Affiliations
State Bar of California
10th of November Association
(714)446-1400
Mr. Potter defends all phases of public entity liability, including
dangerous conditions of public property, civil rights violations, public
employment issues, public works contract issues, inverse
condemnation, eminent domain and general litigation matters. Mr.
Potter also serves as counsel to several Civil Service Commissions in
Southern California and as the assistant city attorney for the City of
Costa Mesa.
Mr. Potter obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from Point Loma
Nazarene University in 1979 and his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree
from Western State University in 1984. Mr. Potter was admitted to
practice law in California on December 10, 1985. Mr. Potter has been
a senior litigator with Jones and Mayer since February of 1996.
Mr. Potter began his legal career as an associate with in-house counsel
for State Farm Insurance Companies, representing policyholders in
liability actions. From 1986 to 1992, Mr. Potter served as a deputy city
attorney for the City of Long Beach, California, in their tort liability
section, specializing in police civil rights liability and defending actions
alleging dangerous conditions of public property. From 1992 through
1996, Mr. Potter was an associate with Ferguson, Praet & Sherman,
specializing in the defense of police officers in civil rights violations,
including excessive force, high speed pursuits, officer involved
shootings, and disciplinary matters. During the course of his career,
Mr. Potter has enjoyed an outstanding success rate as a trial attorney of
over 90% of his more than 35 cases tried in both federal court and state
courts of general jurisdiction. Mr. Potter has also prosecuted eminent
domain actions, first amendment actions on behalf of fire fighters as
well as other business and tort related actions. He also serves as a
police advisor regarding matters of policy, personnel, and liability to
departments with over 150 sworn officers.
Mr. Potter also has several published cases involving police liability
matters. In George v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706 (9h Cir.
1992), Mr. Potter successfully argued before the 91' circuit court of
appeals that officers who illegally entered a residence without a search
warrant still had the right to defend themselves and were justified in
shooting the resident who appeared to be in possession of a firearm. In
Nguyen v. City of Westminster, (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 1161, Mr.
Potter successfully argued that a public entity was immune from
liability from a police pursuit, through a high school campus, that left a
man brain damaged after he was hit by the pursued vehicle. Mr. Potter
also argued for the confidentiality of police investigation files where
the father was accused of murdering his child in Michael P v. Superior
Court, (2001) 92 Cal.AppAth 1036.
Mr. Potter is active with his alma mater Point Lorna Nazarene
University, serving on its Board of Trustees from 2004 through 2010.
Mr. Potter is also in the process of becoming a member of the
American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA).
181
KRISTA
MACNEVIN JEE
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Complex Civil Litigation
Writs and Appeals
Environmental Law
Land Use and Zoning
Municipal Law
Education
J.D. Whittier College, School of
Law, 1998,
Magna Cum Laude
Law Review Editor
Center for Children's Rights
Fellow
American Jurisprudence Awards,
Professional Responsibility and
Juvenile Law
B.A. California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona, 1995
Magna Cum Laude
Psychology Major, English Minor
Outstanding Graduate Award
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States District Court for the
Central, Eastern, Northern and
Southern Districts of California
Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals
Texas State Courts
Publication
"Hearsay Exceptions in Child Abuse
Cases: Have the Courts and
Legislatures Really Considered the
Child?" 19 Whittier Law Review
559 (1998)
(714) 446-1400
Ms. Jee is a Senior Associate with Jones & Mayer. Her primary
practice areas are civil and appellate litigation, as well as land use and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She acts as deputy
city attorney for various cities, advising elected officials and staff in all
areas of municipal law, including contracts, code enforcement, inverse
condemnation, elections, administrative hearings, franchises, state and
federal compliance, drafting municipal codes, etc. Ms. Jee specializes
in complex litigation cases, including CEQA, police litigation, writs
and appeals. She has successfully concluded numerous cases by pre-
trial motions and settlement. She has briefed and argued many cases at
the appellate level, participating in numerous cases with published
opinions, whether representing a party to the litigation or on behalf of
amicus curiae. She is achnitted to practice in all state and federal courts
within the State of California.
Ms. Jee has been with Jones & Mayer for fourteen years. She
graduated magna cum laude from Whittier College, School of Law in
1998 and was admitted to practice law in the State of California the
same year. She is also admitted to practice, since 2008, in the State of
Texas. She received a certificate of academic focus in Children's Law
from Whittier Law School and was among the first graduating class of
Fellows for the Center of Children's Rights. Ms. Jee was an Editor of
the Whittier Law Review. She graduated magna cum laude from
California State Polytechnic University in 1995 with a Bachelor of Arts
in Psychology and a minor in English.
Ms. Jee has published an article, "Hearsay Exceptions in Child Abuse
Cases: Have the Courts and Legislatures Really Considered the Child"
in the Whittier Law Review. She enjoys running and spending time
with her children. She completed both a marathon in Rome, Italy and a
half marathon in Austin, Texas in 2010.
182
PAUL R. COBLE
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Labor & Employment Law
Education
J.D., Loyola Law School, L.A. 1986
Master of Science, California State
University at Los Angeles, Public
Administration, 1977
B.A., San Jose State College, San
Jose, 1970
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for
The Ninth Circuit
United States District Courts for the
Central and Eastern Districts of
California
Professional Affiliations
California State Bar Association
Int'1 Association of Chiefs of Police
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Police Officers' Association
Jones & Mayer
Roseville Office:
8150 Sierra College Blvd. Suite 190
Roseville, CA 95661
(916)771-0635
Jones & Mayer
Orange County Office
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA. 92835
(714) 446-1400
Mr. Coble practices principally in the area of labor and employment
law, including:
• Advises and represents public entities in labor negotiations,
impasse procedures, and PERB proceedings;
• Provides advice on and drafts personnel policies and
procedures;
• Investigates alleged employee misconduct;
• Provides advice on the deposition and adjudication of internal
affairs investigations;
• Representation in administrative hearings and judicial
proceedings concerning employee discipline; and,
• Provides advice and litigation defense against claims of
employment discrimination under FEHA and Title VII.
Mr. Coble was admitted to practice in 1987. He possesses a Bachelor
of Arts in Law Enforcement from San Jose State University; a Master
of Science in Public Administration from CSULA; and, a Juris Doctor
from Loyola Law School. During Mr. Coble's career with the Los
Angeles Police Department he served for several years as the Employee
Relations Administrator and was the management representative vis-a-
vis the seventeen collective bargaining units comprising the
Department's work force of over 10,000 employees. Mr. Coble has co-
authored a study of management rights in public sector collective
bargaining in the U.S. and Canada. He has negotiated a number of
collective bargaining agreements, as well as impasse mediation and fact
finding.
Mr. Coble has extensive experience in civil litigation in state and
federal courts on behalf of public entities in California. He has long
advised clients on responses to subpoenas duces tecum, document
production demands, and requests pursuant to the California Public
Records Act (CPRA).
Mr. Coble has handled over 100 arbitrations and civil service hearings,
together with related litigation seeking judicial review of administrative
hearings. He has negotiated many labor agreements and side letters for
California cities, counties and districts, including impasse proceedings
through mediation and fact finding.
He has written numerous articles for publications such as The Journal
of California Law Enforcement and California Peace Officer Magazine.
Those include "To Ride or Not to Ride," and "Performance Reviews —
Avoiding the Halo Effect." He is a frequent and sought-after lecturer
and trainer on issues of police standard of conduct, civil rights liability,
discipline, and performance review. He has drafted and published
several police policy and procedure manuals.
Mr. Coble is active in the Knights of Columbus and other community
charities. Until his relocation to our Roseville office, he served for
several years as a member of the Sexual Misconduct Oversight Review
Board for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange.
183
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Municipal Law
Litigation
Transactional Law
Land Use
Education
J.D., Thomas Jefferson School of
Law, San Diego, 1995
B.A., California State University,
Fullerton, 1991
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States District Court for
the Central and Northern
District of California
Professional Affiliations
State Bar of California
Orange County City
Attorneys' Association
Los Angeles County City
Attorneys' Association
Orange County Bar Association
(714)446-1400
Thomas P. Duarte is a senior associate at the law offices of Jones &
Mayer. Mr. Duarte has been with the firm since 1996, and specializes in
municipal law. Mr. Duarte is versed in all areas of municipal law and
serves as the City Attorney for the city of Blythe. He also serves as
Deputy City Attorney for the cities of Fullerton, La Habra, Westminster,
Whittier and Costa Mesa.
Mr. Duarte ' s duties include drafting and reviewing contracts and other
types of transactional documents; researching and preparing legal
opinions; drafting appellate briefs; analyzing, researching, and
interpreting legislation; and advising boards, departments, officers, and
employees on legal questions relating to their respective powers, duties,
functions, and obligations. He advises councils and commissions on the
Brown Act and Conflict of Interest regulations.
Mr. Duarte's duties also include perfonning legally required tasks in all
phases of civil litigation involving tort liability, public works contracts,
breach of contract, eminent domain, and administrative mandamus
actions.
From 1997 to 2000, Mr. Duarte sat as legal counsel for the Whittier
Planning Commission. From 2000 to 2004, Mr. Duarte sat as legal
counsel for the Westminster Planning Commission. He currently sits as
legal counsel for the Costa Mesa Planning Commission. He also
attends, on an as needed basis, City Council and other Planning
Commission meetings for the cities of Fullerton, Westminster, La Habra,
Whittier and Costa Mesa. In addition, Mr. Duarte sits as counsel for the
Southeast Area Social Services Funding Authority, Deputy Counsel for
Gateway Cities Council of Governments, and Deputy Counsel for the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.
Mr. Duarte serves on the Board of Directors for the Fullerton Girls &
Boys Club. He also serves on the Board of Directors for Abrazar in
Westminster. He also is a member of the Fullerton South Rotary Club.
•
IVY M. TSAI
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Public Law
Transactional Law
Civil Litigation
Education
J.D., UCLA School of Law,
Los Angeles, CA 2002
Graduate Division Fellowship
Public Interest Law Foundation
Summer Grant
Managing Editor, Asian Pacific
American Law Journal
Volunteer, Asian Pacific American
Legal Clinic
Member, Asian Pacific Islander Law
Students Association
B.A., UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 1999
Political Science, Concentration in
American Politics
UCLA Endowed Scholarship
College of Letters and Science
Honors
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the
Northern, Central, and Southern
Districts of California
Professional Affiliations
State Bar of California
Orange County Bar Association
(714)446-1400
Ivy Tsai joined the firm in 2004 and focuses her practice on
municipal law. She serves as the Assistant City Attorney
for the cities of California City, Grand Terrace, Upland,
and West Covina and also provides legal guidance and
representation to the firm's other city clients. Ms. Tsai
works closely with city staff on matters including the
Brown Act, Public Records Act, public contracting,
ordinances and resolutions, and specialized projects. She
also serves as legal counsel to the Gateway Cities Council
of Governments and San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments, providing legal guidance on regional issues
including coordination and partnership on transportation
and energy matters. Ms. Tsai's duties include attending
City Council, Governing Board, Planning Commission, and
other committee meetings, as well as representing clients in
negotiations and conflict resolution. Ms. Tsai has also
litigated cases on behalf of the firm's clients and has
drafted and argued successful motions at both the trial and
appellate levels in a variety of cases ranging from
dangerous condition of public property to inverse
condemnation.
Ms. Tsai received a Bachelors of Arts in political science
from the University of California, Los Angeles. She also
received her law degree from the University of California,
Los Angeles. Ms. Tsai was admitted to the State Bar of
California in 2002.
185
ELENA Q.
GERLI
Senior Associate
Practice Areas
Municipal Law
Ordinance Drafting
First Amendment
Land Use
City Prosecution and Public Nuisance
Abatement,
Education
J.D. UCLA School of Law, 2003,
Distinguished Advocate, Moot
Court Honors Program
B.A. Brown University, Providence,
R.I., 1990
Bar and Court Admissions
California Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the
Central District of California
(714) 446-1400
Ms. Elena Q. Gerli is currently a Deputy City Attorney for the cities of
Fullerton, Westminster, La Habra, Costa Mesa and Upland. Ms. Gerli's
expertise includes Code Enforcement, zoning and land use, ordinance
drafting, First Amendment, and guiding local governments through
complex quality of life issues such as homelessness and public
nuisance abatement. Ms. Gerli also has extensive experience litigating
public nuisance abatement injunction proceedings against nuisance
massage establishments, and more recently against illegal medical
marijuana dispensaries -- Ms. Gerli assisted in drafting an amicus
curiae brief to the California Supreme Court in the recent landmark
case of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and
Wellness Center, Inc., on behalf of the California Police Chiefs
Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association and the
California Peace Officers' Association.
Ms. Gerli joined the law offices of Jones & Mayer in October of 2003.
She obtained her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law in 2003, and was
admitted to the California Bar on December 7, 2003. Ms. Gerli
obtained her undergraduate degree from Brown University in 1990.
During law school, Ms. Gerli externed full-time for Judge Ronald S.W.
Lew, Central District of California; she took part in the Summer
Honors Program at the California Attorney General's Office, Criminal
Division, Appeals/Writs/Trials; she interned at the United States
Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, Central District of California;
finally, Ms Gerli volunteered in the Hardcore Gang Unit of the Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
During law school, Ms. Gerli received a Distinguished Advocate
Award in the Moot Court Honors Program, and was a columnist for
The Docket, UCLA School of Law's newspaper. Additionally, she was
Director of Special Programs for the Student Animal Legal Defense
Fund for one year.
Ms. Gerli is an active volunteer for the Alumni Association of her alma
mater, Brown University, and in September of 2010 received a
Leadership Award for her work assisting the Admissions Office as a
result of her term as a Regional Director for the West coast, Hawaii and
Alaska.
WHO
Appendix B
Sample Litigation Reports
187
CITY OF XXXXXXX
LITIGATION STATUS REPORT
MAY 2011
Case Name:
XXXXXXXXXX
Venue/Case Number:
30/2010/XXXXXX
Judge:
Geoffrey T. Glass, Dept
Date Of Loss:
10/28/2009
C33
Attorney For City:
James R. Touchstone
Opposing Attorney:
Paul E. Antill, San Dimas
City Employees
Involved:
Cause Of Action:
Negligence, intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress, False imprisonment/
Allegations Of Unlawful Detainment And Unlawful Search Of Plaintiff's
Residence
Status:
10/01/10
Complaint Filed.
11/01/10
Received By City
12/10/10
Answer Filed
01/03/11
Notice Of Deposition / XXXXX And XXXX v. City Of XXXXXXX
City's Form. Rogs To XXXX, Set One
01/1-0/11
City's Form Rags To XXXX, Set One
01/10/11
City And P.D.`S Special Rogs To )=, Set One
01/10/11
City And P.D.'S Special Rogs To XXXX, Set One
01/10/11
City And P.D.'S-Rfp To XXXX, Set One
01/10/11
City And P.D.'S Rfp To XXXX, Set One
01/10/11
City And P.D.'S Rfas To XXXX, Set One
01/10/11
City And P.D.'S Rfas To XXXX, Set One
01/10/11
Notice Of Hearing For CMC on 4/18/11
02/28/11
Letter To Antill Re: Discovery Responses
03/09/11
Letter From Brown Re: Ext. To Respond To Discovery
03/11/11
XXXX Responses To City's Judicial Council Form Rogs, Set One
03/18/11
XXXX Responses To City's Special Rags, Set One
03/18/11
XXXX Responses To City's Rfas, Set One
03/18/11
XXXX Responses To City's Rfp, Set. One
03/18/11
XXXX Responses To City's Judicial Council Form Rogs, Set One
03/18/11
XXXX Responses To City's Special Rogs, Set One
03/18/11
XXXX Responses To City's Rfas, Set One
03/18/11
-,XXXX Responses To City's Rfp, Set One
03/18/11
Plaintiffs CM Statement
04/01111
City's Cm Statement
04/01/11
Notice OfDepo Of G. XXXX
04/25/11
Notice Of Depo Of Nieves XXXX
04/25/11
XXXX interrogatories to City, #1
05/27/11
XXXX. interrogatories to City, #1
05/27/11
MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTIAUATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: Insurance Committee of the City of
From: James R. Touchstone, Deputy City Attorney
Date: October 27, 2010
Re: , et al. v. City of , et al.
The purpose of this Memorandum is to request direction from the Insurance Committee
with respect to further litigation management of the above -referenced case and
obtaining settlement authority in the sum of $20,000.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2008, at approximately 7:15 p.m., off-duty Police Officer
fatally shot and killed He also shot and wounded . Officer 's
actions occurred after , and several other associates, attacked Officer
with a folding metal chair. After striking Officer with the chair, ,
and the other members of their party continued striking and kicking Officer
while he was on the ground until Officer drew the weapon in his
possession and began firing at the attacking parties.
The shooting was precipitated by events occurring earlier in the evening at the
Restaurant located in the City of . While inside the Restaurant,
Officer mistakenly slapped the buttocks of a woman who was at the bar with a
group of her friends, including and s. Officer subsequently
apologized to the female. , , and other members of the female's group
were apparently unsatisfied with Officer apology. Accordingly, they initiated the
attack on Officer approximately one hour later, after continuing to drink in the bar
in the Restaurant.
D-uring the intervening time, Officer , his wife, and several of their friends were
eating dinner at the Restaurant. Officer was feeling ill, as he had
throughout the day, and decided to go outside to get some fresh air. Officer was
accompanied outside by as they went outside to the parking lot area where the
attack ultimately occurred.
After sitting outside for a period of time, Mr. observed several males walking
toward him and Officer . He immediately called another member of their party,
-,to request assistance. Officer was then struck in the back of his head by
one of the members of the party, believed to be . Thereafter, Officer was
struck in the head with a metal folding chair causing a one -inch laceration to his scalp
and profuse bleeding. After being struck in the head, and subsequently his back with
the metal chair, Officer pulled out his badge from his back pocket, displayed it to
the party and yelled, "Stop! Off-duty police officer! Leave me alone! Off-duty
police officer!" The individuals attacking Officer , however, did not desist from
their attack. Accordingly, Officer pulled his weapon and fired all 5 rounds at
members of the attacking group. As noted above, died as a result of his
injuries, which included three gunshot wounds to his torso. was struck 2 to 3
times in the leg.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
's son, timely filed a tort claim on August 18,'2008. timely filed a
tort claim on September 5, 2008. Each of these claims was rejected. and
subsequently filed a timely complaint in the Superior Court on March 18,
2009. With the City's permission, we removed this case to the Federal District Court in
April 2009.
We subsequently learned that Officer filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding
based upon financial difficulties he encountered as a result of a attempting to start a
home business with his wife. Officer has named the plaintiffs in the pending civil
action as creditors in his bankruptcy proceeding. Officer received a discharge of
all debts associated with claims of negligence. The Bankruptcy Court reserved
judgment on the claims for intentional conduct, including the civil rights claim, against
Officer pending the result of our civil case,
Consistent with direction from the City concerning our recommendation for litigation of
this case, we asserted in this litigation that Officer was acting outside the course
and scope of his employment with the City at the time of the incident. This
determination was supported by the facts underlying the incident. Moreover, if
successful from a litigation perspective in obtaining this determination from the Federal
District Court, we could essentially insulate the City from liability in this case because
the City would no longer be responsible for payment of any damages award that might
have been assessed against Officer
-Based upon this course of action, separate litigation counsel was obtained by the City
to represent Officer . Officer counsel took the position that he was acting
in the course and scope of his duties as a Police officer at the time of the
incident.
Plaintiffs' counsel proceeded with taking the deposition of Officer approximately
2 months ago. During the deposition, we elicited information to support our defense
2
190
that Officer was in fact not acting as a police officer during this incident, but
rather, was simply acting in self-defense, and the defense of Mr. . Specifically,
Officer confirmed that he was not carrying any Police Department issued
equipment on the day of the incident. Officer further clarified that he did not
participate in the arrest or investigation of the criminal case against any members of the
group, other than as a victim of the crime. Pertinent pages of Officer 's
deposition testimony concerning these issues are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" for
your review.
After Officer 's deposition, we proceeded to schedule the depositions of multiple
members of the party. On the eve of those depositions, our office was contacted
by Plaintiffs' counsel, who offered to dismiss the case by against the City and all
parties_ in exchange for a waiver of litigation costs. We accepted this settlement offer
and currently are in the process of executing the settlement agreement to effectuate
this settlement.
Because the facts elicited during Officer supported our defense that he was
acting outside the course and scope of his duties as a police officer during the incident,
it is our assessment that Plaintiffs' counsel became very concerned about their ability to
ultimately collect on any judgment that they might obtain in this case. We believe this is
what precipitated the settlement offer by Plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of Mr_
Plaintiffs' counsel also attempted to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff ,
who is represented through a guardian ad litem, Ms. , in the case. Plaintiffs'
counsel's motion to withdraw recently was denied by the Court because a party
represented by a guardian ad [item must be represented by legal counsel in civil
proceedings in federal court.
FURTHER LITIGATION STRATEGY
We suspect that there has been a breakdown in the strategy for the handling of this
case between current counsel and Ms. based upon counsel's attempt to
withdraw from representation of the. minor We surmise that Ms,. was not
agreeable to dismissal of the case by for a waiver of costs, as counsel had
convinced Mr. was the best course of action.
Based upon this development, we would like settlement authority from the Insurance
Committee so that we can attempt to negotlate a settlement of the case by for a
sura that is substantially less than future anticipated litigation expenses in this case.
We estimate these expenses to be approximately $150,000, with an equal or greater
amount expended by Officer 's counsel in his defense, for a total of
approximately $300,000.
We will not engage in such settlement discussions until we have obtained the release of
all claims and dismissal of the action by Mr. . We believe that it may be possible
3
191
to negotiate a reasonable settlement while currently is represented by current
counsel, who will presumably recommend that Ms. accept the settlement on
's behalf. We would recommend doing a Rule 68 offer in the range of $5,000 to
$7,500 to begin the process of negotiating a settlement of no greater than $20,000.
Counsel for Officer is in agreement with this litigation strategy.
Jim Touchstone
192
Appendix C
Sample Client Memoranda
193
Reports — Sample All Clients Memoranda
MEMORANDUM
CONF/DENT/AL/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: City Attorney
Date: March 7, 2011
Subject: New 2010 Ethics Rule Regarding Tickets to Events for the Performance of a
Public Function or Ceremonial Role
ISSUE: How do recent 2010 regulations issued by the Fair Political Practices
Commission ("FPPC") effect public officials who receive tickets for the performance of a
ceremonial role or public function.
QUICK ANSWER: Public Officials must now disclose when they receive tickets to
events for the performance of a ceremonial role or a public function to remain in order for the
ticket to be excluded from the restrictions on receiving gifts such as the $4.20 limit on gifts from
a single source.
OVERVIEW
Recent scrutiny of high profile public officials attendance of high price concerts and
sporting events have led the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") to amend the
regulations governing the disclosure by public officials of their attendance at said events.
194
In 2009 the FPPC passed regulations which required public agencies to (1) only distribute
tickets pursuant to a written "gift ticket distribution" policy which explains the public purpose is
disclosing said ticket, (2) have the City Manager, or his/her designee, disclose the details of the
gift ticket distribution on the City website using form 802, and (3) distribute the tickets only at
the City's discretion and not allow outside agencies to earmark the tickets for specific officials.
However, these requirements did not apply to tickets given to public officials for the purpose of
the official performing a public function or a ceremonial role at the event (hereinafter referred to
as "Ceremonial Role Tickets"). Ceremonial Role Tickets had an absolute exemption from being
considered a gift, from disclosure by the agency on form 802, and from disclosure by the official
on his or her individual form 700.
In 2010 reports came out that certain public officials had accepted numerous Ceremonial
Role Tickets to high profile events and concerts, which some valued in aggregate at around
$100,000, while excluding the tickets from the FPPC reporting requirements under the
ceremonial role exception. This raised concerns over the possibility of abuse and has resulted in
new regulations intended to address this concern. Under the new regulations, Ceremonial Role
Tickets are now subject to public disclosure by the official's agency, but are still exempt from-
disclosure
romdisclosure on the official's individual form 700. Also the new regulations only affect tickets for
admission to events or concerts, received for the purpose of the official performing a ceremonial
role or function.
Specifically, the language exempting Ceremonial Role Tickets from being considered a
gift was moved from Regulation 18944.1 to Regulation 18942. The language was also changed
to add a new disclosure condition which must be satisfied before the gift exemption applies.
Specifically Regulation 18942(a)(13) now excludes a gift of a "ticket or pass, provided to an
official for his or her admission to an event at which the official performs a ceremonial role or
function on behalf of the agency, so long as the official complies with the posting provisions set
forth in subdivision (c) of Regulation 18944.1." 2 CCR 18942(a)(13). As long as the disclosure
requirements of Regulation 18944.1(c) are followed, then the Ceremonial Role Tickets are not
gifts and therefore do not need to be reported by the receiving official on form 700.
The relevant disclosure requirements of Regulation 18944.1(c) are as follows:
The distribution of a ticket or pass pursuant to ... Regulation 18942(a)
(13) ... shall be posted, on a form provided by the Commission, in a prominent fashion
on the agency's website, within 30 days after the distribution. If the agency does not
maintain a website, the form shall be maintained as a public record, be subject to
inspection and copying under Section 81008(a), and be forwarded to the Commission
for posting on its website. The posting shall include the following:
(1) the name of the person receiving the ticket or pass, except that if the ticket or pass
is distributed to an organization outside the agency, the agency may post the name,
address, description of the organization, and the number of tickets or passes provided
to the organization in lieu of posting the names of each individual from the
organization;
(2) a description of the event;
(3) the date of the event;
(4) the face value of the ticket or pass;
195
(5) the number of tickets or passes provided to each person;
(6) if the ticket or pass is behested, the name of the official who behested the ticket or
pass; and
(7) a description of the public purpose under which the distribution was made or,
alternatively, that the ticket or pass was distributed as income to the official.
CONCLUSION
Public officials can still accept Ceremonial Role Tickets to events or concerts without
being subject to the $420 restriction on gifts from a single source or the requirement to disclose
the gift on form 700, as long as their public agency prominently posts the information required
by Regulation 18944.1(c) on their agency website. If agency fails to do so then the ticket will be
considered a gift to the public official.
196
MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: Mayor, City Manager, and Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney's Office
Date: April 2, 2009
Subject: City's Compliance with new Federal Identity Theft Prevention Rules
Required by May 1, 2009
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has published new rules and guidelines requiring
greater protections against identity theft. The new rules implement Sections 114 and 315 of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. sections 1681 et seq.
(hereinafter the "Red Flag Rules"). The "Red Flags Rules" are meant to identify patterns,
practices or specific activities that indicate the possible existence of identity theft.
The new federal law states that the City is required to develop and implement a written
identity theft prevention program by the May 1, 2009 deadline. The program must include
reasonable written policies and procedures for detecting, preventing, and mitigating identity
theft. The program must be managed by the City Council or senior employees, must include
appropriate staff training, and provide oversight of any service providers.
The most common situation where the Red Flag Rules will apply is where the city is providing
utility services (water, trash, electric, etc.) to its customers where the customer submits payment
after the services have already been rendered. It will also include installment payments or the
postponing of payments on fines or fees, such as is common for parking tickets. Cities that
provide utility services to customers, but contract with a business or other entity to maintain the
utility accounts by providing billing and/or payment collection services are subject to the Rules.
After the May 1, 2009 deadline, federal regulators are authorized to impose civil fines/penalties
in situations where the City's failure to abide by the Red Flag Rules ends up leading to a
financial loss by a customer. This means the City could be held responsible if a customer incurs
a loss attributable to identity theft, if the loss would not have occurred had the City properly
adopted and implemented a "red flag" program.
Our office can assist your City with adopting a resolution, the development of policies, and with
the training in order to be in compliance with the new Red Flag Rules by the May 1, 2009,
deadline. Please inquire with us if your City desires these services. The FTC has more
information available at http://w-ww.ftc.gov/redflagsrule.
31
197
MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTL4L/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: , City Manager
Copy to: , City Clerk
From: Richard L. Adams Il, City Attorney
By: Robert Khuu, Deputy City Attorney
Date:
Subject: Senate Bill No. 751 relating to Meeting Minutes
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
On September 5, 2013, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 751 ("SB751"), and
will require compliance beginning. on January 1, 2014. SB751 was initially drafted to apply only
to intergovernmental agencies (i.e., joint powers authorities), but was subsequently modified in
the Legislature to apply to all local agencies (including cities). The purpose of SB751 is to
address a gap in the Brown Act relating to records kept of votes by legislative bodies. Existing
law is mostly silent on whether meeting minutes had to be kept and is also relatively silent
concerning the exact content of the minutes. SB751 modifies this by adding Government Code
section 54953(c)(2) which provides that the "legislative body of a local agency shall publicly
report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the
action."
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Because of the changes made by SB751, cities must now keep records of how city
council members and members of commissions, committees, and boards vote on a particular
matter. This means that the City Clerk, or the relevant person in charge of keeping meeting
minutes, must keep track of how each member of a particular body is voting. For example, if the
City Council votes to approve an agreement with an independent contractor, then their individual
votes (i.e., yes, no, abstention, absent) on the matter must be recorded. There is no necessity to
require every formal action to be conducted as a roll call vote, if it can be determined, without a
roll call vote, how each individual member voted. On the other hand, if the City Council is
merely providing direction to staff to research a matter and bring it back at a future meeting, with
no formal action being taken, it would not be necessary to record a vote. Such direction does not
fit the definition of "action taken" under the Brown Act.I
1 Government Code section 54952.6 defines "action taken" as "a collective decision made by a majority of the
members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative
body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body
when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance."
•
• nNf`T.YT..YnN
The stated purpose of SB751 was to shine a light upon the votes of individual members
of legislative bodies so that they could be held accountable to those who elected them. Thus,
SB751 requires the City to keep records (i.e., minutes) which reflect the votes made by
individual members of the City Council, and any other legislative body (i.e., commissions,
committees, and boards) of the City.
Should there be any questions or comments regarding this memorandum, please contact
our office at 714-446-1400.
199
Reports — Sample All Clients Memoranda
MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY-CL/ENT PRIVILEGED
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: City Attorney
Date: March 7, 2011
Subject: New 2010 Ethics Rule Regarding Tickets to Events for the Performance of a
Public Function or Ceremonial Role
ISSUE: How do recent 2010 regulations issued by the Fair Political Practices
Commission ("FPPC") effect public officials who receive tickets for the performance of a
ceremonial role or public function.
QUICK ANSWER: Public Officials must now disclose when they receive tickets to
events for the performance of a ceremonial role or a public function to remain in order for the
ticket to be excluded from the restrictions on receiving gifts such as the $420 limit on gifts from
a single source.
(,IVF.RVTF.W
Recent scrutiny of high profile public officials attendance of high price concerts and
sporting events have led the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") to amend the
regulations governing the disclosure by public officials of their attendance at said events.
we
In 2009 the FPPC passed regulations which required public agencies to (1) only distribute
tickets pursuant to a written "gift ticket distribution" policy which explains the public purpose is
disclosing said ticket, (2) have the City Manager, or his/her designee, disclose the details of the
gift ticket distribution on the City website using form 802, and (3) distribute the tickets only at
the City's discretion and not allow outside agencies to earmark the tickets for specific officials.
However, these requirements did not apply to tickets given to public officials for the purpose of
the official performing a public function or a ceremonial role at the event (hereinafter referred to
as "Ceremonial Role Tickets"). Ceremonial Role Tickets had an absolute exemption from being
considered a gift, from disclosure by the agency on form 802, and from disclosure by the official
on his or her individual form 700.
In 2010 reports came out that certain public officials had accepted numerous Ceremonial
Role Tickets to high profile events and concerts, which some valued in aggregate at around
$100,000, while excluding the tickets from the FPPC reporting requirements under the
ceremonial role exception. This raised concerns over the possibility of abuse and has resulted in
new regulations intended to address this concern. Under the new regulations, Ceremonial Role
Tickets are now subject to public disclosure by the official's agency, but are still exempt from
disclosure on the official's individual form 700. Also the new regulations only affect tickets for
admission to events or concerts, received for the purpose of the official performing a ceremonial
role or function.
Specifically, the language exempting Ceremonial Role Tickets from being considered a
gift was moved from Regulation 18944.1 to Regulation 18942. The language was also changed
to add a new disclosure condition which must be satisfied before the gift exemption applies.
Specifically Regulation 18942(a)(13) now excludes a gift of a "ticket or pass, provided to an
official for his or her admission to an event at which the official performs a ceremonial role or
function on behalf of the agency, so long as the official complies with the posting provisions set
forth in -subdivision (c) of Regulation 18944.1." 2 CCR 18942(a)(13). As long as the disclosure
requirements of Regulation 18944.1(c) are followed, then the Ceremonial Role Tickets are not
gifts and therefore do not need to be reported by the receiving official on form 700.
The relevant disclosure requirements of Regulation 18944.1(c) are as follows:
The distribution of a ticket or pass pursuant to ... Regulation 18942(a)
(13) ... shall be posted, on a form provided by the Commission, in a prominent fashion
on the agency's website, within 30 days after the distribution. If the agency does not
maintain a website, the form shall be maintained as a public record, be subject to
inspection and copying under Section 81008(a), and be forwarded to the Commission
for posting on its website. The posting shall include the following:
(1) the name of the person receiving the ticket or pass, except that if the ticket or pass
is distributed to an organization outside the agency, the agency may post the name,
address, description of the organization, and the number of tickets or passes provided
to the organization in lieu of posting the names of each individual from the
organization;
(2) a description of the event;
(3) the date of the event;
(4) the face value of the ticket or pass;
201
(5) the number of tickets or passes provided to each person;
(6) if the ticket or pass is behested, the name of the official who behested the ticket or
pass; and
(7) a description of the public purpose under which the distribution was made or,
alternatively, that the ticket or pass was distributed as income to the official.
CONCLUSION
Public officials can still accept Ceremonial Role Tickets to events or concerts without
being subject to the $420 restriction on gifts from a single source or the requirement to disclose
the gift on form 700, as long as their public agency prominently posts the information required
by Regulation 18944.1(c) on their agency website. If agency fails to do so then the ticket will be
considered a gift to the public official.
202
Vol. 30 No.9
JONES & MAYER
Attorneys at Law
April 21, 2015
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
Telephone: (714) 446-1400 ** Fax: (714) 446-1448 ** Website: www.Jones-Mayer.com
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM
To: All Sheriffs & Chiefs of Police
From: Martin J. Mayer, Esq.
U.S. SUPREME COURT LIMITS DETAINING PERSON
IN ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP
On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
held, in Rodriguez v. United States, that
"(a)bsent reasonable suspicion, police
extension of a traffic stop in order to
conduct a dog sniff violates the
Constitution's shield against unreasonable
seizures."
The Court found that "(b)eyond determining
whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer's
mission during a traffic stop typically
includes checking the driver's license,
determining whether there are outstanding
warrants against the driver, and inspecting
the automobile's -registration and proof of
insurance. These checks serve the same
objective as enforcement of the traffic code:
ensuring that vehicles on the road are
operated safely and responsibly. Lacking the
same close connection to roadway safety as
the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not
fairly characterized as part of the officer's
traffic mission."
Facts
"Just after midnight on March 27, 2012,
police officer Morgan Struble [a K-9 officer]
observed a Mercury Mountaineer veer
slowly onto the shoulder of Nebraska State
Highway 275 for one or two seconds and
then jerk back onto the road. Nebraska law
prohibits driving on highway shoulders and,
on that basis, Struble pulled the Mountaineer
over." The officer approached the vehicle
and "asked [the driver, Dennys Rodriguez]
why he had driven onto the shoulder.
Rodriguez replied that he had swerved to
avoid a pothole. Struble then gathered
Rodriguez's license, registration, and proof
of insurance...."
1
203
After running a records check, Struble went
back to the car and asked for identification
from the passenger, "Pollman, and called for
a second officer. Struble then began writing
a warning ticket for Rodriguez for driving
on the shoulder of the road." Struble issued
the written warning and by 12:27 or 12:28
a.m. Struble had finished explaining the
warning to Rodriguez, and had given back to
Rodriguez and Pollman the documents
obtained from them. As Struble later
testified, at that point, Rodriguez and
Pollman "had all their documents back and a
copy of the written warning. I got all the
reason[s] for the stop out of the way[,] ...
took care of all the business." Despite that,
he testified that he "did not consider
Rodriguez `free to leave."'
"Struble asked for permission to walk his
dog around Rodriguez's vehicle. Rodriguez
said no. Struble then instructed Rodriguez to
turn off the ignition, exit the vehicle, and
stand in front of the patrol car to wait for the
second officer. Rodriguez complied. At
12:33 a.m., a deputy sheriff arrived. Struble
retrieved his dog and led him twice around
the Mountaineer. The dog alerted to the
presence of -drugs halfway through Struble's
second pass. All told, seven or eight minutes
had elapsed from the time Struble issued the
written warning until the dog indicated the
presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle
revealed a large bag of methamphetamine"
Rodriguez was arrested and indicted in
federal court for possession with intent to
sell. "He moved to suppress the evidence
seized from his car on the ground, among
others, that Struble had prolonged the traffic
stop without reasonable suspicion in order to
conduct the dog sniff."
A Magistrate Judge "found that no
reasonable suspicion supported the detention
once Struble issued the written warning. He
concluded, however, that under Eighth
Circuit precedent, extension of the stop by
`seven to eight minutes' for the dog sniff
was only a de minimis intrusion on
Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment rights and
was therefore permissible. The District
Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's factual
findings and legal conclusions and denied
Rodriguez's motion to suppress."
Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit affirmed and,
in a 6 — 3 decision, the Supreme Court
reversed.
Court Discussion
"In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405
(2005), this Court held that a dog sniff
conducted during a lawful traffic stop does
not violate the Fourth Amendment's
proscription of unreasonable seizures. This
case presents the question whether the
Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff
conducted after completion of a traffic
stop?"
"We hold that a police stop exceeding the
time needed to handle the matter for which
the stop was made violates the
Constitution's shield against unreasonable
seizures. A seizure justified only by a
police -observed traffic violation, therefore,
`become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged
beyond the time reasonably required to
complete th[e] mission" of issuing a ticket
for the violation."'
2
W11
"[W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion,
the officer must allow the seized person to
depart once the purpose of the stop has
concluded. A seizure for a traffic violation
justifies a police investigation of that
violation. `[A] relatively brief encounter,' a
routine traffic stop is `more analogous to a
so-called `Terry stop' ... than to a formal
arrest. "'
"Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of
police inquiries in the traffic -stop context is
determined by the seizure's `mission' - to
address the traffic violation that warranted
the stop, and attend to related safety
concerns. Because addressing the infraction
is the purpose of the stop, it may `last no
longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at]
purpose."'
"Beyond determining whether to issue a
traffic ticket, an officer's mission includes
`ordinary inquiries incident to[the traffic]
stop.' Typically such inquiries involve
checking the driver's license, determining
whether there are outstanding warrants
against the driver, and inspecting the
automobile's registration and proof of
insurance. These checks serve the same
objective as enforcement of the traffic code:
ensuring that vehicles on the road are
operated safely and responsibly." However,
noted the Court, "(a) dog. sniff, by contrast,
is a measure aimed at `detect[ing] evidence
of ordinary criminal wrongdoing."'
Citing to one of its previous decisions,
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106
(1977), the Court stated that "we reasoned
that the government's `legitimate and
weighty' interest in officer safety outweighs
the- `de minimis' additional intrusion of
requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped,
to exit the vehicle." As such, "an officer
may need to take certain negligibly
burdensome precautions in order to
complete his mission safely. [However],
On -scene investigation into other crimes ...
detours from that mission."
"(E)ven assuming that the imposition here
was no more intrusive than the exit order in
Mimms, the dog sniff could not be justified
on the same basis. Highway and officer
safety are interests different in kind from the
Government's endeavor to detect crime in
general or drug trafficking in particular."
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY
The Court did not conclude that, under all
circumstances, the search by a dog would be
improper. The Court noted that "(t)he
critical question, then, is not whether the
dog sniff occurs before or after the officer
issues a ticket, but whether conducting the
sniff `prolongs' - i.e., adds time to — `the
stop.)1)
In addition, the Court states that "the
Magistrate Judge found that detention for
the dog sniff in this case was not
independently supported by individualized
suspicion, and the District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge's findings. The Court of
Appeals, however, did not review that
determination." As such, "(t)he question
whether reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity justified detaining Rodriguez
beyond completion of the traffic infraction
investigation ... remains open for Eighth
Circuit consideration ..." and the Supreme
Court remanded the case for further action.
3
205
In these types of cases, it will be the
responsibility of the officer to justify
delaying the stop until, for example, a K-9
can be deployed to conduct a search.
However, it must be justification based on
facts which can be articulated and not just
mere "hunch" or suspicion.
As with all legal issues, it is important to
seek advice and guidance from your
agency's designated legal counsel.
However, as always, if you wish to discuss
this case in greater detail, please feel free to
contact me at (714) 446 — 1400 or via email
at mjm@Jones-mUer.com.
Information on www.iones-maver.com is for
general use and is not legal advice. The
mailing of this Client Alert Memorandum is
not intended to create, and receipt of it does
not constitute an attorney-client
relationship.
21
WO
Vol. 30 No. 5
JONES & MAYER
Attorneys at Law
March 3, 2015
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
Telephone: (714) 446-1400 ** Fax: (714) 446-1448 ** Website: www.Jones-Mayer.com
To:
From
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM
All Sheriffs & Chiefs of Police
Martin J. Mayer, Esq.
CAL SUPREME COURT RULES "JESSICA'S LAW"
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IN SAN DIEGO
On March 2, 2015, the California Supreme
Court unanimously found that the
application of "Jessica's Law" in San Diego
County violated the constitutional rights of
convicted sex offenders. The Court held
that "the mandatory residency restrictions
[are] unconstitutional as applied to all
registered sex offenders on parole in San
Diego County, and [enjoined] enforcement
of the statute in the county."
However, the Court agreed with the lower
courts that "parole authorities [CDCR]
retain the statutory authority to impose
special parole conditions on sex offender
parolees, including residency restrictions, as
long as they are based on the specific
circumstances of each individual parolee."
Facts
"On November 7, 2006, the voters enacted
Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator
Punishment and Control Act: Jessica's Law.
Proposition 83 was a wide-ranging initiative
intended to help Californians better protect
themselves, their children, and their
communities from problems posed by sex
offenders by strengthening] and
improv[ing] the laws that punish and control
sexual offenders."
"Jessica's Law sought to `prevent sex
offenders from living near where our
children learn and play' by creating
`predator free zones around schools and
parks' [Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec.
(Nov. 7, 2006) argument in- favor] through
the enactment of mandatory residency
restrictions in the form of an amendment to
Penal Code section 3003.5."
"The initiative added new subdivision (b) to
section 3003.5, making it `unlawful for any
person for whom registration is required
pursuant to Section 290 to reside within
2000 feet of any public or private school, or
park where children regularly gather."'
1
207
"The California. Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) began enforcing
the residency restrictions as a mandatory
parole condition for all registered sex
offenders on parole in San Diego County.
Petitioners in this consolidated habeas
corpus proceeding were registered sex
offenders on active parole in San Diego
County against whom section 3003.5(b) was
enforced. Petitioners alleged the residency
restrictions, as applied to them, are
unconstitutional."
Discussion
During the trial in the superior court, the
-court found that the map of San Diego
County, which highlighted those areas
within 2000 feet of areas where children
gathered, "graphically show[s] huge swaths
of urban and suburban San Diego, including
virtually all of the downtown area,
completely consumed by the [residency]
restrictions."
After passage of Jessica's Law, the number
of transient registered sex offenders
increased four to five fold. Evidence was
presented, "from a law enforcement
perspective, [that] homeless sex offender
parolees are more difficult to supervise than
those who have established residences."
The Supreme Court discusses, in detail, all
the problems created when sex offenders do
not have a residence and cannot be located.
It not only interferes with enforcement
activity, it also prevents efforts to provide
rehabilitative services to those persons.
The Supreme Court held that "enforcement
has imposed harsh and severe restrictions
and disabilities on the affected parolees'
liberty and privacy rights, however limited,
while producing conditions that hamper,
rather than foster, efforts to monitor,
supervise, and rehabilitate these persons.
Accordingly, it bears no rational relationship
to advancing the state's legitimate goal of
protecting children from sexual predators,
and has infringed the affected parolees'
basic constitutional right to be free of
official action that is unreasonable, arbitrary,
and oppressive."
The Court concluded that "section
3003.5(b)'s residency restrictions are
unconstitutional as applied across the board
to petitioners and similarly situated
registered sex offenders on parole in San
Diego County."
"Blanket enforcement of the residency
restrictions against these parolees has
severely restricted their ability to find
housing in compliance with the statute,
greatly increased the incidence of
homelessness among them, and hindered
their access to medical treatment, drug and
alcohol dependency services, psychological
counseling and other rehabilitative social
services available to all parolees, while
further hampering the efforts of parole
authorities and law enforcement officials to
monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate them in
the interests of public safety. It thus has
infringed their liberty and privacy interests,
however limited, while bearing no rational
relationship to advancing the state's
legitimate goal of protecting children from
sexual predators ...."
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY
The decision did not find that Jessica's Law
was, on its face, unconstitutional — it held
that, as applied in San Diego, it was
unconstitutional. It is necessary, therefore,
for all cities and counties to review the
restrictions regarding residency of sex
offenders, in their jurisdictions, and
2
We
ascertain if they are "unreasonable,
arbitrary, and oppressive."
An interesting footnote by the Court
addressed the possible conflict created by
the effect of Jessica's Law and the intent of
Megan's Law. The Court noted that "It has
further been suggested that increased
homelessness resulting from the
enforcement of Jessica's Law's residency
restrictions .thwarts the purpose and intent
behind Megan's Law which authorizes
public disclosure of the residential addresses
and notification of the whereabouts of
registered sex offenders in California in the
interests of public safety. It is more difficult
to track paroled sex offenders who are
transient and have no residential addresses,
and to notify the public of their
whereabouts."
As stated above, this decision impacts
directly on San Diego: "We conclude the
evidentiary record below establishes that
blanket enforcement of Jessica's Law's
mandatory residency restrictions against
registered sex offenders on parole in San
Diego County impedes those basic, albeit
limited, constitutional rights. Furthermore,
section 3003.5(b), as applied and enforced in
that county, cannot survive rational basis
scrutiny because it has hampered efforts to
monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate such
parolees in the interests of public safety, and
as such, bears no rational relationship to
advancing the state's legitimate goal of
protecting children from sexual predators."
However, it is, obviously, going to be the
basis for evaluating all jurisdictions and
their limitations on housing for registered
sex offenders. It is better to review and, if
necessary, revise the restrictions in your
jurisdiction than to be forced by costly
litigation to do the same thing.
As with all legal issues, it is imperative to
seek out and secure advice and guidance
from your agency's designated legal
advisor. However, and as always, if you
wish to discuss this case in greater detail,
please feel free to contact me at (714) 446 —
1400 or via email at mjm@jones-
mayer.com.
3
Me
Appendix D
Public Client List
210
Jones & Mayer
Public Client List
As City Attorney
Bishop - 2014
Blythe — 2010
California City — 2013
Clearlake - 2014
Colusa - 2015
Costa Mesa — 2004
Fullerton —1995
Grand Terrace - 2011
La Habra —1985
Maywood — 2011
Nevada City - 2015
Upland — 2012
West Covina — 2014
Westminster — 1989
Whittier - 1989
As City Prosecutor/Code Enforcement
Brea
Buena Park
California City
Clearlake
Costa Mesa
Fullerton
Grand Terrace
Indio
La Habra
Lakewood
Maywood
Newport Beach
Rancho Cucamonga
Rolling Hills Estates
Santa Fe Springs
South Pasadena
Upland
West Covina
Westminster
Whittier
As General Counsel
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Gateway Cities Council of Governments
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
As Police Legal Advisor
Alpine County Sheriff
Antioch
Bakersfield
Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority
As Police Legal Advisor (Cont'd)
Bishop
Blythe
Brawley
Brisbane
Buena Park
Burlingame
California Highway Patrol
Cal State University - Northridge
Cal State University — Sacramento
Cal State University — San Bernardino
Cal State University — San Marcos
Chino
Contra Costa Chiefs and Sheriff
Crescent City
Delano
East Bay Regional Park District
East Palo Alto
El Camino Community College District
El Monte
El Segundo
Exeter
Fairfield
Folsom
Fontana
Fontana Unified School District
Fremont
Grass Valley
Hawthorne
Humboldt County
Huntington Beach
Ione
Irvine
Laguna Beach
Lassen County Sheriff
Marina
Montebello
Morgan Hill
Orange Police Department
Pittsburgh Police Department
Redding
Regents of the University of California
Riverside Community College District
Riverside County Probation
San Diego
San Joaquin Delta College
San Luis Obispo, City of
San Ramon
Sanger
Santa Ana Unified School District
Santa Barbara
Seaside
Siskiyou County Sheriff
211
Jones & Mayer
Public Client List
As Police Legal Advisor (Cont'd)
South Gate
Stanislaus Sheriff
Sunnyvale
Susanville
Truckee
Upland
USC Department of Public Safety
Vallejo
Ventura County Sheriff
Yolo County Sheriff
Yreka
As Special Counsel
Anaheim
Beaumont
Brentwood
Calaveras County Counsel /Sheriff
Contra Costa Office of the District Attorney
California State Coroner's Association
Chaffey Community College District
Chino
Corona
Culver City
Daly City
El Dorado County Sheriff
Fresno
Gilroy
Glendale
Glenn County Sheriff
I-5 JPA
Irvine
Lake County Sheriff
Lakewood
Madera County
Mendocino County
Merced County
Mono County Sheriff
Montclair
Monterey County Sheriff
Morro Bay
Nevada County
Palomar Community College district
Paradise
Regents of the University of CA
Regional Human Rights Fair Housing Division
Riverside Sheriffs Office
San Bruno
San Diego Unified Port District
San Francisco B.A.R.T.
San Luis Obispo Sheriff s Office
San Mateo
Santa Fe Springs
As Special Counsel (Cont'd)
Santa Ana
Santa Ana Unified
SASSFA
Seal Beach
Simi Valley
Siskiyou County
Southern California Library Cooperative
South Pasadena
Stockton
Tulare
Vernon
Receivership Litigation
Alameda
Anaheim
Buena Park
Crescent City
Delano
Eureka
Hawthorne
Los Altos
Los Banos
Oxnard
Paradise
Pasadena
Point Arena
Ridgecrest
Santa Maria
South Lake Tahoe
Truckee
Upland
Vacaville
Vallejo
Willows
Attorney Conflicts Panel
Los Angeles
Past Public Clients (Last 5 years)
Baldwin Park (2013)
Beaumont (2013)
Chowchilla (2012)
Foster City (2012)
Hayward (2013)
Kings County Sheriff (2013)
San Anselmo (2011)
Shafter PD (2011)
Stanton (2013)
Susanville (2013)
Tustin (2012)
212
Appendix E
Proposed Contrac t-ual
Agreement
213
PROPOSED RETAINER AGREEMENT
FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
This Retainer Agreement for City Attorney Services ("Agreement") is made and entered into by
and between the LAW OFFICES OF JONES & MAYER ("Jones & Mayer) and the CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES (the "City"), a municipal corporation of the State of California.
RECITALS
A. Jones & Mayer is a firm in the general practice of law with extensive municipal
experience, and is fully able to carry out the duties described in this Agreement.
B. The City desires to contract with Jones & Mayer to provide contract legal services
to the City.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement, Jones & Mayer and the City agree as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY
A. Christian L. Bettenhausen is hereby designated and appointed as City Attorney
("City Attorney") of the City and shall serve and be compensated as provided by this Agreement.
The City Attorney shall process, coordinate, and direct, as necessary, all legal services provided
under this Agreement in order to maximize the timeliness and usefulness of the delivery of such
services. The City Attorney shall attend all City Council meetings and other meetings, as
required, and be available at all reasonable times to the Mayor and City Council, the City
Manager, and persons designated by the City Manager, in relationship to all legal services to be
furnished by Jones & Mayer under this Agreement. The City Attorney shall also direct and
coordinate all internal activities so that all services provided by Jones & Mayer under this
Agreement to the City shall be fully competent, professional, consistent, timely, and in
accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry. It is expressly understood that the
experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of the designated and appointed City Attorney
are a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. The City Attorney shall
be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Jones & Mayer on
behalf .of the City and devoting such time as necessary to personally supervise such services.
The primary assignment of the City Attorney shall not be changed by Jones & Mayer without the
express approval of the City.
B. Yolanda M. Summerhill, also of Jones & Mayer, is designated and appointed as
Assistant City Attorney and shall serve in Christian L. Bettenhausen's absence.
C. All attorneys of Jones & Mayer assigned to perform approved City business shall,
at all times while this Agreement is in effect and at their sole cost and expense, be fully qualified
1
214
and licensed to practice law in the State of California and before all appropriate federal courts
and other bodies and tribunals. All attorneys assigned to represent the City must notify the City
of any complaints or proposed discipline by the State Bar of California within thirty (30) days of
receipt of complaint or proposed discipline.
D. The term of this Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2015 and shall
continue until terminated in writing by either party, as set forth in Section 11.A of this
Agreement.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Jones & Mayer agrees to perform all necessary legal services as City
Attorney, and shall:
1. Attend all regularly scheduled and special City Council meetings and City
Council study sessions.
2. Provide legal services on-site during office hours at City Hall as needed.
These hours of on-site service will be at regularly scheduled times made known to all members
of the City Council and to all department heads so as to facilitate informal, direct access to legal
counsel as necessary.
3. Attend other meetings at City Hall as required by the City Council or the
City Manager.
4. Advise the City Council; appointed Commissions, Committees, and
Boards; City staff-, and other City officials on all legal matters pertaining to City business.
5. Prepare, review, and approve as to form, contracts, agreements,
resolutions, ordinances, and all other standard City documents.
6. Prepare such written and oral legal opinions as shall, from time to time, be
requested by the City.
7. Perform such other routine legal services as are required, from time to
time, by the City Council or the City Manager.
8. Provide in-house training to City staff on issues pertaining to civil
liability, personnel and- labor, ethics (AB 1234), and other issues as, from time to time, are
identified by and requested by the City Council or the City Manager.
9. Represent the City and the City's officials, officers, and employees in
litigation and administrative proceedings as directed by the City Council or the City Manager.
2
215
10. At the request of the City, Jones and Mayer may be asked to provide an
estimate of hours and cost to complete a project or task assigned by the City Manager, or
designee, or the City Council.
11. Prosecution of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code violations shall be
provided by Jones & Mayer under this Agreement. The City Prosecutor Gregory P. Palmer or
Assistant City Prosecutor, Elena Q. Gerli or his designee, shall represent the City in all matters
related to the prosecution of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code violations. Palmer and his
designees shall provide those legal services reasonably required to represent City and shall take
reasonable steps to keep City informed of progress and to respond to City's inquiries. City
understands that Palmer and his designees will be exercising their independent prosecutorial
judgment in connection with all code enforcement matters in consultation with City's staff.
B. The City specifically reserves the right to retain, at its sole option, other legal
counsel for litigation and other specialized legal matters including, but not limited to, the
activities of the Successor Agency to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, cable
television, solid and hazardous waste, tort litigation, water related matters, and workers'
compensation. The City Attorney will supervise outside legal counsel. This reservation of rights
does not preclude the City or the Successor Agency from assigning these matters to Jones &
Mayer as part of the scope of -duties under this Section 2 or requesting recommendations
concerning the selection of outside legal counsel.
3. COMPENSATION
Jones and Mayer shall be compensated under the terms of this Agreement as follows:
A. Basic Legal Services
The City shall pay Jones & Mayer $13,875.00 monthly for the first seventy-five (75)
hours of basic legal services included in the retainer amount as outlined hereinabove and in Jones
& Mayer's Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City shall pay to Jones & Mayer, for
non -litigation legal services not included in the retainer amount, the rate of $195 per hour.
Paralegal services, for non -litigation legal services not included in the retainer only shall be paid
at the rate of $100 per hour. All costs and expenses, except for those as set forth in Section 3.E
below shall be deemed included in the foregoing hourly billing rates. No travel time shall be
billed for visits to City Hall in connection with basic legal services.
Six months after the effective date of this Agreement, if the parties determine that an
excessive number of hours are being billed for basic legal services, the parties agree to meet and
confer to discuss an alternative retainer structure and methods for controlling legal costs.
B. Successor Agency Services
Successor Agency services are those services which pertain to the dissolution of
redevelopment. This includes, but is not limited to, providing analysis, research, and support
concerning dissolution of the City's redevelopment agency by providing legal advice to staff,
3
216
review of all documents generated, and interactions with the California Department of Finance.
This also includes attendance at Successor Agency and Oversight Board meetings and any meet
and confer conferences that may be necessary. Such services are included in the monthly
retainer under "Basic Legal Services" and billed as outlined above.
C. Special Services
Special legal services matters approved by the City Manager and/or City Council are not
in the monthly retainer amount. Special legal services are of an irregular, and typically non-
recurring, nature, including City, Successor Agency or City utility work of unusual complexity
or requiring an extraordinary dedication of attorney time, such as Environmental Impact Reports
or other complex environmental work, initiatives; interagency conflicts/issues, negotiation and
drafting of complex Owner Participation Agreements or Disposition and Development
Agreements, as determined by consultation between the City Attorney and the City
Manager/Executive Director or City Council. The City Attorney may not unilaterally designate
any matter as a special project. City shall pay to Jones & Mayer for special legal services $195
per hour. Paralegal services shall be paid at the rate of $100 per hour. All costs and expenses,
except for those as set forth in Section 3.F below shall be deemed included in the foregoing
hourly billing rates.
D. Litigation
Litigation matters approved by the City Manager and/or City Council are not in the
monthly retainer amount. Litigation legal services shall be billed at the rate of $225 per hour.
Paralegal services shall be billed at the rate of $100 hour. All costs and expenses, except for
those as set forth in Section 3.F below shall be deemed included in the foregoing hourly billing
rates.
E. Code Enforcement
Jones & Mayer agrees to perform all necessary legal services as City Prosecutor. Fees
for Code Enforcement services are not in the monthly retainer amount. City shall pay Jones &
Mayer for code enforcement/prosecution services at the rate of $225.00 per hour. Paralegal
services shall be paid at the rate of $100 per hour. All costs and expenses, except for those as set
form in Section 3.G below shall be deemed included in the foregoing hourly billing rates.
F. Expenses
Jones & Mayer shall be reimbursed for direct out-of-pocket expenses actually and
necessarily incurred in the course of providing legal services under this Agreement relating to
Basic Legal Services and in preparation for and maintaining the prosecution or defense of
litigation, including without limitation: travel, mileage, parking, overnight/express delivery
services, court costs, jury fees, attorney service costs, witness fees, deposition costs, Lexis -Nexis
research service fees, reporters' fees, title reports, photographs, diagrams, maps, copy costs for
large projects (over 100 pages), and similar expenses. No travel time shall be billed for visits to
City Hall in connection with basic legal services.
4
217
Generally, no more than one attorney's time should be billed for depositions, hearings,
motions, case meetings (including intra -firm meetings), etc., unless approved by City Council. It
is expected that counsel will appropriately apportion court time (including travel costs) to each
case in which counsel is appearing in court if one or more matter is handled. Legal research for a
particular issue that is over five hours requires pre -approval. When billing for legal research, the
entry must reflect a description of the topic researched and its relevance to the effort. A copy of
the research memo shall be sent to the City.
F. Billing and Rate Increases
Jones & Mayer shall provide a monthly billing report indicating actual time spent under
the retainer, litigation matters, and additional specialized projects. The foregoing retainer and
hourly rates shall remain in full force and effect for two (2) years. Thereafter, the foregoing
billing rates shall be adjusted annually (effective as of the anniversary date of this Agreement
commencing in 2016) to reflect any increase in the cost of living based on the Consumer Price
Index increase for the prior year utilizing the standard as established by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor for all urban consumers in the Los Angeles, Riverside
and Orange County areas, or another mutually agreed upon index based on comparable data,
should the Consumer Price Index established by the Bureau of Labor Statistics be unavailable,
not to exceed 5% per year.
G. Monthly Statements
Jones & Mayer shall submit statements of all payments due under this Agreement on a
monthly basis to the City Manager. All work performed by Jones & Mayer shall be billed in
increments of tenths of an hour. The statement shall be in a form approved by the City, and shall
set forth a description of all work performed, the hours worked, the identity of each person
performing the work, the rate charged, and any costs or expenses eligible for reimbursement.
H. Payment
All hours shall be billed by the 15th day of each month following the close of the month
for which hours are being provided. Payment for hours shall be due and payable within thirty
(30) days of billing, after review and approval by the City Manager.
4. PROHIBITION AGAINST SUBCONTRACTING DELEGATING OR ASSIGNMENT
Jones & Mayer shall not contract with or delegate to any individual or other entity to
perform on the City's behalf, in whole or in part, any of the services required under this
Agreement without the prior express approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement
nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law,
without the prior express approval of the City.
5
218
5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Jones & Mayer shall at all times avoid conflicts of interest in the performance of this
Agreement. In the event that a conflict arises, Jones & Mayer shall immediately notify City.
Within thirty (30) days following execution of this Agreement, Jones & Mayer shall file a
conflict of interest disclosure statement setting forth any information related to potential conflicts
of interest to the extent such disclosure is required by law, including City's adopted conflict of
interest code.
6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Jones & Mayer shall perform all services required under this Agreement as an
independent contractor of the City, and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Jones & Mayer shall not at
any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its employees or agents are City employees.
7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If any dispute or disagreement arises between the City and Jones & Mayer as to any
matter relating to this Agreement, including but not limited to the scope of services, the
performance of the respective responsibilities of the City and Jones & Mayer, the quality of the
services rendered, and the billing of such services, the City and Jones & Mayer agree to confer
and attempt to resolve the matter informally. If the parties cannot agree, they agree that they will
refer the dispute for resolution to mediation to the fullest extent permitted by law. The parties
are aware that mediation is a voluntary process and pledge to cooperate fully and fairly with the
mediator in an attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise of any dispute or
disagreement. The mediator shall be chosen by mutual agreement of the parties, and mediation
shall commence within thirty (30) days of either party's written request to the other for
mediation. Any agreement reached by the mediation shall be reduced to writing, be signed by the
parties, and be binding on them. This provision for mediation is an effort to protect, preserve,
and respect the requisites of a productive attorney-client relationship, but shall be without
prejudice to either party pursuing its other lawful remedies.
8. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. Insurance
1. Jones & Mayer shall procure and maintain, at its cost:
a. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits not less than $1
million per occurrence. Such insurance shall designate City, its elected and
appointed officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds.
Such insurance shall be primary and not contribute with any insurance or
self-insurance maintained by City.
219
b. Business automobile liability insurance with limits not less than $1 million
per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, non -
owned, and hired automobiles.
c. Professional liability insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 per
[1ZrZK11HOOKO
d. Workers' compensation insurance as required by California law and
Employer's Liability insurance with limits not less than $1 million per
accident for bodily injury or disease. The workers' compensation
insurance shall contain an endorsement stating the insurer waives any right
of subrogation against City, its elected and appointed officials, employees
and volunteers.
2. All such policies shall provide City 30 days' notice of cancellation. Self-
insured retentions must be declared and approved by City.
3. Prior to commencement of work, and throughout the term of this Agreement,
Jones & Mayer shall furnish City with certificates evidencing compliance with
the insurance requirements above. Jones & Mayer agrees to provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies if requested by the
City.
4. Insurance shall be placed with insurers that maintain an A.M. Best rating of
A-, VII or better, or otherwise meet the written approval of the City.
5. The Contractor shall ensure that subcontractors maintain insurance that
complies with the requirements stated herein.
B. Indemnification
Jones & Mayer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers and
employees, from and against any and all actions,. suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses,
costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to person(s) or damages
to property (including property owned by the City), and for errors and omissions committed by
Jones & Mayer, its officers, employees, and agents, arising out of or relating to Jones & Mayer's
performance under this Agreement, except where such injury, damage, error(s) or -omission(s)
may be caused by City's sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct or that of the
City's officers or employees.
9. RECORDS AND REPORTS
A. Records
220
Jones & Mayer shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the
services required by this Agreement and to enable the City to evaluate the performance of the
required services. The City shall have full and free access to such books and records that deal
specifically with the services performed by Jones & Mayer for City at all reasonable times,
including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make summaries and transcripts from such
records.
B. Ownership of Documents
All reports, records, documents, and other materials prepared by Jones & Mayer, its
employees and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of the City and
shall be delivered to the City upon request by the City or upon termination of this Agreement.
Jones & Mayer shall have no claim for further or additional compensation as a result of the
exercise by the City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and material hereunder.
Jones & Mayer may retain copies of such documents for its own use.
At the conclusion of any particular case/matter, Jones & Mayer will retain all legal files
for a minimum period of 10 years after the matter is closed. At the expiration of the 10 -year
period, Jones & Mayer will destroy these files unless notified by the City in writing that it wishes
to take possession of them. Jones & Mayer reserves the right to charge administrative fees and
costs associated with researching, retrieving, copying and delivering such files.
C. Release of Documents
No report, record, document, or other material prepared by Jones & Mayer in the
performance of services under this Agreement shall be released publicly without prior written
approval of the City, except as may be required by law.
10. NONDISCRIMINATION
Jones & Mayer pledges there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any
person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status,
disability, sexual or gender orientation, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of
services under this Agreement.
11. TERMINATION
A. Termination by City
Jones & Mayer shall at all times serve under the terms of this Agreement at the pleasure
of the City Council, and the City Council hereby reserves the right to terminate this Agreement
at will, with or without cause, by providing written notice to Jones & Mayer. Upon receipt of
any notice of termination, Jones & Mayer shall cease all services under this Agreement except as
may be specifically approved by the City. At that time, all further obligations of the City to pay
Jones & Mayer for services rendered under this Agreement shall thereupon cease, except as set
forth in Section I LC below; provided, however, that the City shall be obliged to pay for all
8
221
services, costs, and expenditures lawfully incurred by Jones & Mayer prior to the effective date
of such termination, or subsequent to the date of termination at the direction of City.
B. Termination by Jones & Mayer
Jones & Mayer reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days'
advance written notice to City.
C. Mutual Obligations upon Termination by Either Party
In the event of termination of this Agreement by either party, Jones & Mayer shall
cooperate with the City in transferring the files and assignments to the City Clerk or other person
designated by City pending the hiring of another City Attorney. Jones & Mayer shall be
compensated at the hourly rates set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement should Jones & Mayer
be called upon to perform any services after the effective date of termination, including the
transfer of files and assignments.
12. NOTICES
Notices regarding this Agreement shall be given in writing -to the parties at the following
addresses:
City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Jones & Mayer
3777 North Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92835
13. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains all of the agreements of Jones & Mayer and the City. This
Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in
writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of the parties have executed this
Agreement in duplicate the day of , 2015.
9
222
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERFDES
Municipal Corporation of the State of California
Jim Knight, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carla Morreale, City Clerk LAW OFFICES OF JONES & MAYER
Richard D. Jones, Owner/President
10
223