20110607 Late Correspondencef
t
I;
l�r1a rY mount Colttal-re
PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Thomas D. Long
Mayor
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Mr. Long,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 40275
Phone: 310-377-5501
WWW.marymountpv.edu
May 13, 2011
MAY 17 2011 l
The College received the final accounting of Measure P election expenses on March 29,
2011. On April 19 the City Manager confirmed for the College that all expenses were
exclusively related to Measure P. The College will pay these expenses. We request
twenty minutes to make a payment presentation to the Council at a council meeting in
June.
Given comments made by Council members and the City Attorney in Council meetings, in
the press, and via email (attached) over the last year, the College requests that the City
submit a contract or a donor pledge agreement to Marymount. The City Attorney has
offered contradictory comments on the requirements of this payment and her newspaper
comments in December troubled the College. There can be no question about whether
this was a contractual obligation or a donation. There also can be no question that
Marymount ever wavered from its commitment: Payment will be made after one of these
documents is signed by the City and the College.
The contract or pledge agreement needs to include the following information:
In the case of a contract, how the determination was made that this was a
contractual agreement.
The date the Council accepted the donation or confirmed the contractual
agreement and the City Council meeting minutes that document this action.
A statement by the City Council that the College never withdrew its
commitment to pay Measure P election expenses.
A review by the City Attorney of Councilman Stern's actions (documents
attached) in early December and his comments in the press regarding the
College's commitment to pay Measure P election expenses.
A statement from the City that no city resources were used in the Measure P
political campaign, especially as it relates to Councilman Stern's actions
(documents attached) in March 2010. This should include an explanation
regarding the hasty posting and removal of false Measure P information to the
City website. , a rop/Y
RECEIVED FROM ----
AND MADE A PART O THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF �Ctf7— 9a171t .-
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
A statement from the City Council that no members of the Council violated
campaign laws as they related to Measure P.
A statement from the City Council that Councilmen did not coordinate
independent anti-Marymount campaigns with the No on P Campaign
consultant, former LA City Councilmen Rudy Savornich or Savornich
companies.
A statement from the City Council that the Brown Act was not violated in any
matter involving Marymount College.
A statement from the City Council that no members of the Council were
responsible for the late night November 1, 2010 robocall from an individual
claiming to be former Congressman Steve Kuykendall.
Revised City Council meeting minutes from March 30, 2010 to include the
admission from Councilmen Campbell and Misetich that they trespassed on
Marymount College property on March 28, 2010 without permission from the
City or the College.
Revised City Council meeting minutes from September 25, 2010 to include
the complete statement that was read into the record by Councilman Misetich.
This would include the comparison of Marymount to the "totalitarian regimes
of the 1930's".
All emails from City Council members to and from City Staff and Attorney
regarding Measure P and/or Marymount College. This would include emails
from Councilman Campbell's ascent@verizon.net account (see attached
examples).
There have been those in the community who have called for reconciliation between the
City and the College. Based on recent enrollment and fundraising results, there is no
need for reconciliation between RPV citizens and Marymount: we have their confidence.
Enrollment has grown by 40% in the last year, fundraising has doubled, and citizen
participation in our campus programming remains very strong, including the PVP
Chamber of Commerce programs that Marymount sponsors. More than 45% (8,000+) of
the city's voters wanted the College to be able to develop our campus in a way that meets
the needs of the students. We had the courage and passion to take our case to the
public after completing all required applications with the City. We will be back again,
inevitably, to make similar requests of RPV. The RPV City Council has the opportunity to
clearly state that its actions over the last year toward Marymount met the requirements of
the collegial and ethical standards it sets for itself.
The recent revelation (attached) that the members of CCCME violated campaign laws
may be only the first of its kind. The limitless vitriol that CCCME members directed at the
College for over a decade finally rose up and floated above RPV in the No on P
Campaign, which culminated in CCCME going to the extreme with its message and
tactics. The councilmen gave donations to the same campaign as CCCME and CCCME
members were active in your campaigns for council, so this revelation causes great
concern for many in our community.
Do 8,000 citizens believe that City Council members broke the law when reviewing our
project application or in the Measure P campaign? Doubtful. Is there a legacy that the
Council created as a result of their No on P campaign? We don't know, but I urge you to
take this opportunity and clear the air for thousands of RPV citizens and members of our
College community. It will be part of your legacy as Mayor if you can demonstrate that
the Council acted in ways which rise to the level of the office. To make this payment
without asking for this information would send the wrong message to all concerned,
especially our students. The College will not be bullied or intimidated as our courageous
Measure P campaign demonstrated.
On a related note, we would encourage you to review the attached police reports
involving a RPV Councilman. In these reports the Councilman said:
- He filed a January 17 complaint with the LA County Sheriff's office resulting
from a two phone calls he made to a citizen on January 14, sharing he was
fearful of what would happen to him and his family as a result.
- He called the Sheriff on January 25 to ask if the citizen was a threat to him.
He reported that he was not sure if it was safe to go outside his house to put
out the trash.
- He left two voice mails for the Sheriff on January 25. In one of these he
offered to take a lie detector test to show he was not lying.
- On February 4 the Councilman forwarded emails to assist the Sheriff and the
DA in determining that the citizen was potentially a real threat. He offered his
assistance in helping the Sheriff to keep the matter moving forward.
On February 15 the Sheriff rejected the case citing that the councilman:
Repeatedly called the citizen.
Did not make an immediate report.
Asked the detective if the suspect was serious about the threat.
On March 2 the Councilman called the Sheriff to report that on January 14 he had called:
The citizen between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.
The RPV City Attorney and the Captain of the LA County Sherriff's Office in
Lomita immediately following the call he had made to the citizen.
The College was drawn into this intriguing set of events because the Councilman called
Marymount at 11:49 a.m. on January 14 with this message that has since been archived:
Hi Michael. It's Brian Campbell over here in RPV. I wanted to let you it was brought to my
attention, as part of kicking around this charter city issue on the March 8th ballot... It was
brought to my attention that you and some other folks at Marymount were concerned that the
purpose of this charter city movement was directed at Marymount somehow. And I asked,
How so? And the response was that under a charter city it would be easier to change, for
example, the requirements to bring a local ballot initiative and put it in the ballot. And I wanted
to let you know two things. Number one, its never come up in any discussion I've ever been
part of. Either on council, in closed session, or with any other council members. That's
number one. Number two, I would be pleased to immediately sponsor.... if it goes through...
I'm not sure its going to be approved or not and I do not think going charter city or not is a life
and death situation. I think we're operating just fine as a general law city I think we can
operate more efficiently as a charter city but be that as it may whatever happens on March 8th
is fine with me. But, in case it does go through, if you thought it would be helpful, I'd be
pleased to immediately amend the charter either through an ordinance or otherwise that
would lock in the same ballot initiative procedures that currently exist under a general law city
and make sure we adhere to that as a charter city. I just wanted to put that thought in the back
of your head. No need to call me back unless you want to discuss any of it. And that's it,
thanks.
While it is difficult to understand what exactly was going on with the Councilman on
January 14, it may be helpful for the City to appoint an ombudsperson for citizens,
community groups, or City staff to consult with should they encounter puzzling
interactions with elected officials.
Again, we plan to present payment for these expenses at a June City Council meeting in
a 20 minute presentation. We can make final plans for this when the contract or donor
pledge agreement is signed.
Regards,
Mic pmy, Ph.D.
President
Marymount College
cc: Mr. Anthony Misetich, Mayor Pro Tem
Mr. Douglas Stern, Councilmember
Mr. Brian Campbell, Councilmember
Mr. Stefan Wolowicz, Councilmember
Ms. Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
429 1 Street . Suite 620 • Sacramento, CA 95914-2329
(916) 322-5660 • Fax (916) 322-0886
February 22, 2011
Lois harp, President
Concerned Citizens Coalition Marymount Expansion
REDACTED
Warning Letter Re: FPPC No. 10/1049 Concerned Citizens Coalition Ma mount
Expansion
Dear Ms. Karp:
The Fair Political Practices Commission (the "FPPC") enforces the provisions of the
Political Reform Act (the "Act"),' found in Government Code section $1000, et seq. This letter
is in response to a proactive investigation begun by the FPPC against Concerned Citizens
Coalition Marymount Expansion and its apparent failure to timely organize as a recipient
committee and file the required campaign statement.
The FPPC has completed its investigation of the facts in this case. Specifically, the FPPC
found that Concerned Citizens Coalition Marymount Expansion did not timely organize as a
recipient committee and file the required campaign statement. The Act provides that a
committee's failing to organize as a recipient committee and file the campaign reports required
of a recipient committee is a violation. (GC §§ 82013, subs. (a) and 84200 et seq.) Specifically,
Regulation 18215 (b)(1), commonly referred to as the "first -bite of the apple" rule, was
established for organizations that exist primarily for purposes other than making contributions or
expenditures (multi -purposes organizations), where the organization's members or donors have
no reason to suspect their payments will be used for political purposes because the organization
has not made contributions or expenditures in the past. Under this rule, the first time an
organization uses dues or other receipts to make contributions or expenditures, the organization's
members or donors are presumed to have gained knowledge that the funds they have donated
,17m Political Reform Act is contained. in Government Code sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory
are rc to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated_ The regulations of the Fair Political Practices
Commission are contained in sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All
regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
t�
Ah
Warning Letter Re: PC No. 10/1049, Concerned Citizens Aition Marymount Expansion
Page--Z.of 2
may in the future, be used for political purposes. This is the "first bite." Accordingly, once
Concerned Citizens Coalition Marymount Expansion made its first independent expenditure
totaling $1,000 or more, the presumption that donors to the organization did not have reason to
know that their payments would be used to make contributions or expenditures no longer
applied.
The actions of Concerned Citizens Coalition Marymount Expansion violated the Act
because the contribution of 52,200 made to Save Our City III on October 25, 2010, followed the
"first bite" independent expenditure made on October 19, 20I0, and required Concerned Citizens
Coalition Marymount Expansion to form as a recipient committee and file the campaign
statements required by recipient committees. Because, however, Concerned Citizens Coalition
Marymount Expansion did not appear to be avoiding disclosure, you filed the forms to disclose a
late independent expenditure and subsequently a late contribution, and you have since filed the
required statements to form and terminate a recipient committee, we have decided to close this
case.
This letter serves as a written warning. The information in this matter will be retained
and may be considered should an enforcement action become necessary based on newly
discovered information or future conduct. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act in the
future will result in monetary penalties of up to 55,000 for each violation.
A warning letter is an FPPC case resolution without administrative prosecution or fine.
However, the warning letter resolution does not provide you with the opportunity for a probable
cause hearing or hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or the Fair Political Practices
Commission. If you wish to avail yourself of these proceedings by requesting that your case
proceed with prosecution rather than a warning, please notify us within ten (10) days from the
date of this tetter. Upon this notification, the FPPC will rescind this warning letter and proceed
with administrative prosecution of this case. If we do not receive such notification, this warning
letter will be posted on the FPPC's website ten (10) days from the date of this letter.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Adrianne Korchmaros at (916)
322-8241.
Sincerely,
REDACTED
Gary S. Winuk, Chief
Enforcement Division
GSW:AK:ak
KELLY LYTTON & WILLIAMS LLP
LAWYERS
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST
BRUCE P. VANN
SUITE 1450
(1955-2004)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
TELEPHONE (310) 277-5333
TIMOTHY P. FURLONG
FACSIMILE (310) 277-SQS3
(1946-1988)
www.klwpartners.com
March 16, 2010
VIA EMAIL. FACSIMILIE & U.S. MAIL
Ms. Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
RE: Marymount College Prouosed Initiative
Dear Ms. Lehr:
We are attorneys for Marymount College. We have reviewed a two-page
memorandum prepared by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department Staff
("City Staff") allegedly comparing the Marymount College expansion project approved
by the Planning Commission with the project described in the proposed initiative
submitted to the City on March 2, 2010. This memorandum appears to us to be a poorly
disguised effort on the part of City staff to discredit the initiative. Although the
document contains a number of misstatements and inaccuracies, the most glaring of these
are as follows:
• The claim that the College is "[d]eleting the condition prohibiting the permanent
use of temporary modular buildings."
This is simply inaccurate. Campus Requirement No. 49 plainly states that temporary
modular buildings are allowed only "until the completion of the applicable permanent
buildings or improvements."
• The claim that the College is "[d]eleting the condition requiring the College
construct and maintain no fewer than 463 on-site parking spaces with minimum
dimensions."
This is also wrong. Campus Requirement No. 125 makes direct reference to the "463
required parking spaces." This is also included as part of a required improvement in the
Specific Plan. See page 10 of the initiative: "A total of 463 off-street parking spaces are
required prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any new building
including 391 standard parking spaces and a maximum of 72 compact parking spaces."
Ms. Carolyn Lehr
March 16, 2010
page 2
This is essentially the same language found in CUP Condition No. 158. As such, there
can be no dispute that expanded parking is required before any new building is occupied.
• The claim that the College is "[r]eplacing the conditions regulating landscaping,
including tree heights, with a requirement that the landscaping shall be planted
and maintained in accordance with the City's landscape requirements."
This is misleading and not fully accurate. Former CUP Condition No. 164, which
required a landscape plan in accordance with the RPVMC, was merely abbreviated in
Campus Requirement No. 153. Although the 16 -foot new tree height requirement was
eliminated, Code compliance is intended to adequately protect any impaired views. The
remaining Campus Requirements (Nos. 154-159) are virtually identical to former
landscaping CUP Conditions Nos. 165-171, including a 16 -foot high tree/foliage
limitation across San Ramon, which is the most critical location due to proximity of the
residences. The few residences across the street are at a much higher elevation.
• The claim that the College is "[r]eplacing the condition that allows a 200 cubic
yard deviation from the permitted grading to a ten (10) percent deviation...".
This is disingenuous. Campus Requirement No. 54, which allows a ten percent
deviation, is qualified by requiring that the deviation "achieve substantially the same
results as with strict compliance with the grading plan." Moreover, the campus owner
must provide and the City must approve an amendment to the grading plan for any
additional grading allowed as a result of the allowable ten percent modification.
In addition to the foregoing mistaken claims of "deletions" or "replacements," City
staff appears determined to make its laundry list of "differences" between the CUP
Conditions and the initiative as extensive as possible by mentioning certain "additions" in
the initiative as if they represented negatives for the people of Rancho Palos Verdes. To
the contrary, off-site traffic mitigations (Campus Requirements Nos. 143 and 144),
biological resources protections (Campus Requirements Nos. 169, 170, 171),
implementing "Quiet Hours" (Campus Requirement No. 117), restrictions on nighttime
driving (id.) and limitations on the number of parking spaces for dorm residents (Campus
Requirement No. 146) are positive measures for the community.
Finally, we are concerned not only that Councilman Stern is circulating these
inaccuracies to his email list as if they were fact, but that he has added certain editorial
comments that do not appear in either the CUP Conditions or the initiative. For example,
to the item in the City staff' memorandum described as "[c]onstructing the athletic field
and tennis courts at the western portion of the campus similar to the plan approved by the
Planning Commission," Councilman Stern has added: "This places the athletic field in
the location closest to P.V. Drive East of all the proposed locations." This latter statement
underscores what appears to be a rush to judgment on Councilman Stern's part without
having all of the facts correct or clearly understanding the initiative.
Ms. Carolyn Lehr
March 16, 2010
page 3
We request that City staff immediately remove the inaccurate memorandum from its
web site, correct the misstatements in the document, and direct Councilman Stern to
circulate the revised and corrected memorandum to his email list.
ESincerely,
Y'
Donna R. Black
cc: City Councilmembers
Joel Rojas, AICP, Community Development Director
Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Principal Planner
Carol Lynch, City Attorney
Doug ois \\\//. Stern
II 2731 Cora IRdge Roc+d
Roncho polos Verdes, Coli f ornici 90275
(310) 519-0553
March 16, 2010
Donna R. Black, Esq.
Kelly Lytton & Williams LLP
1801 Century Park East
Suite 1450
Los Angeles, California 90067
Re: Marymount College Proposed Initiative
Dear Ms. Black,
Thank you for providing me a copy of your March 16, 2010 letter addressed to
Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager Carolyn Lehr. In it you addressed concerns you have
regarding a memorandum prepared by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning
Department Staff. In the final paragraph of your letter, at page 2 you make the following
statement:
"... we are concerned ... that Councilman Stern ... has added certain
editorial comments that do not appear in either the CUP Conditions or
the initiative. For example, to the item in the City staff memorandum
described as `[c]onstructing the athletic field and tennis courts at the
western portion of the campus similar to the plan approved by the Planning
Commission,' Councilman Stern has added: `This places the athletic field
in the location closest to P.V. Drive East of all the proposed locations.'
This latter statement underscores what appears to be a rush to judgment on
Councilman Stern's part without having all the facts correct or clearly
understanding the initiative." (Emphasis added.)
In order that I may evaluate whether or not it is appropriate to make a correction, I
request that you provide me a written statement no later than Thursday evening, March
18, 2010, stating whether you find my statement with respect to the location of the
athletic fields to be in error. If so, please state precisely what you find it to be in error. I
would note that your letter does not state that I have been inaccurate in describing the
location of the athletic field proposed in the initiative. Instead, you observed that the
statement merely does not appear "in either the CUP Conditions or the initiative." Please
clarify whether or not you are claiming that my statement with respect to the location of
the athletic fields proposed in the initiative is in any respect inaccurate.
Donna R. Black, Esq.
March 16, 2010
Page 2
Additionally, your statement indicates that you believe that my comment "appears
to be a rush to judgment on Councilman Stern's part without having all the facts correct
or clearly understanding the initiative."
I can assure you that with respect to the pending Marymount College application
and appeal, which shall be addressed by the City Council on March 30, 2010, I have not
reached any judgment with respect to that matter. I shall review the matter and reach my
decision based on the evidence and record presented to us. I think it very clear from my
e-mail that I was providing information and noted my view as to the wisdom of a voter
initiative for making this land use decision. If you believe that I am not entitled to
address the issue addressed in my e-mail, please provide me an explanation as to why I
may not address the matter and exercise my First Amendment right to speak to this matter
which Marymount had chose to present to the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes. I take very
seriously my obligation to fairly decide the matters brought to the City Council as well as
my right as a resident of the City to address political matters that arise in our city.
I look forward to receiving your written response.
Sincerely,
'00�D U) -I
Douglas W. Stern
cc: Carol Lynch, Esq.
Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
102
FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE CONTY OF LOS ANGELES DEC — 2 2010
DR. MICHAEL S. BROPHY )
Petitioner }
}
VS )
DEAN C. LOGAN, ET AL )
Respondents )
JOHN A. CLARKE, CLERK
R �s
BY N. DIGIA BATTISTA, DEPUTY
CASE NO. BS128105
COURT'S RULING ON MOTION OF REAL PARTIES IN INETEREST,
DOUGLAS STERN, ET AL, FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST
PETITIONER BROPHY HEARD ON DECEMBER 2, 2010
Real Parties in Interest Douglas W. Stern, Stefan Wolowicz, and Anthony Misetich (Real
Parties'} have moved for attorneys' fees against Petitioner Brody under CCP Sections
1021.5 and 425.16.
Having reviewed the pleadings and having heard argument, the court rules as follows:
Background Facts
A review of the court file in this action establishes the following. Petitioner Dr. Michael
S. Brophy, the President of Marymount College, brought a Petition for Writ of Mandate
pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9295 and 13314. Petitioner sought to amend or
delete what he argued were false or misleading statements contained in ballot arguments
regarding Measure P. Measure P was an initiative proposed by Marymount College and
1 Two other named Real Parties in Interest, City Councilmen Brian Campbell and
Thomas D. Long, were not co-authors of the ballot argument and did not participate in
the proceedings. On September 2, 2010, the City Attorney of Rancho Palos Verdes, as
attorneys for these two named real parties in interest, requested that Long and Campbell
be dismissed as wholly uninvolved in the actions at issue in the writ proceeding.
Z;
0 •
expected to be placed before the voters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the
November 2010 election.
Respondent Dean C. Logan is the Register-Recorder/County Clerk for Los Angeles, and
is not a party to the motion for attorneys' fees. Respondent Carla Morreale is the City
Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes, an is also not a party to the instant motion. Both Logan
and Morreale are "elections officials" as defined in Elections Code § 320 and were
necessary parties to the action. Elections Code § 9295(b)(3).
Real Parties Stem, Wolowicz and Misetich were three of the five members of the Rancho
Palos Verdes City Council and were authorized to submit the argument against
Marymount's Measure P pursuant to Resolution No. 2010-5 1, adopted by the Rancho
Verde City Council on June 15, 2010.2 It is undisputed that these individuals received no
personal or pecuniary benefit for drafting the challenged argument, and none of them had
a financial interest in the outcome of Measure P.3 Douglas Stern, Esq., represented
himself, Wolowicz and Misetich.
The nature of the challenge created a truncated procedure to adjudicate the petition. Cases
seeking a change in ballot argument language are filed during a small ten day window of
time set forth in Elections Code § 9295. On August 26, 2010, Brophy filed a Verified
Petition for Writ of Mandate and requested immediate action and a calendar preference
I Elections Code section 9282(a) provides that in municipal elections, for matters placed
on the ballot by petition, "the legislative body may submit an argument against the
ordinance." Pursuant to that provision, the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
authorized all five city council members, and only these persons, to be the signers of the
ballot argument against Measure P. Elections Code section 9295(b)(3) provides that in
any action challenging the ballot arguments, "the person or official who authored the
material in question shall be named as real parties in interest."
In their Answer, Demurrer and other pleadings, these Real Parties claimed exemption
from filing fees under Government Code § 6103. That section provides in relevant part,
"[n]either the state nor any county, city, district or other political subdivision, nor any
public officer or body, acting in his or her official capacity ... shall pay or deposit any
fee for the filing of any document or paper ... .
K
0
pursuant to CCP § 35. On August 27, 2010, Judge Jaffe conducted a hearing and set a
briefing schedule on an Order to Show Cause why Writ of Mandate Should not Issue.
The OSC Hearing was set for September 8, 2010 — the day on which the Registrar of
Voters needed to begin to begin to print ballot arguments. Respondents were to be served
on or before October 30, 2010. Opposition papers were to be filed and served by
September 2, 2010. No reply papers were allowed to be submitted. Counsel for the Real
Parties was served with this order.
Although not authorized by Judge Jaffe, counsel for Real Parties filed a demurrer to the
Petition on September 2, 2010.4 That demurrer argued that there had been a defect or
misjoinder of parties because Petitioner failed to name two additional authors of the
ballot argument, Kenneth Dyda and Jon Cartwright and that the Petitioner had failed to
set forth sufficient facts to determine that the arguments were misleading. However,
there were no arguments in the demurrer to the effect that the writ was subject to attack
under CCP 425.16 as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP).
Counsel for Real Parties also filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to the Verified Writ of Mandate on September 2, 2010. In that pleading, the
Real Parties argued that (1) the ballot arguments were truthful and not misleading; (2) the
characterization of the initiative as it relates to the Rancho Palos Verde Municipal Code
was accurate; and (3) the Petition was invalid because it failed to join necessary parties,
as required by Elections Code § 9295(b)(3). There is nothing in the Real Parties'
Opposition suggesting that the writ was subject to a special motion to strike under
SLAPP.
The City Attorney of Rancho Palos Verdes and its attorneys, Mitchell Abbott and David
Alderson of the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon filed an opposition to the Petition
for Writ of Mandate on September 2, 2010. In that pleading, counsel for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes argued that (1) the court had no jurisdiction to hear the Petition
'Petitioner Brody objected to the demurrer as it was not properly noticed under Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1003.5.
3
0 •
because Brody failed to join indispensible parties; (2) the ballot arguments were fair
statements of the facts and not false or misleading; and (3) the characterization of the
initiative as it relates to the Rancho Palos Verde Municipal Code was accurate. As even
a cursory comparison of the two opposition briefs demonstrates, the arguments made by
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Real Parties in Interest were largely identical.
Respondent did not argue that the writ was an impermissible infringement on speech or
petitioning or otherwise subject to a special motion to strike under CCP § 425.16.
On September 8, 2010, Judge Yaffe presided over the hearing on the Order to Show
Cause. In denying the Petition, Judge Yaffe noted that the four challenged statements in
the ballot argument were not sufficiently problematic to trigger judicial intervention.
(See September 8, 2010 minute order). "The attempted distinction between "some" and
"largely" is not objectively verifiable and violates the rule that the courts are not to try to
sanitize political speech by exercising typical hyperbole and opinionated comments
common to political debate." (citation omitted). Similarly, the court declined to intervene
to "correct" Petitioner's other objections. "Courts have no business trying to manicure
political speech. In the first place, it smacks of censorship, and in the second place, it
mires the court in endless debate about what is the most accurate way of expressing
political argument." There in no mention in Judge Yaffe's order regarding the asserted
misjoinder of parties, nor does he mention, much less rule on, the Rpal Party's demurrer.
Nor did Judge Jaffe consider or decide any assertion that the petition violated the
Respondents' or Real Parties' constitutionally protected rights of speech or petitioning.
Judge Yaffe ordered counsel for the City of Rancho Palos Verde to prepare the judgment.
Petitioner objected to the inclusion of the Real Parties in the judgment. The Petitioner
sought a writ of mandate ordering the election officials in their official capacity to delete
certain language from the ballot argument against Measure P, the Marymount initiative.
"While the Real Parties in Interest are entitled to notice of the proceedings and to be
heard in the proceedings, the Petition sought no relief against Real Parties in Interest and
therefore it is erroneous to enter a "judgment" in favor of the Real Parties in Interest ...."
Petitioner also objected to an award of costs in favor of the Real Parties. Again, recovery
4
i
of costs was not appropriate where no relief had been sought the Real Parties. Neither
the City Clerk nor the Real Parties had paid filing fees because they were exempt under
Government Code § 6103.
Despite that objection, Judge Yaffe entered judgment in favor of both Respondents and
the Real Parties, and allowed their costs of suit up to $40.00.
Relevant Law
Real parties seek attorneys' fees under both California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5
and § 425.16.
Section 1021.5 provides in pertinent part:
"Upon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against on or more
opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right
affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or non-
pecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or on a large class of persons; (b) the
necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public
entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c)
such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.5
Eligibility for section 1021.5 attorneys' fees is established when (1) the [party seeking
fees'] action has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public
'The Legislature adopted section 1021.5 as a codification of the "private attorney
general' attorney's fees doctrine that had been developed in numerous prior judicial
decisions. Hull v. Rossi, 13 Cal. App. 4`" 1763, 1766-67 (1993); see, � Serrano v.
Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977). The doctrine rests on the recognition that privately initiated
lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of the fundamental public policies
embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions and that without some mechanism
authorizing the award of attorneys' fees, private actions to enforce such important public
policies will, as a practical matter, frequently be infeasible. Woodland Hills, supra, 23
Cal. 3d at 933.
5
i
0
interest; (2) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary has been conferred
on the general public or a large class of persons, and (3) the necessity and financial
burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate. Woodland
Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal. 3d 917, 935 (1979).
The necessity and financial burden requirement "really examines two issues: whether
private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private
enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful parties' attorneys." Whitley v.
Maldanado, 2010 Cal. LEXIS 11265, at *11 (Supreme Court of California, November 8,
2010) (citing Ikons v. Chinese HosE. Assn., 136 Cal. App. 4`s 1331, 1348 (2006). "The
necessity of private enforcement looks to the adequacy of public enforcement and seeks
economic equalization in representation where private enforcement is necessary." (Id.)
The second prong of the inquiry addresses the "financial burden of private enforcement."
Whitlev, supra, 2010 Cal. LEXIS at *12-13. An award on the "private attorney general"
theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant's legal victory transcends his personal
interest, that is when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the [party
seeking fees] `out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.' Id. (citing
Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal. 3d at 941). This requirement focuses on the financial
burdens and incentives involved in bringing the lawsuit. Id.
In relevant part, CCP section 425.16 states:
The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued
participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be
chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed
broadly.
(b)(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in
furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States
Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be
6
• 0
subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has
established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim ....
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a
prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her
attorney's fees and costs.
Analysis
1. Real Parties Are Not Entitled to Attorneys' Fees Under CCP § 1021.5
For a number of different reasons, the real parties' attempt to recover their attorneys' fees
under this statutory scheme cannot succeed. First and foremost, the briefs filed by the
real parties in this case did not result in the enforcement of an important right affecting
the public interest. Rather, the demurrer they filed — contrary to the express order of the
court regarding the truncated briefing schedule on the emergency writ — was never
considered by the court in reaching its decision. The opposition to the writ that they filed
simply parroted the arguments already asserted by the City Attorney for Rancho Palos
Verdes. ° The ultimately successful argument — that the four statements contained in the
ballot argument were not sufficiently wrong or misleading to require judicial intervention
— was made fully and completely to the trial court by the City Attorney. The rights and
benefits bestowed upon the public were unrelated to Real Party's participation.'
Although counsel for Real Parties notes that the simultaneity of the briefing deadlines
precluded him being able to know what arguments were already being asserted by
Respondents, he admitted to having "conferred with the City Attorney representing
Respondent Carla Morreale" while he worked on his briefs. (Dec'1 of Douglas W. Stern
at 112).
'There is an interesting question in this case as to whether the Real Parties are even
properly characterized as private actors in this case. The court takes judicial notice that
on the Answer, Demurrer and other documents opposing the petition for writ of mandate,
counsel claimed an exemption from filing fees under Government Code Section 6103.
As required by that provision, these Real Parties believed that they were acting in their
official capacity on behalf of the City, and not litigating as private attorney generals. If
the Real Parties were public actors, then section 1021.5 expressly precludes an award
�' unless one of the opposing parties is also a public entity, which was not the case here.
0 i
The cases upon which Real Parties rely to support their claim that their duplicative and
unnecessary briefs defending against Petitioner's challenge certain statements in the
ballot argument simply do not support that proposition. In Hull v. Rossi, 13 Cal. App. 40,
1763 (1993), petitioners sought to strike 18 statements from election pamphlet arguments
as false and misleading. The city clerk was named as a Respondent, and Jeffrey Young
and Joanne Miller, who signed two ballot arguments that appeared in the official voters'
pamphlet, were named as real parties in interest pursuant to Elections Code section 5025.
The briefing schedule ordered by the court was abbreviated and after a hearing on the
matter, the trial court rejected 14 of the petitioner's claims and ordered minor wording
changes in the remaining four statements. Both sides, thereafter, claimed victory and
sought attorney's fees under Section 1021.5. The trial judge denied both motions, ruling
that "no significant benefit was conferred by anybody." Concerning both motions, the
court stated that it did not think an important public policy was vindicated in this case.
The Real Parties in Interest appealed the trial court's decision.
The Court of Appeal reversed and held that the trial court had abused its discretion in
denying attorney fees for the defense of a writ of mandate. Id. at 1765. Specifically, the
appeals court held that even small changes in a ballot may confer a significant benefit to
the public in promoting a full, uncensored ballot argument and in citizen participation in
public debate. There was no discussion, however, regarding the respective work
performed by counsel for the respondent versus counsel for the real parties in interest.
The only facts set out in the appellate opinion reflect an enormous amount of advocacy
by the real parties in interest. "Appellants' attorneys prepared their answer to the
petition, responsive memorandum of points and authorities, responsive declarations, an
over 300 pages of exhibits supporting the ballot arguments." Id. at 1766. The City Clerk
failed to appear in the appeal and the appeals court did not differentiate or consider
The only pleading filed by counsel for the Real Parties in which a claim of exemption
under Government Code Section 6103 was not made is the instant motion for attorneys'
fees.
8
whether the real parties' work was necessary because no public attorney general was
available to make those arguments.
That issue, however, did arise in City of Santa Monica v. Stewart, 126 Cal. App. 4`h 43,
82-90 (2005). In that case, the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that the necessity
requirement of § 1021.5 weighed the relative contributions of each private attorney
general. Id. at . Rather, Rather, the court noted that "under the `necessity' prong of section
1021.5, the court looks only to whether there is a need to a private attorney general for
enforcement purposes because no public attorney general is available. Id.
The facts of the Stewart case are wholly distinguishable from those presented here. First,
the question presented was whether a private intervenor could obtain attorneys' fees for
work done to supplement and support another private party's challenge to the conduct of
a city. In that case, an initial writ of mandate was filed by a private party seeking to force
Pasadena to fulfill its ministerial obligations under Government Code § 34460 and to
certify an initiative fled by Amy. Id. at . In In both the answer to the Petition and the
cross-complaint filed against Amy, Pasadena admitted that it had not complied and did
not intend to comply with section 34460 because it believed the initiative was
unconstitutional. Amy responded that he was not a proper party to the cross-complaint
because he had no legal interest in the question of the constitutionality of the initiative.
Id. In fact, Amy neither agreed nor disagreed with Pasadena's position on that issue.
On the same day that Amy filed its reply, FTCR sought and obtained leave to intervene
on the ground that Pasadena's arguments in opposition raised issues "of fundamental
importance to the integrity of democratic process." FTCR's arguments in support of the
writ petition went further than Amy's and FTCR presented arguments and authorities
which directly refuted Pasadena's purported defense. (CITE). The trial court expressly
relied of FTCRs arguments and authorities in granting the writ of mandate. (CITE).
Nevertheless, when ruling on FTCR's motion for private attorney general's fees, the trial
court denied the motion on the ground that it "probably would have granted" the writ
9
i�
petition anyway. In making this finding, the Court "essentially adopted Pasadena's
assertion that FTCR was not entitled to fees because it had not made a unique
contribution to Amy's pending litigation. (CITE). In essence, the trial court ruled that
FTCR's intervention was "not of a significant level," and therefore, not necessary to the
vindication of important public rights. (CITE).
The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the "necessity" portion of the test under
section 1021.5 does not weigh the relative contributions of each private guardian. Rather,
the "necessity of private enforcement," looks only to the adequacy of public enforcement
in light of public enforcement efforts." (CITE). An attorneys' fee award is appropriate
unless the private party litigating with a public agency "performs only duplicative,
unnecessary and valueless services," or unless the private action was "opportunistic or
collusive and undertaken simply to generate such attorneys' fees." (CITE).
In the instant case, the Real Parties were litigating with a public agency and their
contributions were "duplicative, unnecessary and valueless." Unlike the intervenor in the
Stewart case, Judge Yaffe relied on nothing contained in the Real Parties' pleadings. He
ignored the demurrer — which was filed in violation of his scheduling order -- thus
rendering that work valueless. The arguments asserted by the public enforcement
agency, which didn't exist in the Stewart case, covered every argument made by the Real
Parties. Unlike in Stewart, there was nothing new or different in the pleadings filed by
the Real Parties. The Real Parties' work was duplicative of the briefs filed by the City
Attorney and wholly unnecessary. Counsel for Real Parties communicated and conferred
with the City Attorney as he prepared his briefs. It can be reasonably inferred from the
identicality of these briefs and these communications that the Real Parties' insistence on
self -representation was opportunistic and collusive, and arguably undertaken to generate
attorneys' fees. See Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 92 Cal. App. 4th 819, 840-841
(2001)(questioning award of attorneys' fees in a duplicative action which contributes
virtually nothing to the ultimate result).
2. Real Parties Are Not Entitled to Attorneys' Fees Under CCP § 425.16
10
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (b)(l) gives a defendant a right to file a special
motion to strike. A prevailing defendant on such a special motion shall be entitled to his
or her own attorney's fees and costs. Under the express language of the statute, therefore,
a defendant must have filed a special motion to strike and prevailed on that motion.
It is undisputed in this case that no special motion to strike was filed in this case. It
cannot be concluded, therefore, that the Real Parties prevailed on such a motion. Each of
the cases upon which the Real Parties rely to make such a claim are distinguishable.
In Moraea-Orinda Fire Protection District v Weir, 5 Cal. App. 4th 477, 480 (2004), the
defendant filed a special motion to strike as part of a mandamus proceeding. The court
denied the writ of mandate, ruling that the Petitioner lacked standing and that the
amended petition was untimely. Id. The Real Parties in Interest thereafter sought
attorneys fees under § 426.16. The trial court denied that request, ruling that since the
mandamus proceeding had been resolved on the merits, the SLAPP motion was moot and
that a fee award would "burden the statutory right to protect the public from untrue
statements made in a voter's pamphlet." The court of appeal reversed, finding that the
resolution of the underlying action did not automatically moot a fee request under the
SLAPP statute. Id.
Similarly, a number of cases have dealt with the situation in which a SLAPP motion is
made, but not decided, when the plaintiff dismisses the complaint. See Coltrain v.
Shewalter. 66 Cal. App. 4th 94, 107 (1998)(where plaintiff voluntarily dismisses suit
while section 426.16 motion for fees is pending, the trial court has discretion to determine
whether defendant is prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees); Moore v. Liu, 69
Cal. App. 4th 745, 7510 (1999)(court retains jurisdiction to award section 425.16 fees
if motion filed before plaintiff dismisses the case); Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v.
Yang, 178 Cal. App. 4`h 869, 879 (2009)(effect of voluntary dismissal with a SLAPP
motion pending on motion); Kyle v. Carmon. 71 Cal. App. 0 901, 918 (1999).
11
•
None of these cases, however, stands for the remarkable proposition that in the absence
of a SLAPP motion having been filed, a real party in interest can seek attorney's fees as
the prevailing party in a mandamus proceeding. In each of these cases, the defendant had
filed a special motion to strike. The Real Parties in this case did not; as such they are not
entitled to attorneys' fees under CCP § 425.16.
3. Attorneys' Fees Sought Are Neither Reasonable Nor Necessary
Assuming, arguendo, that the Real Parties were entitled to attorney's fees under either of
these statutory schemes, the evidence submitted in support of that request is wholly
insufficient and fails to provide the court with sufficient information with which to
exercise its discretion to determine the proper amount of an attorneys' fee award.
In considering a request for attorneys' fees, the court must look first to determine a
touchstone or lodestar figure based on a careful computation of the time spent and
reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney. Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., 82 Cal. App, 4th 615, 622-623 (2000). That touchstone figure may then be
augmented or diminished by taking various relevant factors into account, including (1)
the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill displayed in presenting
them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by
the attorneys; and (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, based on the uncertainty of
prevailing on the merits and of establishing eligibility for the award. Id. This approach is
meant to increase objectivity and predictability in fee awards. Id.
The lodestar approach gives the trial court the discretion to decide which of the hours
expended by the attorneys in the case were "'reasonably spent"' on the litigation.' It is the
'A trial court may reasonably consider the relative contributions of multiple private
attorneys general when it exercises its discretion to determine the proper amount of an
attorneys' fees award. City of Santa Monica v. Stewart, supra, 126 Cal. App. 4th 43, _
(2005). To the extent that both the original party and the intervenor seek to recover fees
s for time spent that was superfluous to the results received in the litigation, or duplicative
12
0
product of the number of hours reasonably spent multiplied by the reasonable rate.
Meister v. Regents of University of California, 67 Cal. App. 4th 437, 449 (1998). The
reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work and is the
product of a number of factors, including the nature and difficulty of the litigation; the
amount of money involved; the level of skill required in handling the litigation; the
attention given to the issues; the success of the attorney's efforts; and the time consumed.
Clayton Development Co. v. Falvey, 206 Cal. App. 3d 438, 447 (1988) . Ordinarily, a
claim of attorney fees is supported by detailed time records, evidence of issues litigated,
and the precise services rendered, as well as a justification for the hourly rates charged.
Martino v. Denevi, 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 558-559 (1986).
In this case, the declaration submitted by counsel for Real Parties, Douglas W. Stern, is
grossly inadequate and precludes the court from deciding whether the hours claimed were
reasonably spent. Rather, Stern simply aggregates large blocks of hours (without the
benefit of detailed billing records) and enumerates a variety of tasks being performed in
that block of hours. He does not explain in any detail the precise tasks being preformed
during those periods. It is impossible to discern how much time was expended on
unreasonable tasks — i.e., preparing and filing a demurrer that had not been calendared or
incorporated into a truncated briefing schedule on an election -related writ — and those
that were at least contemplated in the court's scheduling order. And, Stern's complete
absence of detail makes it impossible to discern whether the hours actually expended
were reasonable in light of the work being performed.9
of one another's efforts, those factors may properly be used to reduce, or perhaps to deny
altogether a particular fee request. Id.
9 In addition, as discussed above, the work produced by Stern in this case was largely
duplicative of the efforts of the City Attorney for Rancho Palos Verdes. The court takes
judicial notice that the City Attorney filed a 14 page opposition to the writ of mandate,
supported by a 10 page declaration from the Principal Planner, and an Appendix of
Exhibits of several hundred pages. Without detail as to what Stern actually did, it is
impossible to winnow out the unreasonable duplicative efforts from any unique
contribution that might otherwise support a claim for attorneys' fees.
13
9 0
Additionally, even if it could be found that some work performed by Stem on behalf of
the Real Parties was reasonably expended on this litigation, his claimed billing rate of
$645 an hour is wholly unjustified. Stern provides no competent evidence that this is a
reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for elections lawyers or
municipal law firms. In fact, Stern appears to have had no work experience in the areas
of election law. In fact, he appears to base it on the hourly rate that his large corporate
law firms billed for his work in the past. At present, he is an in house attorney for a title
company — for which no hourly rate is given. Additionally, Stern's declaration provides
no basis upon which to find that his brief writing, following consultation with the City
Attorney, was particularly difficult or required special skill.
Because Stern's declaration fails to provide the court with a reasoned basis upon which to
compute a lodestar attorneys' fee figure, the request for attorneys' fees is denied.
14
Douglas W. Stern
Attorney at Law
17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 622-7619
December 5, 2010
Paul T. Gough, Esq. FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Thomas W. Hiltachk, Esq.
BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP Via e-mail: pgough@bmhlaw.com
12925 Riverside Drive, Second Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423.
Re: Brophy v. Logan; Appeal of Attorneys Fees Ruling
Dear Paul,
It is my present intention to file an appeal of Judge Jones Order on our motion for
attorneys fees. You know from our briefs that we believe that Judge Jones ruling was contrary to
all of the case law that addresses the issues. However, before I file my notice of appeal, I am
writing to provide your client an opportunity to compromise and end the matter.
I am willing to accept a payment of $10,000.00 in full settlement of the matter, payable to
"Douglas W. Stern" no later than January 7, 2011. This offer to compromise the attorneys fees
claim shall be open for acceptance by Dr. Brophy until 3:00 p.m., Friday, December 30, 2010.
Should Dr. Brophy desire to accept it, he must do so by your return of this letter, properly
executed by him, indicating agreement to this compromise.
Very truly yours,
Douglas W. Stern
AGREEMENT:
Dr. Brophy accepts the compromise set forth above, and shall pay $10,000.00 to Douglas Stern
on or before January 7, 2011, in full and complete payment of attorneys fees and all costs in
Brophy v. Logan.
Dated: December _, 2010
by �
Rancho
Palos
leaders 'w Marymount
may
• • on
ballot
measure payment
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 12/03/2010 06:54:13 PM PST
Updated: 12/03/2010 07:03:04 PM PST
City leaders in Rancho Palos Verdes are worried
that Marymount College will renege on an offer
made last spring - and trumpeted in campaign
literature - to pay election costs for the school's
ballot initiative.
Marymount had offered to pay the city's bill to
put a measure on the Nov. 2 ballot that would
have allowed dormitories on the school's
campus.
After a divisive election campaign on which the
Catholic college spent about $1.3 million,
Measure P failed by a nearly 9 -point margin.
This week, following city requests for a deposit
of $100,000 to cover a coming election bill from
the county, City Manager Carolyn Lehr said
college President Michael Brophy told her in a
voice mail that the school had no record of the
City Council ever accepting its offer.
And in an interview late last month, Brophy
would not commit to paying the bill from the
registrar-recorder/county clerk, now estimated
at $78,000 and expected by early March.
"The college made a commitment to donate to
the city, and we will review their response to
that commitment and we will respond in due
course," Brophy told the Daily Breeze.
He did not return calls for comment Friday
Page 1 of 2
The council is set to consider the matter
Tuesday. A staff report on the reimbursement
was issued Friday.
"It sure looks like they're stiffing us. They're
stiffing the taxpayer," City Councilman Doug
Stern said. "A person who is told by the president
of an organization,
'we will pay this'- I would hope their word is
their bond. This isn't about, 'Ha ha ha, we think y
ou can't win in court so we're not going to pay."'
In May, Brophy wrote a letter to Mayor Steve
Wolowicz offering to pay the city's costs for
placing the initiative on the ballot Nov. 2, when
there was a midterm general state and federal
election but no local contest scheduled.
"To show our commitment to this city that I, and
the entire Marymount College family, call home,
we will pay all the city's costs associated with
placing the initiative on the November 2010
ballot. We want to do our part to ensure that the
challenge of limited public funds does not stand
in the way of the broadest participation
possible," Brophy wrote to Wolowicz.
While it gathered signatures for its initiative, the
college's campaign sent a copy of that letter to
city voters. Its reimbursement pledge constituted
r111317 7511,15"1 '
SECURITY
CHOICE
Print Powered By t.-- : Dyn cnic:i
http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique= 13 043 54077190 5/2/2011
the only sentence in the letter printed in bold.
"I would think residents would be appalled that a
commitment so clear is essentially reneged on,"
Stern said.
Later, during the election campaign, a Yes on
Measure P mailer sent to voters again referred
to the reimbursement offer, saying it was being
turned against the college. The mailer, a copy of
a letter to the editor of the weekly Palos Verdes
Peninsula News, focused on anti -P letters and
blogs that were "attacking" the college.
"The college even volunteered to reimburse the
city for the cost of the election and we are now
being smeared for this act of generosity with the
claim that we are somehow unduly trying to
influence the electoral process," wrote Burt
Arnold, chairman of the college's Board of
Trustees.
In September, Lehr sent a letter to Brophy
outlining payment options.
She sent another letter Nov. 12 - after the
election - that asked for confirmation of a
payment method and included a preliminary
invoice:
According to Lehr's Friday report to council,
Brophy responded with a voice mail Wednesday
saying he wanted minutes from a council
meeting showing that the college's offer was
"accepted."
In turn, Lehr put the item on the council agenda
for next week. The council may at that time
"reaffirm" its acceptance of the reimbursement
commitment.
"When the city receives a letter to the mayor ...
that clearly states 'we will pay the cost,' we take
that at face value, and in good faith expect that
that is what will transpire," Lehr said.
City Attorney Carol Lynch said that it's "unclear"
Page 2 of 2
how a judge would interpret the dispute. It may
hinge on the fact that Brophy linked his promise
to the council's acceptance of a Nov. 2 election
date, she said.
"There is an argument that the council agreed to
this request.... That provides consideration and
therefore the offer to pay would be enforceable,"
Lynch said.
She would not say whether the city would pursue
the matter in court.
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
Want to go?
What: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to
discuss Marymount College's offer - now in
question - to pay for the Nov. 2 initiative
election.
When: The meeting begins at 7 p.m. Tuesday.
Where: Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301
Hawthorne Blvd.
-itxxaatxIo auaaexr .
(A
SAVE
A
to 4
Plus, get
3 FREE Gifit.
Print Powered By
Special Code: 45069ZWN
http://www.dailvbreeze.com/fdco?unique=1304354077190 1
Format Dynamics:: Dell Viewer
Rancho Palos Verde
reaffirms
►:_ desire
.
Marymount election
reimbursement
•.:w -w.
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 12/08/2010 07:19:20 PM PST
Updated: 12/08/2010 07:47:43 PM PST
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has
"reaffirmed" its desire to accept an offer from
Marymount College to reimburse the city for
election costs - a commitment that municipal
leaders had questioned but the school's
president called "steadfast."
The council voted unanimously Tuesday night to
accept the offer made in May by Marymount
College President Michael Brophy to pay the bill
associated with the Nov. 2 municipal election on
Measure P, which failed but would have allowed
campus dormitories.
This week's council vote came after Brophy
asked - in response to the city's Nov. 12 request
for a deposit of $100,000 - for proof that the
council had accepted his initial offer.
"We had already indicated long ago that we
would accept," Councilman Doug Stern said. "Dr
Brophy seems to want more documentation, and
we're not in the mood to argue.... Belt and
suspenders - if that's all it takes to get our
taxpayers reimbursed, glad to oblige."
A statement to the council Tuesday from Brophy
said the college would "make prompt
reimbursement of appropriate expenses" upon
receiving a final bill.
"Any reasonable person would want to know if
their donation was accepted. We are glad to
Page 1 of 2
know of their acceptance of our donation,"
Brophy said Wednesday. "When they send us the f
inal statement and record of their payment, we
will reimburse and donate to the city happily."
A detailed election -cost tally from the county
Clerk's Office is
expected by the city by early March.
In his statement to the council, Brophy said he
found council statements about the dispute
"troubling."
He said Wednesday that he was "surprised" by a
Daily Breeze story detailing city concerns about w
hether Rancho Palos Verdes would be
reimbursed.
"Our May 2010 commitment is steadfast - we
have not refused to pay for the costs of the
Measure P election. Public statements otherwise b
y RPV council members are incorrect and
troubling, as were No on P campaign materials ...
that were false and inflammatory," Brophy wrote
in the statement.
He was referring to a mailer from the No on P
campaign that cast Marymount's reimbursement
offer in a nefarious light.
1,0,11 MIN 0eck*18101)
Bo'U".quets
a(i
ProFlowers
Offor ONLY available at
proflowers.com/happy
a.r call 1.877,804,1133
Print Powered € y
http://www.dailybreeze.conVfdct)?unique= 1 3 043 54208102 S /? /? n 11
Format Dynamics :: Dell Viewer
Brophy also referred in his statement to City
Attorney Carol Lynch's comment at a council
meeting last month that the city had no legal
mechanism to recover the election costs from
Marymount. He asked that those comments be
added to council minutes of the Nov. 4 meeting,
which do not currently reflect them.
Lynch said last week that she had revised her
opinion about the reimbursement upon re-
reading Brophy's May offer letter.
The Tuesday council vote came several days
after Stern - a lawyer - learned that a judge had
ruled last week that he could not recover
attorneys' fees from Marymount for his work on
a case related to ballot arguments against
Measure P.
Page 2 of 2
The ruling represented a victory for Marymount,
and Brophy said the college was pleased with it.
Stern said he filed his papers with the court
before the city's attorney, and that the two had
not shared filings.
"Some of the same arguments essentially were
made but that's because there are only so many
arguments you can raise," Stern said, adding that
he felt the ruling conflicted with case law.
He said he was considering an appeal.
A hearing is set for Jan. 10 on a similar attorney's
fees motion from Planning Commissioner Jeffrey
Lewis, who successfully filed a petition to have
Marymount's rebuttal arguments changed.
In August and September, the college melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
unsuccessfully sought to alter a ballot statement
opposing Measure P. Stern represented himself
and two other council members as authors of the
statement.
In a 14 -page ruling marked by strong language
that was critical of Stern, Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Ann I. Jones on Dec. 2 said he would
not be awarded fees.
He had been seeking $32,573, at his "regular
billing rate" of $645 per hour. Stern, formerly a
partner at large national law firm, now serves as
vice president and litigation manager for a
division of a title company.
Stern's work was "duplicative" of filings from the
city's attorney and "wholly unnecessary," Jones
wrote.
"It can reasonably be inferred from the
identicality of these briefs and these
communications that (Stern and the other two c
ouncilmen's) insistence on self -representation
was opportunistic and collusive, and arguably
undertaken to generate attorneys' fees."
Boi
from S"
r_ +Sh
a. ,T
Offor ONLY availatife at:
proflowers:ccam/happy
' or call 1.87 7.804.113 3
l)rint Powered By
http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique=1304354208102 5/2/2011
da.ofner
wfh Einstein
hen she was -
Shriver. . has found away. though.
Her second nook of fiction for young
eded a story.
:adults, "`The .Einstein Solution; cap-
tures the mood of her childhood town
long think-
and the stress of a middle school girls'
ie; I wasn't
race to popularity during World War
going?'» s'he
II.
Dries, and I
In the midst of those familiar set -
have about
tings, Shriver confronts heavy issues
a story. He
of anti-Semitism and acceptance.
in Seattle
In "The Einstein Solution, set in
out collect-
1942, Rosemary Hoyt moves to
g -scared of
Princeton and is dared to befriend the
A have any .
new girl: Kat Goodman, the
See SHRIVER, Page 4
By Jeremiah Dobruck
Peninsula News
RPV -- Marymount
College reaffirmed its com-
mitment to pay Ranclio
Palos Verdes' expenses for
the Nov. 2 election, and the
RPV City Council showed
cautious Optimism that the
issue might be behind it at
the council's meeting
Tuesday night.
Nevertheless, the council
moved, to reaffirni its
<acceptance of the; pledged
money, and city, ' staff
reformed its stance "on
whether Marynnoint might
be obligated to ,
Marymount ' offered in
May to pay for the special
election and announced
often during campaigning
that the process would take
place at no cost to the tax-
payers, but after the elec-
tion, councilmen expressed
doubt that Marymount
would make good .on the
promise once its bid for
dormitories and special
governance rules was
rejected.
In a letter sent Tuesday,
Dr. Michael Brophy, presi-
dent of the small liberal
arts college, told the
See MARYMOUNT,.Page 16
1%
M�MQ�T.
intends. to ,pay all expenses
$rophy's new letter_ also
From Page:1
- mcludirlg city expenses
asked that minutes. from
.
such as writing the ballot
the Nov 4 council meeting
council, "Our May 2010
title, statements and analy-
be amended to show a con -
commitment is steadfast—
.sis
versation between the
- we .have nevrefused -to- pay
... "[Brophy..] uses different
council and the -City
for the costs of the Measure
language, but I.don't inter-
Attorney Carol Lynch in
P election. Public state-
pret him'to be backing off
which Lynch said the col-
ments otherwise by . RPV
from the offer of all : the
lege . has no obligation to
Council members are
expenses associated with
pay.
incorrect and troubling :..:'
the November 2010 ballot,"
.".These documents repre-
The letter asked that RPV
said Councilman Doug
sent good governance and
provide the college with
Stern. " i'll choose to inter-
may well be needed by
final and complete .costs
pret that he's not backing
Marymount or RPV in
from Los Angeles County
away in any respect."
.the future for a wide vari-
Registrar-Recorder/County
In the weeks after the
ety of reasons," the letter
Clerk's office * which may
election, members of the
states. '
not be available until more
council wondered about
Lynch's comments are
than.three months after the
whether Marymount
still- absent from the min -
election' - and stated the
would come forward and
Utes, and the city's legal
college will review - and
Pay when the college did
stance has been rethought.
reimburse direct expenses
not respond to ;a letter from
"There's an argument
to -the city.,
the City Manager. Carolyn
that can be inade that when
ballon"
The Dec 7-4610
trgris only bills
C rti � h���noun
,tor, of 1 3nur1
confirme after
ing:. that Iuli<a
its, are a
Lehr. on Sept. 20. The letter
the council established the
gym" the
cited preliminary costs and
Nov. 2 elec=tion- date pur-
Way 25
asked how .the college'
suant to Marymount's
,to pay
wAuld like to handle reim-.
request, [in] that letter of:
ssociat-
.liursement.
May 25, that that's cons d-.
initia-
Lehr sent a follow-up let-
'enation for the offer to; =pay;'
er 2010
te= on :Nov 12, once again.
Lynch said.
laying out, options for pay-
Lynch believes the ques-
r -men
ment of the estimated
ftbn of legal obligation is .
�cnrred
gZiD00'bill from the count'
novas settled,as previously
urti, said the silence.
"It's nota done deal. Ws
aitXons;
was only' indncative of the
up to the council."Ot-to
meet-
college. waiting for a final
Ap,* next and liopefu } I7r.
Runt
invoice, ,:but staff, reports`
Drophy vPill payie city's
$how, Lehr -received a voice-
election -related -expenses
mail on Dec. 1 from
and this issue will go away,
$rophy, asking for minutes
Lynch said.
.that showed,, the City.
Curtis ,said it is time to
Council accepting the col-
move. beyond the conflict .
lege's offer.
and begin rebuilding'a.rela-
Lehr responded, saying
tionshi'p with the commu-
the City Council scheduled
nity and City Council.
the election on Nov: 2 =-
"We heard the results of
the date , requested . by
the election loud and
Marymount to coincide
clear," she.said.."Our stmte-
with the state election - .
gy isn't to take this back
and no other formal action
and repeat this again. We
Was needed to accept, but
heard what we heard,' and
Lehr placed an item on the- �
so it's time for us to look at
agenda of the Dec. 7 meet-
options.'
ing for the council to reaf-
firm acceptance.jdobruck@pvnews.com
ivituyinoum as spurs councilman's angry speech, robocall - South Bay Pipeline
i:- AMERICAN S1299Phonak Digital MiloPlus Aids
HEARING
Torrance I iitlnhurtun Beach j Westchester
Daily Breeze South Bay
Marymount ad spurs councilman's angry speech,
robocall
Previous Entry I Next Entry
By Melissa Pamer an September 23, 2010 1:44 PM I Permaiink i Comments Ml I ShareThis
Like One person likes this. 2 etweet
Here's your regular update on the ongoing, heated campaign for and against
Marymount College's Measure P, an effort to win Rancho Palos Verdes voter
approval for an expansion plan that includes dorms. With the exception of student
housing, most of the plan has already been approved by the City Council, which
opposes the initiative in part because it removes some city oversight.
Councilman Anthony Misetich this week laid into Marymount officials -- in a
speech at a public meeting and in a robocall. made to residents -- for a newspaper
advertisement and mailer that featured a quote from him that he says was taken
out of context.
Misetich opposes Measure P and authored a ballot argument against the initiative.
But that might not have been clear to readers of a recent pro•P mailer and full-
page ad in the PV News ("Your Vote. Your Right.") that stated: "The citizens of our
City are well informed aCaabt of making the right choice. Councilman
Misetich agrees, telling News ll confidence in the citizens
of Rancho Palos Verdes electorate."
"My cornments were hijach told me ye rday. "it's implying that I'm
in favor of Measure P wI've publi come out against Measure P."
In die quote, he had beeV's effort to get voter approval for a city
charter.
On Tuesday, Misetich read a three-page statement on the issue at the City Council
meeting.
"In my opinion, this is deceptive and unethical conduct by Marymount College," he
said at the meeting, where other opponents of Measure P likewise criticized the
college.
Then, on Wednesday, his political consultant •- San Pedro -sed Svorinich &
Associates -- sent a robocall out to Rancho Palos Verdes vo ers that state
shame that this type of sleazy campaigning has come to our c1 y.
Here's an audio file of the call:
voice-rnessage.way
Misetich said he felt a need to "set the record straight." The call, he said, cost
about $500 and was paid for out of his own pocket.
(Because it cost less than $1,000 and was done independently of the Anti -P
campaign, Misetich is not required to report the expense on campaign finance
disclosure forms, according to an official at the state Fair Political Practices
Commission.)
But Marymount's political consultants defended their advertisement and mailer,
saying it was not misleading.
"I don't understand why he's in such a frenzy. We did not quote him out of
context. We did not say he supports Measure P. He belives the voters are smart
and so do we," said consultant Harvey Englander, a well-known figure in Los
Angeles politics.
Englander said Misetich's call violated state taws. That's because the call didn't
begin with a live caller asking for permission to play the recording, and because
the call failed to identify who paid for it, Englander said.
About this Entry
This page contains a single
entry by Melissa Pamer
publishedon September 13,
1010 1;44 PM.
Is a legendary surfer the world's
greatest athlete? VMS the
previous entry in this bldg.
Sarnole ballots available rvrtlr
Marymount changes) is the next
entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the
main index or took in the
archives to find all content.
-, Subscribe to this bloc's feed
POWERED BY
MT
MOVABLE TYPED
Page 1 of 3
Links
How to contact us
South Bav movers and shakers
on Twitter
SOUL I Bav Court Tracker
South Bav Crime fr Courls bldg
South Bav Business btoe
South Bav Web resources bloc
Archive of readers "Ask Us"
mlestions
Other South Bay Media
The Beach Reporter
Easy Read&
Palos Verdes Peninsula News
San Pedro News Blog
Advertisement
j ARYANCI YOUR CAREFR WITH A
GRADUATE SUS/NESS SERREE.
AA
AZUSA PACIFIC
U H I V ER SI YY
Search
Siaroli
http: //www. insidesocal. com/southbay/2010/09/marymount-ad-spurs-councilmans.html 5/10/2011
9. East Rancho Palos Verdes Page 1 of 11
Siiare Report Abuse Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In
This blog deals with issues of importance specifically to the residents and business folks on the east
side of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Eastview portion and Miraleste area, along with
Peninsula Verde, Strathmore, and the areas of Western Avenue in Rancho Palos Verdes are very
important. This blog will help to support that.
Do you favor WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2010
allowing Denny's Thank You All So Very, Very Much!
remaining open 24 51.21% of the registered. voters in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes voted
hours per day, on Measure P, The Matymount Plan.
seven days per At 2:oo AM this morning, the tabulation of votes showed that 14,127 of
week? 27,584 registered voters in the city or Rancho Palos Verdes cast ballots
Yes 35 6645,) on Measure P and the results posted with l00% of the precincts
reporting, stated that 6,345 votes of "YES" were cast for Measure P and
No 3 (530) 7,782 votes of "NO" were cast against Measure P.
Maybe 2 (31,0)
I don't care 2.,145,) Measure P was voted down by a 55.09% to 44.91% margin.
Terri is very happy with the results of the Special Election but I feel
Votes so Par: Sri much more tempered than I thought I would feel.
Poll closed —=�-
I am rem embe ' said by ayor Pro Tem Long and
Councilma rian Campbe ,among any others that said that rod ,
Novembe 3, 2010 wo e an import because we a to
Do you favor now move nd get about doing what needs to be done to work to
having traffic make Rancho Palos Verdes the best place to live, work, and play in all of
Southern California and beyond.
signals placed at
the intersection of I don't know how many other cities and Special Elections generate more
Miraleste Drive than half the registered voters willing to cast ballots when the Presidency
of the United States is not being voted on.
Now we are back to being a city where every business and every residents
have more equal tights and responsibilities and we all have to live under
httn://eastrnv.hlnasnot.com/search?rindated-max=2010-1 1-03TOR%3A 1 9%3A00-07%3AO... 5/10/2011
It is simply remarkable that in a mid-term election when most of the
Votes so Car: 53
registered voters in R.P.V. are Republicans but came out anyway to voice
[lot] closed
their choices for candidates, propositions, and measures that are so
important so our city, our State, and our Country.
What is your
We Democrats and voters representing other parties knew from the
opinion about
p
onset that Congressman Dana Rohrabacher would get re-elected and he
will have his office until his District changes or he chooses to not stand
Rancho Palos
for re-election.
Verdes becoming a
Charter City?
In the closing days of the campaign for Governor, the tide seemed to turn
towards ,Jerry Brown, so that too was pretty much of a walk over, I think.
Yes, It is ab...
I need more... 13 3645,
But Rancho Palos Verdes voters demonstrated democracy in one heck of
NO! Not no... 18(22%)7
a major way when they came out in the numbers they came out in to vote
either "Yes" on Measure P or "No" on Measure P.
Yes, if it doe... 1 t2n�)
No. I don't... 6 (16%) 7
No matter whether you supported Measure P or opposed it, I hope you
I don't know. 1 (2i,b) 1
are as proud of your fellow residents as I am for showing up in the
I don't care. t1 Ips,;,) 7
numbers that did to vote.
Terri is very happy with the results of the Special Election but I feel
Votes so Par: Sri much more tempered than I thought I would feel.
Poll closed —=�-
I am rem embe ' said by ayor Pro Tem Long and
Councilma rian Campbe ,among any others that said that rod ,
Novembe 3, 2010 wo e an import because we a to
Do you favor now move nd get about doing what needs to be done to work to
having traffic make Rancho Palos Verdes the best place to live, work, and play in all of
Southern California and beyond.
signals placed at
the intersection of I don't know how many other cities and Special Elections generate more
Miraleste Drive than half the registered voters willing to cast ballots when the Presidency
of the United States is not being voted on.
Now we are back to being a city where every business and every residents
have more equal tights and responsibilities and we all have to live under
httn://eastrnv.hlnasnot.com/search?rindated-max=2010-1 1-03TOR%3A 1 9%3A00-07%3AO... 5/10/2011
East Rancho Palos Verdes Page 2 oQ 1
and Palos Verdes the same rules and laws that mandate the use of Conditional Use Permits
Drive East?
over a Special District that would not have been liable for adhering to
Blog Archive
C.U.P.s.
Yes
our City Council regarding The Project.
No 3 i, I oi� %b)
Now we are back to seeking what so many of us support with The
Maybep ,i
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and with some hope
♦ November (14)
that Marymount officials will begin to redevelop their campus with the
I don't know o ii)°-�,1
approvals already granted.
1 don't care O i FE
arymount Expansion.
Bits and Pieces 2.2
Of course I will have much more information and comments about the
votes so tajr.
vote and what may lie in store for Marymount College and our city, but it
Poll closed
is very late in the evening and very early in the morning.
There is some extremely important business and pleasure I must
mention before I head to slumberland.
2Oo8, All Rights
Reserved
Throughout the many months since I first started dealing with The
2008, All Rights Reserved
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and then added The
Marymount Plan into my mix, there have been some residents of our
Links
great city that have provided me so much more than I can ever give back
to them and our city.
City of -Rancho Palos Verdes
Web Site
First I would like to thank former Mayor Larry Clark and the
No on Facebook Group
Councilmembers during his term as Mayor and before that, too. The gave
.P
Northwest San Pedro
insight and guidance to me on how the processes should work and
Neighborhood Council
eventually did work as far as The Projects approval went.
Palos Verdes Truth
pro bly kno I did not vote fo r. Anthony Misetic a Mr.
Porte vista Blot
Brian Campbell n they stood for election o
R Neighborhoods Are 1 Bloe
R Neighborhoods Are i Web
ouncilman Misetich has demonstrated teamwork in its best sense, a
Site
strong stature as a gentleman even when times and events were causing
Rancho Palos Verdes 2009
him grief and frustration.
"10)
Rancho Palos Verdes Patch
Councilman Misetich is an example of what is impressive in a new
Rogue's Yarn
Councilman and if he decides to take the plunge as Mayor before
RPV Truth Bloe
Councilman Campbell, I will support him and Councilman Campbell
San Pedro News
when it is his turn to handle the gavel.
The Underdog For Kids
Former Mayor Ken Dyda was a powerhouse for me in learning more
about the ways of city government and why he knew it was so important
Followers
to all of the residents that Measure P had to be opposed.
Follow GHis guidance and leadership in Save Our City III and his comments in
__
with Google Friend front of the City Council were extremely important in educating our
Connect residents about the facts and the whole truth dealing with land use issues
Followers (2) which I had such little knowledge of, before The Marymount Plan and its
Measure came to be.
`- Mr. Jeff Lewis is an honorable man who knows the truth, had all the
facts down pat, and provided to me a mentoring skill of his that helped
me learn so much about both The Project and The Plan.
Airaariv a mPmhPr?Sinn in Mr. Lewis was the Chairman of the Planning Commission of the city of
httn•/hPactrnvhlnaenntrnm/cParrh9nnrintPc-1_max=?nln_11_n1TORO/.1AIR%l A(ln_n7%,'lA0 5/1 ()/?()11
Rancho Palos Verdes during much of the discussion and debate
Blog Archive
processes that led to the recommendations his Commission forwarded to
► 2011(44)
our City Council regarding The Project.
♦ 2010 (247)
His knowledge and advise helped me in too many ways to mention.
► December (2)
♦ November (14)
was
I was and ' am humbled by the intelligence, strength, and work by Mr.
'fables Should Be Of
Jim Gordon nd Mr. Pat Carroll of Concerned Citizen
The Table
arymount Expansion.
Bits and Pieces 2.2
httn•/hPactrnvhlnaenntrnm/cParrh9nnrintPc-1_max=?nln_11_n1TORO/.1AIR%l A(ln_n7%,'lA0 5/1 ()/?()11
East Rancho Palos Verdes Page 3 of 11
,. P.
Bits and. Pieces 22
Jim knew and knows the facts about the physical plant and environment
Bits and Pieces 21
both above ground and with the ground of Marymount's campus.
life With and Besides
He and the group he is a member of have been vilified by so many
Mar�gmount
residents and especially non-residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for their
Disgusting. Pathetic.
competent stand in opposition to Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Sore Losers From A
through what he and other never coul a const ere 'they
Supposed...
If ever you need statistics from an individual of great honor and trust,
Recomend.ations To
then there is no one better than Mr. Pat Carroll.
Future Candidates
re Candid
I don't know what I would have done to try and learn more about issues
and
without the incredible sets of numbers and tables of facts generated and
Dear Marymount
stored by Mr. Carroll.
Thank You All So Vete,
with Marymount that needs every one's attention.
VcjS� Much!
Pat and Jim were my human libraries whenever I needed a fact checks
Robocall At u:�o PM!
and confirmation of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
and 1 have the two greatest
with both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The
Good .Morning! Please
Marymount Plan.
Vote!
I am confident in what we have already seen demonstrated so well by our
A Letter From The City
The words 'brain trust' first come to mind when I think about Jim and
and Marymount's
Pat and all they have been through over the last io+ years.
Response
Shocking!!! MaD-mount
The 'brain' part is the fantastic number of facts and data both gentlemen
Changes Things,
have at their fingertips.
AGAIN
The 'trust' is that everything they provided to everyone was the truth
Bits and .Pieces 20
which was about as trustworthy as humanly possible and their
► October (60)
trustworthiness is beyond compare, in my book.
► September (59)
August (21)
Now we come to Brian Campbell.
► July (24)
I have no other words for Councilman Campbell to express my thanks to
► ,June (19)
him for all he has done for me and the rest of the residents of Rancho
► May (ii)
Palos Verdes.
► April (21)
servative Republican and as everyone
Counc' an �nownot
► March (t6)
shoul ow in any way, shape, or form.
February• (i)
► January (i)
Both he and Counc' an Misetich 1 een tested during their less than
IN, 2009 (51)
first year sitting on and they both are more than great and so
very good for all of us.
► 2008(l)
ht.tn://eastrnv.blogsnot.com/.earrh?nnciated-max=?.O10-11-01TOWMA1R%MA(l0-07%IAO 5/1x/7()11
Without all of us mentied working together, Meas , -re P would have
About Me
��
passed very easily, I b ------ —""`— —
M
r
I place quite a bit of cr it with Councilman Cam mg us all
1 !
together and demonstra ' n Bary to get
through what he and other never coul a const ere 'they
.` ;
would have to go through in his Councilman Misetich's first year in
..._.. _.._..
office.
RI CHARDS
I am finally taking to heart
We will need all the fine citizen/residents of our city today, tomorrow,
the following phrase: If you
and well into the future because there so much more than just dealing
don't stand for something,
with Marymount that needs every one's attention.
you'll fall for anything. I am a
happily married Caveman
With the demonstrated strengths of the three Council members who will
and 1 have the two greatest
be termed out next year, along with the two new Council members, we
sons, and the most wonderful
have a leadership team with no rivals, in my opinion.
half -Labrador, half-
chihuahua., in the world.
I am confident in what we have already seen demonstrated so well by our
City Council with the projects and problems that were there before The
View, my complete n•ci file
Marymount Plan's vote came up and will still be around for some time.
siCer�tetcr
ht.tn://eastrnv.blogsnot.com/.earrh?nnciated-max=?.O10-11-01TOWMA1R%MA(l0-07%IAO 5/1x/7()11
Fr : Brian [mailto:ascent@verizon.net] •
S
To: ascent@verizon.net
Subject: Michael Brophy's Criminal allegations against RPV councilmemder's, Pattern and Practice of Deception
Letter response regarding RPV Councilman Anthony Misetich's speech at this week's
city council meeting decrying Marymount's deceptive tactics, president Michael
Brophy's "manufactured criminal allegations" against RPV councilmember's and a
demand for a Marymount apology. W?
10
Subject: Dr. Brophy, Pattern and Practice of Deception
Anthony
Thank you for your outstanding remarks last night concerning misrepresentations by Marymount
about your support for Proposition P.
This kind of public misrepresentation is not new to Dr. Brophy. On pages 10 & 12 of the Minutes
of the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing, is just such an example. At some time prior to
this meeting, Dr. Brophy had submitted to the City a list of Marymount supporters that included
Commissioner Tomblin.
On page 10 of those minutes, "(Planning) Commissioner Tomblin read into the record a written
response to a letter sent by CCC/ME requesting that he recuse himself from participating on this
hearing item (Marymount Expansion) due to his name appearing, without his knowledge or
consent, as a supporter of Marymount College. In the letter he states that he does not feel recusal is
necessary, as he does not recall expressing support for the college or its projects in writing or
otherwise. As he understands the situation, his name appears on a list of project supporters
provided to the City by the College at the March 31, 2009 meeting. He does not recall ever
agreeing to having his name included on a list of college supporters. Further, he has requested a
copy of any documents the college has that they believed justified the inclusion of his name on
their list of supporters, and the college has been unable to provide any records or documents
79
—�1
-----Original Mess
From: Brian'
mai ?:ascent verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, eptember 22, 20
To: Anthony Self; Ashley Ratcliff; Barbara Covey; Betty Reider; Betty Riedman;
Bill Dytrt; Bill Gerstner; Bill James; Bob Popeney; Cassie Jones; Chip Meyers; David
Conforti; David Kitchen; 'Debbie Berger'; Elizabeth Griggs; Ennio Schiappa ; Eric Randall;
Erin LaMonte; Frank Lyon; Gabriella Holt; Greg Allen; Greg T Royston Esq.;
va estinationhotels.com; Henry Ott; Jacqueline Crowley; Jim Herrara; Jim York; Jowoo
odes, hn nstantino; John Fer; John Henebry; John Polen; iolaine(@iolainemerrill.co Jon
Cartwright- athleen hollingsworth; Kathleen Ols ay Finer'; Ken Swenson ;
kit. mail.com; Krista Johnson; Larry rk; La smin; liznews cox.ne Lois Karp;
is W Barnett; Luis de Mores; Lynn Swank Mark Wel arla�apvpar.com; Mary ne
Schoenheider; melissa.pamer(@dailybreeze.co • Todd; Mike Crgss; Mike Gin;
Comaford; Norma Knowles; Paul Wright; Peggi Collins; Peter Kesterson;
phedstrom(@earthlink.net; pltetreault(anetzero.com; Raju ; Randy C Bowers; Rick Edler; Rob
Katherman; Robert Abbasi; Roger Jhangiani; Ron Cloud; Shari Weiner; Shawn Steel; Shirley
Borks; stammiam(yahoo.com; Steph Carpenter; Steve Day; Susan Brooks; Ted Paulson; Thomas C
Again; timweiner(@gmail.com; tkelly@iccainc.com; Tom Redfield; Tom Thomas; Tuba Ghannadi; van
barbieri; Vic Quirate; 'Virginia Butler'
Cc: 'Ashley Ratcliff'
Subject: "Sleazy" Marymount politics Robo call from RPV Councilman Misetich
This Robo call today is in addition to the ripping of Marymount College president Michael
Brophy for "Manufacturing Criminal Charges" against him for opposing Measure P that
Councilman Misetich spoke about last night at the RPV City Council meeting.
Where are the Marymount Trustees, and how can they allow the college to engage in this type
of self-destructive campaign?
78
From: Save R rmailto:ascentCa)verizon.netl
Sent: Thursday, 010 4:
T
Subject: Republican Party Opposes Measure P
Republican Party officially Opposes
Measure P
Both the local 54th Assembly District Republican Central Committee and the
Los Angeles County Republican Party Oppose Measure P in Rancho Palos .�
Verdes.
RPV Councilman Anthony Misetich's video
about Marymount campaign tactics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=memQE4Zx9es
The Facts about Measure P:
http://saverpv.com/
http://palosverdestruth.wordpress.com/
htt2://eastrpv.bloy-spot.com/
This message was sent from Save RPV tore of was se from: Brian Campbell, 904 Silver ur,
Palos Verdes, CA 90274, You can modify/update your subscription via the elow. x
E�manage your subscription IHI
75
T
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: Republican Party Opposes Measure P
A" It was a list of emails fro a marketing consultant.
From:
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 7:04 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: Re: Republican Party Opposes Measure P
no idea further than that. I used no city resources.
S�oA /vr 4 ;,
I realize I can unsubscribe. My question is "How, or from what source, was my email address
obtained?". It is a reasonable question and, from an elected official, reasobable to anticipate a response.
Thank you, Jeannette Webber
Sent b from my ipad
10:56 P 'Brian Campbell" <ascent(awerizon.net> wro
On Oct 7, 2010, at
0410*
Sorry you got the email. You can hit the unsubscribe button on it and it takes you off the list.
From:
Sent:. Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:48 PM
To: Save RPV
Subject: Re: Republican Party Opposes Measure P
I'm an RHE resident, care about this issue as a resident but have to
wonder where you got my contact/email information?
I did take issue in the past with a city council member who usurped a list
of persons who had contacted the city of RPV on other issues.
71 0
Or I
From: B an jmailto:ascent(d)verizon.netl
Sent. We PM
To: ascent(abverizon.net
Cc: 'Ashley Ratcliff; 'Melissa Pamer'
Subject: Back door Chamber endorsement of Measure P
All,
If you are uncomfortable at this disturbingly similar replay to the CRA (California Republican Assembly) fiasco last week
whereby Marymount's president and numerous supporters overwhelmed this small meeting with parliamentary chicanery
to get its endorsement, only to have the State Board of the CRA angrily throw it out; then let the PV Chamber know about
it.
Demand transparency and accountability. Don't let back room deals happen that appear to violate the Chambers' own
rules. Let you local business chamber member know about it. Don't let the homeowners of RPV get sold out without even
an opportunity to speak in front of the Chamber. Its wrong.
From: Jeffrey Le mailtoJeffefflewislaw.com
Sent: Wednes y, September 29, 2010 2:14 PM
To: Kay Finer
Subject: Measure P
Ms. Finer,
Attached please find correspondence of today's date as well as a copy of the Chamber's Procedures for
requesting support for legislative issues. I look forward to the Chamber's prompt and written response to my
letter.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey Lewis
Attorney at Law
Office: 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Mail: P.O. Box 3201, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
73
.. _._ _. _ _. ___ _ _ _ _.0 _
F : V Friends <ascentg7lverizon.net>
D • . J 81 2
Subject: Message from Sharon Yarber, Ken Delong and Marymount supporters
To: PV Friends <ascent e,verizon.net> �...•r
> From: "Ken DeLong" <ken.delong (a)-verizon.net>
> To: <norpvc@gmail.com> f
> Subject: No on RPV Measure C - Update - Jan. 28th
> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:49:14 -0800
0
> Good Morning Fellow Opponents of RPV Measure C:
> WATCH THE COUNCIL MEETING VIDEOS of June 29, July 6 and August 3 to
> give you the courage to fight!!! They will make you sick!
E
E
> On Saturday January 29th (tomorrow) at 8:30 A.M. at Point Vicente
> Interpretive Center the City Council will be hosting its annual
> Community Leaders Breakfast and the assembled will be provided with a
83
I, orwarctect message----------
om: RPV Friends <ascentgverizon.net>
Subject: Marymount Trustees & PVP Watch on the march again.
To: RPV Friends <ascentaverizon.net>
Subject: NO on C
Saturday morning:
FYI - I am looking out my window and on the Soldoff's (Marymount Trustees) dFive way and there is party going
on. They are making No on C signs. Big assembly line process.
82
From: Brian ailto:ascent verizon.netl
Sent: Frida , October 08, 2010 11:50 AM
To: Brian
Subject: FW: Ma easure P
Message from RPV Planning Commissioner Paul Tetreault:
From: Paul Tetreault
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 11:37 AM
Subject: Marymount College / Measure P
Friends:
1
As you know, I have served on the RPV Planning Commission for nearly seven years. I am a big supporter of local
government, local control and our democratic process of voting. However, it took me some time before I appreciated the
complexity of land use issues, individual property rights and community planning. A project as ambitious as the one
requested by Marymount College, as presented to the city and now to the public through Measure P, is not something that
is best offered to the public for a vote. This project took years for the school to develop on paper and its varied impacts
on the community are complex. It cannot be adequately described in 15 second TV spots or colorful mailers.
The school presented its plans to both the Planning Commission and City Council. It already has approval for nearly
everything that it wants from the city except the dormitories. Measure P is all about the school wanting dorms on
campus. It is as simple as that. EVERYONE agrees that they should upgrade the administration, student union,
academic facilities, and library. The sports facilities were approved even though there was community opposition based
upon its placement near PV Drive East, lighting and parking.
Marymount wants dorms on campus and it is not accepting the rejection of a requested land use change that would permit
high-density housing in a neighborhood that is exclusively zoned as single-family residential on lots of at least % acre.
After an Environmental Impact Report and traffic studies it was determined that having 255 permanent residents on
campus would be disruptive to the neighborhood. The school is not planning on having enough parking on campus
for all of its residents. Dr. Brophy (school president) and the administration have said that it would limit the number of
parking permits for residents to keep the number of cars down, but that will only mean that those who live on campus but
were not fortunate enough to get a parking permit will sneak their cars up to school and park around the corner on
residential streets. There are no amenities within walking or biking distance from the school that will satisfy a
college student's needs for entertainment and socializing. That means the residents will be driving to and from the
school well into the evenings, and parking on adjacent streets. The school says there will be a "quiet time" and curfew
after 10 pm, but we know how that works, right? I went to Pepperdine University in Malibu and lived on campus. They
had similar rules. You could not hear crickets chirping from the noise of the students up until about midnight.
The city of RPV did what it had to do. It acted to protect the adjacent neighbo om a signi of quality of life
from this planned development. Putting students in dorms on campus is not t Marymoun ently has
and it is not something that the homeowners in Del Prado and Mediterr a (the two adjacent ne hborhoods) sho be
expected to endure. Marymount wants a CHANGE in land use righ .Its application for dormitories was rejected (on
vote that I called for) and now the school has spent well over a milli n dol ars in a deceptive and factually untrue
campaign to circumvent our local government to fool enough peopl who will not be impacted by the proposal to vote for
it.
69
From: Br' n aiailto:ascent@verizon.netl
Sent: Fri , October 15, 2010 11:48
To: Brian
Subject: Republican Party reaffirms its Opposition to Measure P.
Last night, the Los Angels Cou
its Opposition to Measure A
Rg
Dublican_Partv_o
/11� -�? -
4mingiv reaffirmed
Why? Because this is a e classic c of sticking up for individual homeowners and staring do a rich special
interest group. The college wa s special multi-million dollar real estate development rights for )iself, that will
then hurt local home values.
Did you know that the college has alrea erything that they asked for:
- New Athletic Fields
- New Library
- New Classrooms
- New Admin buildings
- New Swimming pool
- New Gymnasium
You can Vote NO and the college will still build all of these facilities.
This campaign is about Sneaking Dorms into the neighborhood and bypassing the resident balance and
oversight that comes through their local government.
Attached is RPV Mayor Steve Wolowicz's voice message with his reasons why you should Vote No on P.
Please See: WWW.saverpy.com for more details, and, how you can help stick up for your neighbors
and Stop This.
Please, Vote NO on P
65
-----Original Messa --- -�
From: Brian mail :ascent verizon.net
Sent: Tuesday, Octo
To: Brian ,
Subject: Response To RPV Community - Golden Cove - Removal of Measure P signage
Mr. Zarrabian has every right to display support for, or against, Measure P on the Golden
Cove Center sign. It is called Free Speech and we should encourage it at every opportunity.
However, based on numerous calls and emails from both his commercial tenants and residents,
he has chosen to change it.
Both sides of this issue should commend Mr. Zarrabian for his proaAtive response on behalf of
his tenants and customers of Golden Cove.
Mr. Zarrabian is a positive force and a valuable asset to our community. He made a courageous
decision to do his part in reducing the contentiousness of this local campaign.
We will still be living in the same city after this election and there are many more
important issues to deal with as a community in the future. Many of us who are united on
Measure P (either for or against) will find ourselves on opposite sides of these future
issues. We need to get back to being able as a community to disagree with each other without
the need to demonize the opposing point of view.
62
FromC:an [mailto:ascent(a�verizon.netlSentnesday, October 20, 2010 2:22 PM
To: B
Subject: al ro a Con on Measure P
This is today's balanced look at both sides of Measure P from the Daily Breeze. Please forward if you
think appropriate.
Also, I have had many reports of RPV residents that are upset with the email of yesterday from Craig
Huey questioning some opponents of Measure P as having an "anti -religious prejudice". This
inflammatory language has no place in our city politics and is simply unethical; especially when Mr.
Huey doesn't even live on our community. I would hope that Marymount will distance itself from this
type of politicking.
www.saverpv.com
Below is the reply by RPV Wavor Pro Tem Tom Lona to Mr. H
Subject: RE: RPV Measure P: 6
Dear Craig,
Thank you for including me on your e-mail. While I sympathize with some of what you say, I disagree
with much of it.
Appealing to people to take out anger on government is popular now. But that's not what Measure P
does. It does nothing to me nor other councilmember's. Most of us are termed out soon anyway.
Even if I were to agree with all of your points (and I agree with you on the traffic issue and on the
overly emotional approach to this measure by all sides) you miss a few central points:
(1) Do we want ballot box planning? Will decisions be made by people who know the site or in some
other manner? I submit most voters will have not seen the site and so will not be in a position to
know whether the site is suitable for dorms (it is only dorms at issue since Marymount has
entitlements for everything else).
(2) A Conditional Use Permit means that the city would regulate the use of the property. Measure P
means no CUP. The "rules" in the measure will be enforced only by the college itself. Is creating
special districts where land use is regulated only by the landowner the way we want to go? How
60
From: Brian mail . scent verizon.net
Sent: Friday, 0 ober 221 2010 1:5
To: Brian
Subject: Letter to the Editor about the Marymount switchbacks
Margaret:
Just keep passing the word amongst your friends and neighbors so that they know the truth about Chave
L
\�
Marymount has Never finished taking the Dorms through the normal approval and safety process.out of \�
their campus modernization plan that was fully approved by the city this past June. Now they wantk in
and circumvent the normal planning and safety process that all of us, homeowners or businesses,
www.saverpv.com
From: Margaret Covey jmailto:margaretleecovey(dyahoo.coml
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:44 PM
Subject: PVP News Opposes Measure P!
I hope this e-mail is circulated throughout the residents of RPV.
As a former RPV resident, I can confirm that the switchbacks are extremely dangerous. (I was
involved in a solo vehicle accident when I was a teenager in the 1960s.) And, as a former college
student who was confined to a dorm after midnight (Occidental College required young women only
to sign in and out of the dormitory during my first two years of college), I can confirm that I did not
stay there and, after I snuck out, had many friends who would sneak me back in. (I was protesting
the inequity of the rule and usually just walked over to the campus library.)
Frankly, I cannot believe that Marymount College would want to assume the potential liability for
having notice of a dangerous condition and continuing to pursue this Measure. (I have visions of a
young person driving downhill after midnight, missing a turn and careening into the canyon.) If they
claim to be unaware of this risk, I will. be happy to share my vision with them.
I do not have a lot of time, but is there anything I can do during the next 10 or so days before election
day?
Margaret Lee Covey
56
From: Brian Campbell mail :ascent verizon.net \
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 010 11:30 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: RPV Mayor Pro Tern's letter in response to Marymount Attack Ad.
.11
From: Tom Long mailto:t ,__.. Ion r v msn.coml
Sent: Friday, October 22,010 8:23 PM
To: Ietters(&dailvbreeze.co
Cc: Melissa Pamer
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Dear Editors,
. 7
Marymount's million dollar plus campaign in support of Measure P has sunk
low with a mailer accusing the city council and other opponents of "illegal" a
about the initiative and "attacking" the college and its students, trustees, and
These accusations are unfair and untrue.
a new
"lying"
kity.
The city council approved everything Marymount applied for. (The colle e withdrew
application for dorms before the planning commission's decision was app led toth
council.) The city presented a proclamation honoring the college on its new ar
degree program. Personally I support the college and my wife and I are donors to the
college's scholarship program.
Those of us opposing Measure P are being outspent over 50 to 1. We are using methods
like e-mails and "robocalls" because they are less expensive. They are not illegal.
Personally, I have simply been trying to point out two facts Marymount's campaign
ignores in its almost daily mailers. First, the college already has entitlements to build
everything it wants except dorms. Second, Measure P will let Marymount build dorms
and will replace the conditional use permit regulated by the city that Marymount agreed
to with rules enforced only by the college itself. No other property owner in the city gets
such special treatment. These facts are indisputable and I think it is my duty to inform
people of them.
54
From: Brian mailto:ascent verizon.net
Sent: Friday, ctober 22, 2010 3:20
To: Brian
Subject: Former Mayor & RPV city founder Ken Dyda speaks out on Measure P.
Former Mayor Dyda announces that the following groups Oppose Measure P:
- League of Women Voters
- Majority of local Democratic Party leaders voted to oppose
- Republican Party; both the local and LA County Republican Party
- Palos Verdes Peninsula News Opposes
- The RPV Council of Homeowners Associations is Opposed
And, many, many other local groups are Opposed.
Marymounts Never fin' hed taking the Dorms through the normal approval and safety process.
They pulled orms (la ar) out of their campus modernization plan that was fully approved by the
city this past ow the ant to put Dorms back in and circumvent the normal planning and
safety processes that all of us, ho wners or businesses, should comply with.
Please Vote No on Measure P.
Keep RPV safe.
www.saverpv.com
53
From: Brian Campbell [mailto:ascent0)verizon.net1 7
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: Marymount attempting this afternoon to et illegal PVP epubljcan Assembly club endorsement for Measure P
29
For anyone interested in seeing first-hand desperate pro Measure P campaign tactics, as Marymount
surrogates attempt to get an illegal "Republican" endorsement at any cost.
Their goal is to be able to immediately trumpet a huge "success with the GOP", advertise it to GOP
voters in RPV to try and dilute the actual Republican Party opposition topeasure P, and by the time
the real truth gets out to the public about the illegal nature of the phony "endorsement" the election
will be over.
This meeting is open to the public to come and observe if anyone would like to see Marymount tactics
up close and in real-time.
John Stammreich, the Republican state senate candidate, is going to be there on behalf of the state
leadership of the CRA (California Republican Assembly) and attempt to disband the meeting as illegal
and to defend Valerie Mucha (the club president) who is partially disabled and not capable of
standing up to this onslaught of Marymount surrogates.
This afternoon, 4 PM, Torrance Airport main conference room that is rented out to the public
for meetings.
www.saverpv.com
From: John Stammreich jmailto:stammiam@yahoo.coml
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 9:16 AM
To: Valerie Mucha; G. Rick Marshall; Todd Blair
Subject: FW: Illegal endorsing meeting of PVP RA
All PVP CRA members and attendees,
I will be making an immediate Point of Order today to first confirm quorum of the eight
recognized voting members identified below, and to confirm our CRA President's
50
From: Brian Campb [ma iIto:ascent@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, Oc ober 26, 2010 7:30 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: Daily Breeze covers the Marymount attack on Annenberg
Mr. Brophy describes the assault on Annenberg as "this is a fun one".
The Breeze article also says:
Asked about the word choice in the mailer, Brophy said: "Is it not a kennel? I
do know that people say that. "
.I
Well... it depends on who you hang out with Mr. Brophy....
From: Jeffrey Lewis [mat6,
!201!0109
fflewislaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October PM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject:
FYI, Melissa Pamer is on the story: http://www.insidesocal.com/southbay/2010/10/measure-p-mailer-
raises-marymo.html
Jeffrey Lewis
Attorney at Law
Office: 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Mail: P.O. Box 3201, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
Tel. (310) 265-4490 - Fax. (31.0) 872-5389 - E -Mail: J_eff(&-JeffLewisLaw. corn
Web: www.JeffLewisLaw.com
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal
privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately.
41
From: Brianmail .ascent@verizon.netl
Sent: Thursday, ctober 28, 2010 10-
To: Brian
Subject: Marymount misleading letter to the Editor - Daily Breeze - Today's paper
From today's Daily Breeze:
'9'm writing to take issue with a letter to the editor written by Doris Booth on Monday. In it she accuses
the anti -Measure P supporters of being selfish and self -absorbing because by voting "no" on P we'd be
voting against educating our children. What she failed to mention was that she's a teacher who
teaches at Marymount College. We are not against educating students!
This is a prime example of Marymount tactics. Getting people to "think" it's all about education with
their massive campaign ads that couldn't be further from the truth.
We anti -P supporters support the Marymount plan that the City Council approved. The council gave
Marymount everything they asked for - a new library, a new pool, a new athletic facility, new tennis
courts and soccer held, new classrooms, etc. So a "no" vote would only deny Marymount from
building dorms on the main campus but does not prevent them from building dorms on the free land
Marymount received from the government on Palos Verdes Drive North. It would also require
Marymount to follow the same rules and regulations as all other Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
Doesn't that only seem fair?
Don't think it's about education as Booth, a teacher who has a vested interest in Marymount, referred
to. It is not! It is about dorms in a low-density housing subdivision and Marymount's desire to be
rezoned so it can avoid zoning laws that you and I must follow. Vote "no" on P! "
- Mary Ann Dillin, Rancho Palos Verdes
33
From: Brian [m6to-Oa:scen:t@v:er1zonne,t]Sent: ThursdayAM
To: Brian
Subject: Stuck in the Dog House - Brophy cancels debate with RPV CoU'ncilman tonight
Importance: High
Under immense pressure after his disastrous attack on nberg undation, Marymount's Michael Brophy has
cancelled his scheduled debate with RPV Councilm Brian Campbell this vening at Los Verdes Golf Course.
A paid political consultant is to take his place.
www.saverpv.com 7
a
32
From: Brian [m o:as�28,
erizon.net]
Sent: Thursday Octob2010 10:48 A
To: Brian
Subject: Another Misleading letter from Brophy in today's PV News.
Below is the response (in red letters) to Brophy's misleading (again) letter to the editor in today's PV News, angry with the
PV News opposition to Measure P.
has uraed v
From: Mark R Wells [ ailto:mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, Octobe 8, 2010 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Marymount misleading letter to the Editor - Daily Breeze - Today's paper
Perhaps you may want to put an Email blast out on the following lengthy letter and response I wrote on my
blog, or just parts and pieces of it:
Thursday, October 28, 2010
In Today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News
In today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News anyone and everyone now has the clear opportunity to read for
themselves the desperation contained in the extremely misleading, deceptive, falsehood -filled letter to the editor
by Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College.
I lead with this because it offers a very disturbing portrait of a failed campaign which cannot use even 1/4 of the
whole truth, as written in the languages of both Measure P, The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College
Facilities Expansion Project.
I am going to post Dr. Brophy's entire letter to the editor with actual real and reliable facts from either of the
two documents, in a different font color so you can easily see how and why Dr. Brophy's letter is just what it
appears to be; One of the last writings of a desperate person who most likely has less than one week left with his
current employment.
"To the Editor
The Palos Verdes Peninsula News is entitled to (its) opinion, However, these are the facts: The college did not
get everything "it asked the RPV City Council for."
Every single element of what Marymount College's representatives and Dr. Brophy himself brought to the
26
From: Brian Campbell mato:ascent verizon.net
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2blQ&a8 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: -13-debateJZe n former Congressman Steve Kuykendall & RPV City Councilman Brian Campbell
qH
://eastr v.blo s ot.com/
ate from last night.
22
From: Brian Campbell mailto:a cent verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 201
To: Brian Campbell '
Subject: "$1.3 million dollar Marymount Scam!" says the updated Save RPV website.
www.saverpv.com
Marymount Attacks Annenberg
1
The latest email campaign by Marymount is below. Interesting that Marymount wants to talk about
dogs, pools,
libraries and soccer fields, but never wants to talk about dormitories — the heart of Measure P.
24
From: Brian jmailto:ascent0) erizon.net]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:55 PM
To: Brian
Subject: RPV Councilman Bria Campbell's closi statement in Measure P debate.
23
From: Brian mail :ascent verizon net
Sent: Friday, Octo er 29, 2010
To: Brian
Subject: Measure P Debate Video from last nigh
Video clips from last night's debate Between RP\
From: Jeffrey Lewis jmailto:jeff@jefflewislaw.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:44 PM
To: Jeffrey Lewis
Subject: Measure P Debate
Friends,
Steve Kuykendall.
Last night there was a debate between RPV City Councilman Brian Campbell and Long Beach resident and
paid Marymount lobbyist, Steve Kuykendall over Measure P. In case you missed it, I have posted some links to
some highlights at the below website.
http://palosverdestruth.wordpress. com/2010/ 10/29/measure-p-debate/
Jeffrey Lewis
Attorney at Law
Office: 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Mail: P.O. Box 3201, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
Tel. (310) 265-4490 • Fax. (310) 872-5389 • E -Mail: Jeff(cD-JeffLewisLaw. corn
Web: www.JeffLewisLaw.com
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges.
Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please
contact the sender immediately.
20
From: Brian CamCob231,
mailto:ascentC�verizon.netj
Sent: Sunday, 0 2010 4:42 PM r%
To: Brian CampbSubject: FW: Pro
If anyone has a coherent argument for Measure P, other than it will greatly increase (unfairly) Marymount's real estate
values at the expense of thousands of their RPV neighbors, then Don would like to hear them.....
Attached below is also the closing argument Against Measure P by an RPV Councilman at last week's debate on
YouTube.
http://www`Voutube.com/watch?v= Up6k4aFg1 E
Also, more info is at:
www.saverpv.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Pilotdon4
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 3:04 PM
Subject: Prop P
Hi Neighbors,
I want to express my concern over the massive campaign by Marymount College to override the wishes of the
Planning commission and RPV City Government.
To me there are two issues.
1. The City has already granted permission for the Library and Swimming pool and Recreation fields, as well as
facility upgrades so that is not an issue. What is at issue is the 240 unit dormitory. What if some developer were to
decide to put a 240 unit condo or motel on the Ridgecrest School site? How would we, in Mesa, feel about such a
development?
2. RPV was founded in 1974 with the express purpose of stopping the development of Condos and apartments
which were springing up all over the peninsula, destroying our suburban life. Passage of this bill sets a dangerous
precedent, which jeopardizes the ability of our City Government to control these activities.
I believe I am a reasonable person and if you have valid contrary arguments I would like to hear them.
Your neighbor,
Don
18
1
From Brian Campbell [mailto:ascent00verizon.netj
Sent Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:39 PM
To: Bri Campbell
Subject: Ma '
From: Barbara Covey Lmailto:barbarac240byahoo.com1
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Lois Karp; b.campC&cox.net
Cc: barbarac240yahoo.com
Subject: Marymount's newer signs FW: Marymount's new sign
Lois,
Send a picture to Melissa of the newest (today's) signs in front of Marymount. IN
THE SAME COLORS as "No on P," they say "Yes on P." I just drove past.
There were maybe a dozen of them, in addition to their usual white "Yes on P"
signs. Talk about dirty tricks!
I was checking on my former neighbors. About 70% of them have "No on P"
signs, the others have none. Your neighbors on Ganada are almost 100%, I see.
Does San Ramon still vote on Marymount campus, as it did when I lived there? If
so, they need moral support tomorrow... perhaps a cop present, all day? If not,
they need to know where to vote. I saw your sign reminding Mediterania to vote
at Ladera Linda. Good work!
Melissa,
I know Jim sent you his email sent to Brophy today. Well attached is the newest
sign put up by Marymount after they have been telling everyone that the campus is open
for everyone to come and enjoy. Just one more lie!
The saga continues.
16
From: ian jmaiIto: ascent@verizon.netl
Sent: onday, November 01, 2010 12:21 PM
To: Bri
Subject: Mary ount as of Paid For the RPV Election Expenses as Promised. RPV Taxpayers May be Stuck With The
Bill.
Marymount has not responded to the letter (attached) sent to them five weeks ago by the city of RPV regarding payment
of the ongoing expenses, or even establishing a payment schedule, of putting on this special election for them and
Measure P.
This email below is Mr. Brophy's response to the attached letter from the city dated Sept 201h. Five Weeks Ago!
Nothing has been heard from him since, regarding payment....
We're reviewing the letter from the city and will respond ASAP.
Michael
Michael S. Brophy, Ph..D., M.F.A.
President of Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive Bast
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
310-377-5501
mbrophy@marymountpv . edu
The Taxpayers of RPV have already spent over $20K putting on this election for Marymount and RPV
Taxpayers shouldn't get stuck with this Marymount bill.
Please Vote NO on Measure P.
www.saverpv.com .
13
Fr : BrianjmaiIto: ascentO@verizon.netl
Se • Monday, November 01 20
To: Brian
Subject: Official GOP Voter Guide Says Vote NO on Measure P. Democrats Also Say Vote NO.
Both the Republican Party and the majority of the Democratic Leaders in the Palos Verdes Democratic Club say
to Vote No on Measure P.
Also encouraging you to Vote No on Measure P:
- League of Women Voters
- Palos Verdes News
- RPV Council of Homeowners Associations — approx 50 HOA's
- All 7 Candidates from last years RPV city council race
- All 7 volunteers on the RPV Planning Commission
- All 5 members of the RPV city council
- And thousands of your neighbors and friends.
www.saveRPV.com
From: So CA GOP Coalition
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:13 PM
To:
Subject: Vote Nov 2nd GOP Voter Guide
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Dear resident,
Please Vote Tomorrow., Tuesday, November 2nd. Republican candidates are counting on
your vote to start implementing real change.
Need to find your polling place?
Click Here for the LA County Registrar's Polling Place Lookup
11
From: Brian Campbell maiIto:ascent verizon.netl
Sent: Tuesday, Novem r 02, 2010 10:39 AM
To: StevenKuykendall(&bao .
Subject: FW: Robo-Call late last night
Steve, Please disclose that you are a paid campaign lobbyist of Marymount.
To send out a phony robo call and then act victimized by it is standard campaign practice in your world to drum up
sympathy for what you are being paid to do, so your attack email against No on P folks is unfair at best.
This is not an accusation against you regarding the robo call, but this easily could have been done by your own side
without you being told about it. After the attack on Annenberg last week, anything is possible by Marymount.
i
Have a little faith in the residents of RPV, your former neighbors, that simply disagree with Measure P and stop
attacking them.
From: Brian CampbeaiIto: ascent@verizon.net]�
Sent: Wednesday, NNember 03, 2010 1.13 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: Measure P DEFEATED in RPV.
Importance: High
The biggest political upset in southern California history happened early this morning with the sound defeat of
Measure P; the Marymount Plan.
Against seemingly insurmountable financial odds and a ferocious Marymount College, the residents of Rancho
Palos Verdes stood their ground and said "No on P".
.....,rel
From: Brian [mailto:scent@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, Nov ber 02, 2010 1:20 P
To: Brian
Subject: FW: Heartfelt Thanks.
Fact:
There was not a sin le organizational supporter of Measure P that listened to both sides of the argument and said that
they would support it.
Of the ones that took positions; 100% Opposed Measure P.
1
From: Long, Thomas D.
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:57 PM
Ken,
Thank you and thank you to all others on this e-mail as well. Despite severe provocation by the other
side, I think it is fair to say that "No on P" conducted itself respectfully and honorably in both mailers
and debates. I know this is the case for the mailers I got and I know it is the case for the debates I
saw and the phone calls I heard.
I am pleased to have endorsed No on P and grateful to each of you for your efforts to see this
campaign through.
Tom Long
From: Ken Dyda [mailto:kendyda@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:00 PM
Subject: Heartfelt Thanks.
Thank you all for the unstinting effort to defeat Measure "P". Without you, there would have been
no campaign. Congratulations on keeping on the high road with facts in the face of an unprincipled
adversary. Each of you have contributed immeasurably to the effort. I am honored to be counted
among such a group of dedicated people whose only agenda is the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
God bless all of you.
Ken Dyda
From: Brian Campbell [mail scent@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, December 0 , 2010 10:40 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: Marymount Reneges on Election Payment Promise - Daily Breeze
From: Brian Campbell [mail :b.camp@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 1 2010 4:09 PM
To: 'Brian Campbell'
Subject: My final thoughts on Measure P..
With the Measure P election behind us, I'd like to reflect on the process our community has just gone through. Everyone
knows I opposed it and was pleased with the outcome, but that's not the point of my message here today. Over 45% of
the voters in our community voted in favor of Measure P, and must be equally not pleased that it didn't pass. If that
many of our citizens are disappointed by the outcome of an issue, we need to listen very closely and continue to strive to
do a better job at whatever we do in our community, regardless as to which side we were on with Measure P. In my case
it's striving to be a good neighbor to the folks that live in my neighborhood and serving you on city council for the next 3
years.
There are a lot of things I learned and observed during this election, and before we close this chapter, I'd like to share
some of my thoughts with you, my neighbors here in RPV.
1. I agree with everything that was said by the supporters of Measure P about the importance of Marymount as an
asset to our community. When reviewing Marymount's development applications, or anyone's, the Planning
Commission's job, and the City Council's job, is to make a decision that is best as a whole for the City and its people, and
they need the input of the people to help them make those decisions better. When this issue was last considered by city
council, a relatively small portion of our community was informed and involved, and in fact the issue of the dorms was
never fully reviewed by either the Planning Commission or the City Council. I understand the desire of our community to
help Marymount thrive and I want to be part of that. People will differ on what Measure P was "about." For me, it was
about making sure we follow a process that is designed to protect everyone's interests. If Marymount wants to submit the
dorms to a full review, I hope we can now give that system a chance to work, and to achieve the result that is best for all
of the people of Rancho Palos Verdes. No guarantees as to the result, except that it will be fair to everyone.
2. This town is full of people who care about what this City is doing and are prepared to do more than just talk about
it. If anyone thinks that Rancho Palos Verdes is just a bunch of disconnected neighborhoods, boy have they got that
wrong. On both sides of this issue there were people getting actively engaged and interested, and working to mobilize a
vote --many of whom live nowhere near the Marymount campus. I'm really hoping that community engagement will
continue on. This town has a lot of important issues to contend with. If you have continued to read this far, then you are
exactly the person I'm speaking to when I say please don't lose that energy. Stay informed, stay involved, and stay
energized --this town needs your involvement.
3. Many people in RPV are not happy with government; either on the local or national level. Here's what I ask of you
locally: If you don't like something then come "let us have it". I'm not kidding. You need to come tell us what you think.
People suspect that if they knew what the City is doing day to day, they'd find a lot of things they want done differently.
Those suspicions are probably right. I'm sure you'll also be pleased with a lot of things, but the fact is that there are
processes we need to fix here, and all sorts of things we need to do better. And yes, it's the job of the City Council to
work to fix them, but there is no substitute for direct input from the community. And that's why you need to stay informed
and stay involved. Come give us a little of your time, and a piece of your mind. We meet every other Tuesday night at
City Hall. Everyone who wants to speak gets to speak. About anything. You can email every council member and senior
manager at city hall at: cc(o)-rpv.com. We read them. Seriously. You can also watch past City Council meetings and get
other information about what the City is doing on the City's website. http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/ If you don't find the
information you are looking for there, let us know by calling or emailing us and we will help you.
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Brian Campbel ' <ascent(a�verizon.net>
Date: October 23, 2010
To: "Brian Campbell" <ascent@,verizon.net>
Subject: Marymount attempting this afternoon to get illegal PVP Republican Assembly
club endorsement for Measure P.
All,
For anyone interested in seeing first-hand desperate pro Measure P campaign tactics, as
Marymount surrogates attempt to get an illegal "Republican" endorsement at any cost.
Their goal is to be able to immediately trumpet a huge "success with the GOP", advertise it to
GOP voters in RPV to try and dilute the actual Republican Party opposition to Measure P, and by
the time the real truth gets out to the public about the illegal nature of the phony "endorsement"
the election will be over.
\ o��
COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
A TRADITION OF SERVICE INCIDENT REPORT
DATE PAGE OF 4j)
OF ADULT i #OFSUWJECT
ACTION: �(ACTIVr CAPAINAL "ARRESTS DETENTIONS
0 PENDING
-�aSSIFICAlION11LEvr:L/S—TATCODE SEX OFFENSE
0 YES IR NO
CLASSIFICATION 31LEVELISTATCOVE
INJURY
S. NAiW
CODE: V - VICTIM - W - WITNESS - I - INFORMANT R- REPORTING PARTY P -PARTY
RES. ADDA. CITY
ry ZIP VICTIM OF OFFENSE(S) (CLASSIFICATIONJ 8% 1 ASS. PHONE (Area Coda)
BUS. 0 ;,P I ENGLISH BUS. PHONE (Area Codo)0_ej I
CODE I UNAME FNAMS MRAFAS SEX RACE! ETHNIC ORIGIN DOS Ago
ENGLISH BUS. PHONE (Aron Code)
SPEAKING YES 0 NO s
CODE of
NGUSH
Fay
SPEAKING 0 YES 0 NO
CODE: S -SUSPECT SJ-SU13JECT - M -PATIENT SIV - SUSPECT/ VICTIM SJ /V -SUBJECT/ VICTIM
YAP 6E9 hp� i9c) f3
ETHNIC ORIGIN
|
CODE of LNAMB
FNA?AE
IMAMS
DRIVEFrS LICENSE (STATE & No.)
RES. PHONE (Area Coda)
UNIT/ CAR a
SHIFT
P "Ea— EMPLOYEE 0 Z� 0 Ai i T _k I. E.
- ------ ------SPECIAL
- - -
WHERE DETAINED OR CITE 9
OlATC-IT1111-i—
I MONIKER
BOOKING 9
SUSP I SU4 RELEASE APPROVED BY
VEHICLE SUSPECT STATUS C] IfjPOUNOEO LICENSE (STATE& No.)
YEAR MAKE MODEL BODYTYPE COLOR
VICTIM D STORED [I OUTSTANOING
EGISTEREDOWNER IDENTIFYING FEATURii CHP ISO SUBMITTED: GARAGE NAME & PH.
YES �X-
BY DER EMPLOYES #
VACATIONDATES:
DER
EMPLOYEE VACATION DATES
UNIT/ CAR a
SHIFT
P "Ea— EMPLOYEE 0 Z� 0 Ai i T _k I. E.
- ------ ------SPECIAL
- - -
DER'
OlATC-IT1111-i—
RED USE T DISTRIBUTION
SUSP I SU4 RELEASE APPROVED BY
TWE PCD SUBMITTED:
1 77 fL'C BY
DATE
YES
Oa,c tt Tut'R_CEIV��'p 7aG.' Cy i URN rq r^y` ^�
E �51 33= 5 PAGE a OF
9'-"—
I CHECKED NCIC. CII. ETC.: EVIDENCE EELD: SMO°NCE ENTERED IN: BYPATROL NARCOTICS SAFE
YES ❑ NO ❑VES NO LatlgaNPagox Lntlgor/Pa9ox tstlgerlPapc:
EVIDENCE ❑ BLOOD ❑ BULLET ❑ BULLET CASING ❑ CHECKS ❑ CLOTHES ❑ CREDIT CARDS ❑ ELECTRONIC EQUIPME14T ❑ FINGERPRINTS
HELD: ❑ FOOTPRINTS ❑ FRAUD DOCUMENTS ❑ GSA ❑ HAIR ❑ JEWELRY ❑ MISCELLANEOUS ❑ MONEY ❑ NARCOTICS
❑ OTHER PRINTS ❑ PAINT ❑ PHOTOGRAPHS ❑ RAPE KR RECEIPTS ❑ TOOLS ❑ URINE ❑ VEHICLE IMPOUNDED
❑ VEHICLE PARTS ❑ WEAPONS ❑
PROPERTY S—STOLEN - R—RECOVERED - L—LOST • F—FOUND - E—EMBETILED • O—DAMAGED - EV—EVIDENCE
CODE: (Use all applicable Codes; for example, if property is both Stolen and Recovered. Code is SIR)
RELEASED TO
CODE
I'mi R
DUAN.
DESCRIPTION (Include kind of article, trade name, Identifying numbers,
physical description, material, color, condition, age and present market value)
SERIAL
VALUE
S .,, ,
yy s
^[t{ryi1='* r:d
PART I STATISTICAL INFORMATION
PROPERTY TYPE OF PROPERTY STOLEN RECOVERED
'
TYPE OF PROPERTY ` STOLEN RECOVERED JEWELRY ;S i5
CLOTHING/FURS SS I LIVESTOCK S `S ---
_
CONSUMABLE GOODS i S S LOCAL STOLEN VEHICLES is !S—
CURRENCY/NOTES 15 IS MISCELLANEOUS ;S :S
FIREARMS : S— S I OFFICE EQUIPMENT is
^—_S
HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS ! SiTV/RADIO/STEREO iS IS
VICTIM OF SEX CRIMES REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
PURSUANT TO SECTION 293(a) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, YOU ARE INFORMED THAT YOUR NAME WILL BECOME A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,
UNLESS YOU REQUEST THAT IT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT BE A PUBLIC RECORD, PURSUANT TO SECTION 6254 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
1, HEREBY (DO) (DO NOT) ELECT TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
SCREENING FACTORS
YES YES NO
❑ 1. SUSPECT IN CUSTODY )33 ❑ 7. GENERAL SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
❑ 2. SUSPECT NAMED/KNOWN ❑ � 5'1 B. GENERAL VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
❑ 3, UNIQUE SUSPECT IDENTIFIERS ❑ _Dr 4 9. UNIQUE M.O. OR PATTERN
❑ 4. VEHICLE IN CUSTODY ❑ ❑ 10. SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
❑ S. UNIQUE VEHICLE IDENTIFIERS ❑ ❑ 11. TRACEABLE STOLEN PROPERTY
;', ❑ 6. WRITER/REVIEWER DISCRETION ❑ ❑ 12. MULTIPLE WITNESSES
76C30OF - SH -R49 (Rev. 10199)
R�Ge 3 )e
REPORT CONTINUATION 911-00221-1738-339
I was dispatched to 27520 Hawthorne Bl, RPV regarding threats to a City Counsel member, tag 86
I contacted V/Campbell who told me the following:
V/Campbell said he is a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Counsel and he is on a committee
regarding the Annenberg project at Lower Point Vicente. V/Campbell said the project is regarding
the development of the land below the Interpretive Center. V/Campbell said approximately half of
the residents are for the project and half are against the project. V/Campbell said there are a limited
number of votes and he holds one of them.
V/Campbell said on 01-13-2011, he attended a Los Angeles County Republican Party monthly
meeting at the "Mike Curb" hall near Griffith park in Los Angeles. V/Campbell said the purpose for
being at the meeting on 01-13-2011 was to ask the republican party for their endorsement regarding
the Annenberg project in Rancho Palos Verdes. V/Campbell said he did get the endorsement he
wanted. V/Campbell said Rancho Palos Verdes resident Sharon yarber was there to oppose the
endorsement and she spoke to the Republican Party members. V/Campbell said as he and Ms. Yarber
were leaving the meeting they talked about her opinion on the Annenberg project. Ms. Yarber also
made some helpful suggestions regarding the analysis of his vote on the Annenberg project.
V/Campbell said Ms. Yarber seemed "amped up" and she was more insistent than usual. V/Campbell
said he did not think anything more of this because this was politically motivated. V/Campbell and
Ms. Yarber were going their separate ways and Ms. Yarber asked V/Campbell to call her the next
day regarding other City
On 01-14-2 , V/Campbell said he called Ms. Yarber at her quest. V/Campbell said he assumed
Ms. Yarber anted to talk about the city charters and not t nnenberg project. V/Campbell said
quickly Ms. ber asked V/Campbel l what his o ' ' s on thAienberg project. V/Campbell
said he politely ave all the information and he had not made his
decision. Ms. Yarber demanded to know if V/Campbell was going to vote "yes" or "no" on the
Annenberg project. V/Campbell told Ms. Yarber that he could not give her an answer. V/Campbell
said V/Campbell sternly said, "Brian, if you participate (or words to that effect) in moving forward
(as a vote on City Council) with the Annenberg project and a land exchange, then you need to know
that there will be a huge number of people extremely angry with you." Ms. Yarber then said, "Brian,
you don't want them coming to your house, and they know where you live, and picketing outside.
You know what happened last week in Arizona."
V/Campbell said discussing his views on projects is part of his job as a City Council member. when
Ms. Yarber made the comment about people picketing outside his house "because they know where
you live" alarmed V/Campbell. V/Campbell said his home address is not made public as a City
Council member. V/Campbell said he does not disclose his home address and he uses the Rancho
Palos Verdes City Hall address for City Council member affairs. V/Campbell does not want people
picketing outside his house because that would alarm his family and neighbors. Ms. Yarber's
comment, "You know what happened last week in Arizona!" caused V/Campbell to be concerned
for his safety and the safety of his family. V/Campbell took that comment as a threat. V/Campbell
REPORT CONTINUATION 911-00221-1738-339
said it had only been six days since Gabrielle Giffords had been shot and six other people including
a 9 year old girl had been killed at a Town Hall "meet and greet" style meeting in Tucson Arizona.
V/Campbell said he believed Ms. Yarber was threatening him and instilling fear so he would not
vote to approve the Annenberg project since V/Campbell's vote carries a lot of weight. V/Campbell
said after Ms. Yarber made this comment V/Campbell abruptly ended the phone call.
V/Campbell said on 01-14-2011 approximately 1900 hours, He called Ms. Yarber's cell phone and
he told Ms. Yarber that her comments were not appropriate. V/Campbell also told Ms. Yarber that
he did not believe it was legal for her to threaten him the way she did. V/Campbell said Ms. Yarber
"vigorously" defended her right to the freedom of speech and she demanded that she had the right
to tell him what she did. V/Campbell said Ms. Yarber also said, "I hope you didn't think that I would
be the person to picket your house." V/Campbell said he abruptly ended the phone call.
V/Campbell said he is fearful Ms. Yarber will harm him or his family. V/Campbell said he has a V,
grader and a kinder gardener and he is fearful something will happen to him or his family.
I suggested V/Campbell get a restraining order against Ms. Yarber but V/Campbell said he did not
want to take
Of'sTiould be krow that V/Campbell provided Ms. Yarber's home address and phone numbers and
the fact that Ms. Yarber is an attorney. I checked DMV records and confirmed Ms. Yarber lived at
the same address provided by V/Campbell. I also checked Calbancom and I confirmed Ms _
I have attached "Sharon Yarber conversation" statements which were provided by V/Campbell and
Ms. Yarber's California Bar Association information and information on the Annenberg project.
On 01-18-2011 at 2330 hours, I submitted a JRIC lead #201000570
On 01-18-2011 at 2340 hours, I notified Headquarters Bureau Deputy Pope #465639 about this
incident.
I
19
PAGE 1 OF 3
- LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPPLEMENTAL
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REPORT
t.
)ATE 02-08-2011 IIDACTIVE ❑ INACTIVE ❑ PENDING URN 911-00221-1738-339
ACTION
Wive Add'[ Info/ Suspects Written Statement
:LASSIFICATION I I LEVEL f STAT CODE
criminal Threats 422 P.C. /F/ 339
CODE: V VICTIM W -WITNESS I - INFORMANT R -REPORTING PARTY P - PARTY M - PATIENT S - SUSPECT SJ - SUBJECT
CODE ' : of I LNAME
V 1 of 1 lCampbell,
FNALIE
Brian
APPROVED // 1 it
--yip
MNAME I SEX I RACE I ETHNIC ORIGIN I OOB 1
Thomas M i W 1 09-18-54 j
Abe
56
RES. AOQR.
CITY
ZIP
�I
I BOOKING NUMBERi AES. PHONE (Arno Colo)
DayPlKrno
6477 Chartress Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes_
90275 _
_— —L I 310-265-4765
UNITICAR NO. __jSHIFT
D.B.
BUS. ADDR.
30940 Hawthorne BI.
CITY
Rancho Palos Vedes
ZIP
90275
i'
`" ® p BUS, PHONE Codd)
sPeAKnrc YES ND I cell 310-702-8009
Da% j
Ptrono
CODE I F of LNAME
I
FNALIE
I AME ; SEX( RACEI ETHNICORIGIN I DOS I
� r
ACo
AES. AOOA.
CITY
7jP
jB00KING NVIdBER ' RES. PHONE Woo Codo)
Dal I
Pnone�
BUS.ADDR. _�-•CfTY
-�-
21P
----�I _-BUS. PHONE(Atoa Codo)
none
I SPEAKWO []YES IJ NO I
CODE 1 e of 1 LNAME
FNAIdE
MNAME I SEX I RACE; ETHNIC ORIGIN DOB i
Ago
S 1 of 1 jyarber,
Sharon
-•
I F j W j I
_ - -
CITY
I BOOKING NUMBER RES. PHON'•
ono;
I
I I;IIGLIaN
I •.PEAKwc ® YES ❑ NO
a i
NARRATIVE
The purpose of this report is to document additional statements by V/Campbell and statements from
S/Yarber.
On 01-19-11 at 1220 hours, I called S/Yarber's cell phone. S/Yarber answered the phone but said she
could not talk because she was driving. I told S/Yarber that I would call her cell phone number again and I
would leave my name and phone number. S/Yarber said she would call back.
On 01-20-2011, 1 received a voice message from Attorney Tony Capozzola 310-316-6055 stating he was
representing S/Yarber and if there was anything I needed to call him.
IEHICLE SUSPECT STATUS 1]ILIPOUNDEO 1 LICENSE(STATE& No.) YEAR MAKE i MODEL 1 BODY TYPE COLOR
VICTIM [] STORED MOUTSTANDING
lEGISTEREQ OVlNER IDENTIFYING FEATURES 1 CHP iso 5UBLMITTEo;:TOW COMPANY NAME
I DYES [ NO
BY DEPUTY
Jennifer Williams
EMPLOYEE NO.
297031;
APPROVED // 1 it
--yip
ELIPLOYEENO.
TIME
BY DEPUTY
EMPLOYEE NO.
�.
ASSIGNMENT
SPECIAL REQUEST DISTRIBUTION
Lomita Detective Bureau
STATION
Lomita
UNITICAR NO. __jSHIFT
D.B.
days
SECRETARY
DATE 411.IE
5UPPLEMENTAL REPORT D8105 ! - - I
1
(�A'Ge 2- aF 3
REPORT CONTINUATION 911-00221-1738-339
On 01-24-2011 at approximately 1000 hours, Mr. Capozzola called me at Lomita Station. Mr.
Capozzola said S/Yarber wrote a statement and gave it to him. Mr. Capozzola said S/Yarber
included a lot of unnecessary things about City Charters and other irrelevant information. Mr.
Capozzola said he wanted S/Yarber to take the unnecessary things out of her statement then he
would give it to me. Mr. Capozzola also told me he had a dental emergency so S/Yarber's statement
would not be ready until Friday 01-28-2011. I told Mr. Capozzola that my partner, Detective Dondis
#510510 would pick up S/Yarber's statement at his office (225 Avenue I, Suite 201, Redondo Beach
CA 90277.
On-. - 011 at approximately 0830 hours, I received a phone call from V/Campbell. V/Campbell
anted to know the status of this case and he wanted to know if S/Yarber was serious about her
threat. I asked V/Campbell what he thought. V/Campbell wanted to k=vraxnm&uWwWRffrn
lues no ow w is ar er Miscapable or and this was the first time someone threatened
ty Council Member. I told V/Campbell that he needed to tell me if he thought S/Yarber
o know it W Y artier was serious or not.
y t= said the other night he needed to take out bis trash at 2100 hours but he was not sure
k �tG safe to go outside when it was dark. *Campbell said te thought about waiting until
'marnmJ�i ase S/Yarber or someone else serif by S/Yarber was waiting outside to hurt hum.
I told V/Campbell that this case was still under investigation and S/Yarber had an attorney
re resen ' amp a iat I coul not gyve lun ation. I asked
ampbell if he got a restraining order which I suggested to him when I took the initia
V/Campbell said he did not recall me suggesting a restraining order then he said he did not know
how to get one. V/Campbell said
was not sure if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would get a restraining
order for him. I explained how ordinary citizens get a restraining order at Torrance Court.
Later the same day, I retrieved a couple of messages from V/Campbell. In one of the messages
V/Campbell offered to take a lie detector test regarding this case to show he was not lying.
On -y -- n is pic up arber's statement, se attached.
On 02-01-2011, I called Mr. Capozzola at his request. Mr. Capozzola wanted to know if S/Yarber
was recorded when she spoke with V/Campbell on the phone in regards to this case. I told Mr.
Capozzola that I could not answer that question. Mr. Capozzola said it would be a really "dumb"
thing to say if S/Yarber said something to the effect of "you know what happened in Arizona." Mr.
Capozzola said that S/Yarber asked V/Campbell, "Brian, do you think I threatened you?"
V/Campbell said, "No." Mr. Capozzola also pointed out this quote in S/Yarber's statement. Mr.
Capozzola said it's really important to know if the statements were recorded because this statement
should be on the recording. Again, I would not confirm or deny if a recording existed. Mr. Capozzola
believes S/Yarber was set up.
P� 3 3
REPORT CONTINUATION 911-00221-1735-339
Mr. Capozzola also told me V/Campbell is using the legal system for political reasons. Mr.
Capozzola also said it was a conflict of interest that the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department is
investigating this allegation because V/Campbell is on a committee which decides how many Sheriff
police cars they want to patrol Rancho Palos Verdes and they decide how much money to pay the
Sheriff for police services.
While I was on the phone with Mr. Capozzola he said he received an email from S/Yarber. Mr.
Capozzola said S/Yarber was at the Ladera Community Center on 01-31-2011 and V/Campbell
announced to the audience while he was holding his five year old son in his arms that he had been
threatened two weeks ago. V/Campbell then looked directly at S/Yarber. I asked Mr. Capozzola if
he would forward S/Yarber's email to me. Mr. Capozzola said he had to ask S/Yarber for permission
to release the email.
On 02-09-2011, I received several emails from Mr. Capozzola which were sent to him from different
people. An email from S/Yarber documented that on 01-30-2011 she was speaking to a homeowners
association regarding her position opposing a City proposition. After S/Yarber spoke, V/Campbell
announced to the audience that he had been threatened two weeks prior then V/Campbell looked
directly at S/Yaber. S/Yarber said that V/Campbell made this announcement while his 5 year old son
was sitting close him in the audience. An email from Arline Grotz was also included as a witness
to this incident.
Mr. Capozzola also forwarded an email that was sent to S/Yarber from the Rancho Palos Verdes City
Mayor, Tom Long on 02-02-11. The email from Mr. Long stated that lie did not want to participate
in any public meetings with S/Yarber due to her statements to V/Campbell (shame on you for
threatening Brian and his family.)
Mr. Capozzola also forwarded an email from Michael Brophy of Marymount College. Mr. Brophy
said "the college knows first-hand the depths to which Mr. Campbell can go in a campaign." Mr.
Brovhv included examul
On 02-05-11, I received emails from V/Campbell that were sent to Lomita Sheriff Station for
inclusion in this case. The emails were sent between S/Yarber and Tom Long. V/Campbell wanted
the emails included to show S/Yarber's tone. The emails from V/Campbell have Sgt. Graff's name
top of the page.
This case will be presented to the District Attorney's Office for their consideration of a criminal
filing.
Graff, Dennis J
From: Brian Campbell [b.camp@cox.
Sent:
Friday, Feb 9
To: o in, Darrell B.
Subject: Yarber emails with RPV Mayor Tom Long
Lt Bolin,
9(0 -C-,)Oa 2) ( -1 -73g'-~337
?lease take a lo���j
�gw
as a ween tPi�t30 They are few
:han two days a��H�d
cond email I will send you is the polar opposite. It will give
you a b eh RPV Mayor Long. Please put them in the file for this case
a ink it will assist you and the DA in determining that this person is potentially a real threat.
Let me know what else I need to do to assist you in keeping this matter moving forward.
Thanks,
Brian Campbell
Councilman
Ciry of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-7400 office
888-855-9619 fax
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
lO TICE., The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) Is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and maybe
o.artdenirat and/or privileged. If am reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and
may be unlawful. if you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all
;rooies from your system. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
rom: "Tom Long" <tonilon(�@pakosverdes.com>
Sent 11/18/20109:53:59 PSI
To: "sharon yarber" <momofyago@gmatl.com>
SUI�Iect: Re: Charter City
Dear Sharon, You are wise to try to be ftilly informed before taking a position on any issue. It tool: me a while
o learn the importance oI'that. While seemingly simple, the charter issue is fairly complicated. And one can
cemie at it from different angles. Personally I favor a larger federal government in times of recession. And I
savor health care reform and many of the other things a bigger government brings. That being said, each level of
government needs a secure revenue source that other levels cannot raid or else there is no independence. Yes, I
Would be happy to meet with you. (If Nixon can go to China --why not?) Give me some days where an early
breakfast on a weekday would work for you or a lunch on a weekend. Copy the e-mail to tlong@nossaman.com
'fon Lona
-----Original Ulessage-----
`
' COUNTY O855
ADULTCA 12
/ U2- 5-2011 UR0#: 311-UO221-173D-33Q
�
C. Criminal Threo�422F�C. ACTIVEINACTIVE (X)
CASE CLEARED: YES []
� v:1 of 1: 8#1 8hg # none�__
�
V:2 of � 8t2 BkQ.#
V:3 of 3#3 8kg.#
VA of � 8#4 Bkg #
GA6 8kg #
FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION
[]
CASE INACTIVE PENDING FURTHER WORKABLE INFORMATION
E, KNOWN WORKABLE LEADS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED
[] VICTIM |SNOT DESIROUS OFPROSECUTION
[] VICTIM REFUSES TOCOOPERATE ORTESTIFY
[--; ATTEMPTS TOCONTACT THE VICTIM HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL
[]
CASE REASSIGNED:
O ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: VICTIM IS NOT CO-OPERATIVE, HAS NOT MADE ATTEMPT TO RETURN MY
CONTACTS
El OTHER:
DISPOSITION OF CASE
ON 02-14-2011 THE FACTS 0FTHIS CASE WERE REVIEWED 8Y�D.& .Torrance D�A�OFFICE
�
FELONY COMPLAINT #
�
[] M|8DEMEANOROOMPLAU«T#
[] OFFICE CONFERENCE. SCHEDULED:
7�i 849 (B)(l)PC. RECOMMENDED (REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAt4WQQBT)
� QASERBECTE0# 31436480 REASON: Insufficient Evidence
COMPLETE ONPART |CRIMES ONLY
OCASE INACTIVE -NOFURTHER WORKABLE
OCASE INACTIVE ~(CLEARGD)~CASE SOLVED Note. You MUST CHECK ONE upTHE THREE BELow~xcCEPxoBLsuC.nClearances
[] ULTA E�TEQ [� [] EXCEPTIONAL�� UK0 | �
CLEARED BY: Jennifer Williams
ENTERED INTO LARC)G&CAL GANGS BY:
VERIFIED BY:
DATE ENTERED:
CASE CLEARANCE CODE: ltZ S:1 070 GQ____ 8:3____SA. ___ Q:5S/8
EVIDENCE HELD:0YES [] HOLD (CYCLICAL GMONTHS REVIEW)
X NO [] DISPOSE IMMEDIATELY [] DISPOSE |N8MONTHS (AUTOMAT|C):
Submitted By: Deputy
Approved By: Sergeant
EMp-297031 Assigned: Lomita Detective Bureau
LU -'j ANUtl_t5 UQUN I Y DISTRICT ATTORNEY a '
CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET Page 1 of 1
'FELONY
AGENCY NAME
DA CASE NO. 31436480
DATE 02/14/2011
SERIAL M
LASD - LOMITA'PATROL
D.
Victim Unavailable/Declines
H. Other (indicate the reason in
AGENCY FILE NO. (DR OR URN)
DA OFFICE CODE
VICTIM ASSISTANCE REFERRAL
X MISDEMEANOR
911002211738339
TOA
0 YES — NOTIFY VWAP ❑ NO
SUSP
(FORM 8715)
CHARGES
NO.
SUSPECT
I OFFENSE REASON
CORE SECTION
REASON CODES
DATE CODE
to Testify
NAME (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE)}
YARBER, SHARON
PC 422 01/14/2011 S
Combined with Other
J. Deferred for Revocation of
M.
Probation Violation filed in
DOB
SEX (MIF) BOOKING NO.
VIP — Yes X No
Parole
Gang Member NameofGang
Victim Gang Member Name of Gan :
C. Inadmissible Search/Seizure
Victim Name:
Victim DOB:
K. Further Investigation
NAME (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE))
Referred to City Attorney for
2
i
DOB
SEX (nvF)
BOOKING N0. TVIP
— Yes — No
Gan Member Name of Gan
NAME (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE))
3
UUM l QUA (W) I nvunrrvu NU. I vlr — res — No
ember Name of Gan
omments
Insufficient evidence of such convincing force to warrant conviction. Suspeot denies making any threat and there were no
other witnesses. Surrounding circumstances suggest the alleged threat was vague and not a "serious, deliberate
statement of purpose." No prior history of conflicts between the parties. To the contrary, the parties had a consistently
professional relationship. Evidence does not support the victim being in sustained fear since victim called the suspect
later that day and denied being threatened, no report was made until three days later, and when victim spoke to the
detective, he asked if the suspect was serious about her threat.
(SIGNATURE) I STATE BAR No. I REVIEWING DEPUTY (SIGNATURE)
HARALAMBOS ZOUMBERAKIS ( 1 227723
I have conveyed all relevant information to the above-named Deputy District Attorney to be used in consideration of a filing decision.
FILING OFFICER (PRINT):
FILING OFFICER (SIGNATURE):
SERIAL M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
D.
Victim Unavailable/Declines
H. Other (indicate the reason in
L.
Prosecutor Prefiling Deferral
REASON CODES
To Testify
Comments section)
DISTRICTATTORNEY'S
(FORM 8715)
E.
I
Witness Unavailable/Declines
I. Referred to Non -California ;
REASON CODES
to Testify
Jurisdiction
A. lack of Corpus
F.
Combined with Other
J. Deferred for Revocation of
M.
Probation Violation filed in
B. Lack of Sufficient Evidence
Counts/Cases
Parole
lieu of
C. Inadmissible Search/Seizure
G.
Interest of Justice
K. Further Investigation
N.
Referred to City Attorney for
i
Misdemeanor Consideration
Rav Fa7_A/1n/1n nA CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET
r
D
rn
D
M
D
03
m
X
-n
m
rn
D
O
Z
O
D
03/03/2011 12:36 3103268634 LOMITA DB PAGE 01
N . .. Y
PACE 1 OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPPLEMENTAL
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT. REPORT
DATEOF REPORT URN
03-03-2031 ACTIVE0 INACTIVE ❑ PENDING 911.00221.1738.339
ACTION
Active Add'I Info/ Add'I Victim Statements
CLAS3FICATION 71 LEVI L I STAT CODE
'riminal Threats 422 P.C./ F/ 339
CODE: V -VICTIM
W-WITNES$ I - INFORMANT 9- REPORTING PARTY P - PARTY
M • PATIENT S - SUSPECT SJ - SUBJECT
CMPLOYEE NO.
CODE
A of 1 LNAME
I (Campbell;
FNAME
MNAME
��rFX
RtA/C� I I ETHNIC ORIGIN I OW
pA!
EMPLOYEE NO.
I of 1
Brian
Thom
yY i
A
CITY
ZIP
BROKING NUMBER
RES. PNONE (/09-18-54
656
5477 Chartress Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes
90275
310-265-4765
BUc.AMR.
10940 Hawthorne BI
CITY
Rancho Palos Verdes
ZIP
90275
__. _._
ENAL-SH
F K��
_.__. _ _._
�YEE pNo
BUS. PNONE(AfamCoda)
i cell 310-702-8009
DaY
CODE of LNAME FMAME -.- -_-.. .MNAME SFX ! RACE ETNNICORIOIN 0011 Aqo
EUS. ADDR. CITY ZIPA118� P HOW
F,N(Ilu1N 1�I
NfNcMO ❑YG:: u NO
ODE D a; I LNAME FNAME MNAMETUNIC ORIGIN
S 1 bf 1 artier, Sharon
Com:"
=AKwc "ES D NO
NARRATIVE
The purpose of this report is to clarify the time period of when V/Campbell received this threats
On 03-02-2011 at 1345 hours, I spoke to V/Campbell regarding the time period when he received the threat
from S/Yarber.
V/Campbell said S/Yarber threatened him Friday morning 01 -14-2011, between 0900 and 1000 hours.
V/Campbell said when he got off the phone he immediately documented the threat which is included in my
report, After documenting the threat V/Campbell called the Rancho Palos Verdes City Attorney, Carol
Lynch. V/Campbell reported the threat to tis. Lynch who told V/Campbell to report the threat to the Sheriff
Department. V/Campbell said he galled Captain Anda at Lomita Sheriff Station. Captain Anda told
V/Campbell that S/Yarber's statement was a crime. VECampbell told Captain Anda that he wanted to call
/EHICLB SUSPECT STATUS IMPOUNDED IJCPNSC(8TATC A N0.11 IYF.AA MANE MODEL EOOY TYPE COLOR
VICTIM [] STORED OUTSTAND[Np
.L..M... , ....,
4E013TEREOOWNER IDENTIFVINO FEATURES-� cryo inn aUEMITTED: ITOW COIAt'ANY NAMC
YES []NO
EY DEPUTY
EMPLOYEE N0.
APPROVED
CMPLOYEE NO.
TIME
Jennifer Williams
297031,,{
OY DC 4JTY
EMPLOYEE NO.
ASSIGNMENT
SPECIAL RFOUc:T wTRISUTION
Lomita Detective Bureau
3ThTIONUNIT7CNi
N0. SHIFT +-
•^•GCRCTAPY
LATE
Lomita
D.B. days.7
7TIME-msµ
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 08105
03/03/2011 12:36 3103268634
LOMITA DB PAGE 02
Page 2 of 2
R T CONTINUATION 911-00221-1738-339
SfYarber and talk to her before he filed a police report. V/Campbe)) said be wanted to give
S/Yarber the opportunity to explain herself V/Campbell also wanted to tell S/Yarber how
offended be was. V/Campbell then reported this crime to Lomita Station on Monday 01-17-2011.
71i.s report will be included in the case file
N-5-0,, ...
411,164
lz
£;,yam *�a r` n•�� �r
�.
May 24, 2011
Dr. Michael Brophy
President, Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Dr. Brophy,
I am in receipt of your letter that was delivered to the City Council this past Tuesday, May
13. Thank you for the telephone conversation we had today which was so helpful in
providing clarity, and I am reassured that we have a common understanding of the
College's intention to follow through on its commitment to reimburse the City for the costs
of the November 2010 Measure P ballot initiative.
Your May 25, 2010 letter to then Mayor Stefan Wolowicz clearly stated the College's
commitment to "pay all the City's costs associated with placing the initiative on the
November 2010 ballot. We want to do our part to ensure that the challenge of limited
public funds does not stand in the way of the broadest participation possible."
I respect that the College needed to perform its due diligence to ensure that the City's
request for reimbursement was reasonable and appropriate, and you have confirmed to
me that your careful review of the bills has enabled you to conclude that the charges are
indeed valid.
Dr. Brophy, in your letter you voiced a number of concerns that arose between the College
and the City in connection with Measure P. As I shared with you today, I do not believe it
would be constructive for me to respond to the detail of the matters you have identified,
and so I ask that you please not interpret my silence as agreement with your point of view.
It seems we can agree on the consistent understanding between the City Council and you,
when the Council agreed to set the election date in accordance with Marymount's request.
I appreciated your re-emphasizing that the College's commitment to reimburse the City for
election costs was never in question. Your confirmation is consistent with the
understanding that staff and I always had.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RFV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Dr. Michael Brophy
May 24, 2011
Page 2
As we discussed, I look forward to your attending the June 7 Council meeting to present
the reimbursement check in the amount of $71,014.94 during the Public Comment period.
Most importantly, the City looks forward to forging a strong working relationship with the
valuable resource to our community that is Marymount College.
Sincerely,
amj��V' p6)
Thomas D. Long
Mayor
Cc: City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes
City Manager, Rancho Palos Verdes
City Attorney, Rancho Palos Verdes
Page 1 of 1
Katie Howe
From:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:
Monday, June 06, 2011 7:36 AM
To:
'Tom Odom'
Cc:
'Katie Howe'
Subject: FW: Skate Park Outreach Agenda Item
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Blue
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:12 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carol W. Lynch
Subject: Skate Park Outreach Agenda Item
Dear Council,
May I suggest that if the Council wants to contract with Mia Lehrer in order for her to conduct outreach concerning a
skate park, that the breadth and scope of her efforts be wider? It makes more sense to me to have a general outreach in
the community as to whether the notion of a skate park anywhere in the City is endorsed by the community, and if so,
where. To limit the outreach to Lower Hesse Park invites objection from immediately surrounding neighbors (which
would be quite understandable) and subsequent accusations/allegations that such objections should be overruled on
the grounds of NIMBYism. Is there strong support in the community for a skate park within our City? What about
other locations on the Hill (e.g. the landfill)? Skate parks are typically located in commercial/industrial zones and we
do not have such areas in our City. Perhaps somewhere near City Hall? The bottom line is that I do not think it makes
sense to spend money on an outreach that is limited to only one site, and frankly one that I think most people would
find unsuitable, just as it is unsuitable to have a dog park at LHP, notwithstanding that there is strong support all over
the Hill for a dog park someplace. With limited resources, should we not also ascertain if there is stronger support for
a dog park or a skate park, and if we can ultimately only do one, then do the one with greater support?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sharon Yarber
6/6/2011
MADE A PART OF TH REc(.7ttu H,
NCIL MEETING OF Q�
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
55�
LI
aqks,� RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 7, 2011
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
C Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
1 Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz;
Attachment A
2 Attachment B
5 Email exchange between Carolyn Lehr and Ellen November;
Emails from: Ellen November; Tony Teng
City Council Oral Reports Pension Subcommittee Report
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday, June 6, 2011**.
W:WGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110607 additions revisions to agenda.doc
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REPLY MEMORANDUM
TO:
Joel Rojas and Kit Fox
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
June 6, 2011
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 6-7-11 item C — Border Issues
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Kit and Joel,
Please help with a few questions on two different Border Issues.
Thanks,
Steve
1. Rancho LPG Butane Storage, letters to our U.S. Senators. I thought that
we had or were planning letters to these Senators. Are there upcoming
meetings or votes that we should send letters immediately? Is there any
aspect of this issue that warrants delay in sending such letters now?
At the April St" City Council meeting, a speaker asked the Council to direct
Staff to send a letter to Senators Feinstein and Boxer. The Council did not
provide such direction to Staff. We are not aware of pending action by any
legislative body regarding the Rancho LPG facility. If the Council wishes
Staff to send letters to our senators in this matter, we are ready to do so.
However, we should note that we would not recommend sending the draft
letter prepared by San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners' Coalition
presented to the Council on April Stn.
2. RHE — Chandler Ranch. Given the periodic traffic congestion on PV Drive
North should we send a letter now requesting that an EIR address traffic
problems on that street and extending up the Hill impacting our residents?
An EIR has been prepared for this project. We raised the issue of traffic
impacts in the vicinity of PVDE and PVDN in comments on the Draft EIR
back in 2008 and 2009. The Final EIR concludes that the project's traffic
impacts can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels.
Page 1 of 1 C .
C:\WINN'nProfiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\01-MREPLY cc meeting 2011 06-07 C border issues.doc 06/07/11 11:31
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kathryn Downs
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
June 7, 2011
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 6/7/11
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
item #1 City Budget FY 11-12
Kathryn,
Below are my questions regarding the items included in the budget. These
questions roughly follow the budget package outline:
(A) Staff's proposed FY 11-12 budget (commentary section)
(1) COPS program (page 1-2). Has our grant consultant determined if the
use of our COPS funds for juvenile programs would qualify for any
DOJ grants related to education? (Also see item (10) below).
Staff Reply:
The City has applied for a federal grant from the Department of Justice,
called the Cops Hiring Program (CHP) to subsidize the CORE program in
May 2011. We do not expect to receive award notification until after July
(2) RDA (page 1-2) RDA funds and payments. Aside from efforts to
discontinue RDA's, is our continued approach to accruing interest still
practical until the ultimate repayment plan with the county has been
confirmed? (Is our accrual of interest and adding the balance to a
receivable considered practical?) (Also see #22 below).
Staff Reply:
The consolidated loan agreement between the City and RDA requires the
accrual of interest. Yes, staff believes the continued accrual of interest is
in the City's best interest, especially if tax increment is available to repay
the consolidated loan.
(3) CIP reserve (page 1-2) just to confirm, the CIP reserve of $7.9 million
is still available (that is not designated to specific projects) to cover
emergency repairs (that is in case of an unexpected Tarapaca canyon
emergency)?
Page 1 of 8
C:\WINN11Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LKB\20110607 SW Questions and Answers.doc
06/07/114:38 P
Staff Reply:
Yes, the entire estimated reserve is available for emergency repairs.
(B) Notable General Fund Changes
(4) Emergency preparedness FEMA consulting (page 1-3) Based on the
claim received last year on previously received FEMA funds — has any
reserve been set aside should it be needed to refund part or all of
those originally received funds?
Staff Reply:
After payment of the $59,221 claim, the CIP FEMA Reserve still has an
available balance of $215,209. The FEMA Reserve is separate from the
CIP Reserve for Projects.
(C) Menu (for Council deliberation)
(5) Employee performance pool (pages 1-5 and page 76).
1. Has there been any further progress on Mayor Pro Tem Misetich'
call for some sort of audit to verify the measurability of the benefits?
Staff Reply:
Staff has made some inquiries with 3rd party consultants and is
currently awaiting a proposal to review the results of the FY10-11
Performance Incentive Program.
2. The $114,300 is added to the pool and is not department or
employee specific?
Staff Reply:
The $114,300 is based on 2% of the total salary budget; and if
approved by City Council, would become a pooled amount that is not
department/employee specific. Funds would only be paid out to
employees if the City Council agrees that staff met the specified goals
at the end of the fiscal year.
(6) Aircraft consultant (page 1-5).
1. Can this expense be shared with other cities participating in these
issues (especially in the long Beach airport routes)?
Staff Reply:
Yes, consulting services associated with the proposed LGB airspace
change may be reimbursed by some of the neighboring cities, similar
to the studies performed by Williams Aviation in 2010. However, some
advisory services are expected to be related to air noise and safety
matters that generally pertain to the City's residents.
Page 2 of 8
CAWINN'1AProfi1es\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\20110607_SW Questions and Answers.doc 06/07/11 4:38 P
2. Can these expenses be recouped from the airport or other
agencies?
Staff Reply:
Consulting expenses would not be shared or reimbursed by the FAA or
other airports.
(7) Federal lobbyist for San Ramon Canyon (pages 1-5 and 62). It
appears that the $48,000 is expected for both fiscal years. Is it
expected this will continue that long or can this be discontinued once
the funds are received?
Staff Reply:
The lobbying effort would cease once funding is secured.
(8) Community outreach (page 1-6). Following other local communities,
has there been an effort to seek local business sponsorship for the
entire amounts of such events as the community leaders' breakfast
and holiday party?
Staff Reply:
Staff has not solicited sponsorships for these two specific events, but local
businesses have been approached to help subsidize other community-
wide events.
(9) Leadership academy (page 1-6),In other local -area leadership
programs these fees are paid by the participants. Is there any reason
not to charge them for participating in this program?
Staff Reply:
The City Council could certainly decide to require participants to pay a fee.
However, leadership programs that serve to prepare future leaders are
generally offered by other agencies at no cost.
(10) Community Resource Grant deputy program (pages 1-6 and 85).
1. Have we asked for greater participation from the other cities?
Staff Reply:
All the regional law contract allocations have been carefully analyzed
while preparing the FY11-12 contract and the three cities agreed that the
current 60/30/10 cost sharing formula for the CORE Team is still
appropriate.
2. If necessary can this be trimmed to one deputy?
Page 3 of 8
C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LKB\20110607_SW Questions and Answers.doc 06107/114:38 P
Staff Reply:
Yes; however, because the CORE program is a part of the regional law
contract, any changes to the staffing levels would require agreement
among the 3 participating cities.
3. Can we verify with the Sheriff that they will continue with the lower
fee structure?
Staff Reply:
The Sheriff has indicated that if even a small amount of grant funding is
secured for the CORE program, the regional law contract will continue to
receive the discounted grant rate.
(11) Fourth of July event (pages 1-7 and 145) Can we seek a full
business sponsor for this program?
Staff Reply:
Yes, businesses will continue to be actively solicited to sponsor the event
with the goal of full sponsorship. Most sponsorship received to date has
been for in-kind services.
(12) Other recreation special events (pages 1-7 and 145) It is unclear as
to the amounts included in the amount cited. On page 145 it appears
that the July 4th event is duplicated in the total amount of $27,100.
Staff Reply:
The July 4th event is estimated to cost $25,800 for FY11-12. The other
$27,100 is for operating supplies, part-time wages, and professional
services related to other events (Whale of a Day, Shakespeare by the
Sea, etc.).
(13) Hesse Park kitchen improvements (pages 1-7 and 175). Why is
this not like other equipment replacements and covered through the
replacement fund?
Staff Reply:
The Equipment Replacement Fund provides for the replacement of
vehicles and equipment that are not permanently affixed to a building.
(14) Abalone cove parking lot repair (page 1-7 and 180). Could this also
be included in replacement funds?
Staff Reply:
The Equipment Replacement Fund provides for vehicles and equipment
that is not permanently affixed to a building.
Page 4 of 8
C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\20110607—SW Questions and Answers.doc 06/07/11 4:38 P
(15) City Hall community room ceiling (page 1-7 and 230) same
questions regarding building fund replacements?
Staff Reply:
As the City Hall Community Room ceiling project does extend the useful
life of the building, it could be funded from the Building Replacement
Fund. However, that fund has an estimated remaining balance of only
$503,218 at June 30, 2012.
(D)The budget in detail
(16) Personnel (page 59). What were the employee turnover statistics
since FY 07-08 and what are the common reasons for leaving?
Staff Reply:
There were 3 turnovers in FY08-09 and 5 turnovers in FY09-10. Typically,
the reasons for leaving were better job opportunities elsewhere
(promotions, closer to home, increased salary, etc.).
(17) Risk Management- workers compensation claims. (Page 59). Even
with a change in industry standards the dramatic increase in claims is
likely to increase the costs to the city. What are the underlying reasons
and can these be mitigated?
Staff Reply:
Additional research is required to determine the precise nature and
reasons for the changes in the industry standards. Until this is known,
staff cannot determine if the impact can be mitigated.
(18) Community Survey (page 62) Can this be deferred another year or
phased in over several years to lessen the immediate impact to the
budget?
Staff Reply:
Yes, the Community Survey can be deferred. However, it would likely be
much more expensive and perhaps of less value if phased over several
years. Staff felt that it is a tool that will benefit the new City Council, and
provide valuable information for making policy and budgeting decisions in
the future.
(19) City grants (page 69). This does not include the $80,000 for the
high school pool. Was that cost in the current year or scheduled for
later?
Page 5 of 8
C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\20110607_SW Questions and Answers.doc 06107/114:38 P
Staff Reply:
The $80,000 approved by the City Council for the high school pool is
funded from EET & Quimby, and has been included on page 227 of the
draft budget document.
(20) Public safety (page 84). This does not include the COPS reduction
of $187,000, or is this part of the council deliberation or included in the
reduction on pages 86/87?
Staff Reply:
The $100,000 COPS revenue has not been included in the draft budget.
However, the full amount of the $187,000 CORE expenditure has been
included in the draft budget document. The budget document assumes
that the City will continue to fund the CORE program from General Fund
money, at the same service level as FY10-11.
(21) Finance & IT (page 103). For prof/tech service "the FY 11-12
increase provides for training ..." Is that increase of $68,517 high?
Staff Reply:
The training and professional consulting is necessary as part of the
document management implementation. The implementation project is
the most significant of the items contributing to the 11 % increase from the
actual FY09-10 expenditure of $394,245. Other increases include on -
demand updates to GIS layers and increased support of the new
accounting system, which is expected to be a more complex system than
what the City currently uses.
(22) RDA interest amounts — The amounts on page 107 do not tie to
topic L, page 1. Can the amounts on page 107 or on the schedule on
L-5 be reconciled to page L-1?
Staff Reply:
Topic L, page 1 discusses the FY10-11 addition to the consolidated loan
between the City & RDA. Page 107 of the draft budget document covers
FY11-12 and FY12-13.
The Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove accrued interest amounts of
$491,300 and $158,200, respectively, on page 107 total $649,500. The
schedule on L-5 reflects an accrued interest amount of $649,497 for
FY11-12. The budget document amounts are rounded, but they tie out.
(23) LA County fire protection 17% payment (page 107), Minor item —
these amounts are not exactly the same as amounts on page L-5. Are
they intended to agree or are they just estimates?
Page 6 of 8
C:\WINN'RProfiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\20110607_SW Questions and Answers.doc 06/071114:38 P
Staff Reply:
Both the draft budget document and the schedule on L-5 present numbers
that are estimates.
(24) Community development Building & Safety permits revenue (page
116). Sharp increase of $150,800 in FY 11-12 with no increase in
expenses. Should there be a similar increase in expense?
Staff Reply:
The FY11-12 revenue estimate is based on the expected actual revenue
for FY10-11. There was no FY10-11 Midyear adjustment for total permit
revenue, as planning permit revenue is expected to be less than budgeted
for FY10-11, thereby offsetting the favorable building permit revenue.
Refer to page 112 of the budget document to see the decrease in planning
permit revenue that offsets the impact to the General Fund.
(25) NCCP contract (page 123 & 124). When is this final contract
scheduled to be presented to the Council?
Staff Reply:
That item is on the City Council's tentative agenda for July 5tn
(26) Community Development — affordable housing (page 129). What is
the misc. revenue of $330,000?
Staff Reply:
The $330,000 is a placeholder for proceeds from the sale of the affordable
housing condominium purchased by the City's affordable housing fund.
As the sale amount is unknown at this time, the $330,000 included in the
draft budget document is based on the purchase price of the condo.
(27) Public works traffic management prof/tech service (page 167). A
decrease in expense of $191,600. A change in classification or cost
reduction?
Staff Reply:
The FY10-11 appropriation includes one-time special projects such as the
Golden Cove shopping center study, the Crenshaw/Crest
circulation/parking study, and a flashing pedestrian crossing for the
Crest/Whitley Collins intersection. The FY10-11 appropriation also
includes $33,000 for public information, permit processing and field review
related to the parking permit programs; which does not need to be
included in the FY11-12 appropriation.
Page 7of8
C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\20110607 SW Questions and Answers.doc 06/071114:38 P
(28) Public works — parks, etc., (page 177). Is the decrease in
maintenance of roughly $788,000 due to the field repairs at Hesse and
Ryan parks?
Staff Reply:
The FY10-11 appropriation includes $501,000 of carryovers from FY09-10
(fuel modification, trail repairs, sprinkler head replacements, etc.). As
mentioned in the budget staff report (bottom of page 1-3 and top of page
1-4), Staff took a close look at the Parks, Trails & Open Space program
and its history of favorable variances, and adjusted the FY11-12 proposed
expenditure accordingly.
Page 8 of 8
C:\WINN11Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\20110607 SW Questions and Answers.doc 06/07/114:38 P
Attachment A
Staff
Baseline r Budget
BudgetDraft
Proposal
.. ,782 743,282
Items included in Staff's Proposed Budget:
Employee Compensation
1
Performance Incentive Pool (no increase from FY10-11)
114,300
2
Merit Increase of 1.6% (no increase from FY10-11)
92,000
Ongoing Service Levels
3 Aircraft Noise Consulting
15,000
4 Federal Lobbyist
48,000
5 Community Outreach (excluding grants)
47,300
6 Leadership Academy & Organizational Development
20,000
7 CORE Program (60% of 2 Discounted Grant Deputies)
187,000
Public Safety targeted enforcement and outreach programs
8 recommended by Sheriff
15,000
9 City Hall Reception Area Staffing
32,000
10 Fourth of July Celebration
25,800
11 Other Recreation Special Events
27,100
One -Time Improvement Projects
12 Hesse Park Kitchen Improvements
35,000
13 Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Parking Lot Repairs
25,000
14 City Hall Community Room Drop Ceiling Retrofit
15,000
Attachment B
\�, �,� 'fir-, y..ti:,_
� � ,.,•kt t ,� �� A,,; �.• � �;, ,- r,
.-,'�,\,,,,...
��``^,'+� t .: . +..
+:, "`+..
,��: �' . :,;wrx, �\��•+�,...... •. +...,�•:k a*,���"'. .::n�.,..
"�' y++\. \ � �,.. k +z:•.t, +`�? \. t...,. � �. , x• .. :. � ,""�� . ,, y.•� � •: �,..w:\�:;;tia:..,,: xc,..
���.�.....3:W.
�..,..1.
�.,�....til?�.±�x
+..'^��th���
..v y... .."�+........... ....•, ..��.. ...s.. _ ..
Arterial Median Improvements
.._...
CIP
....
500,500
�.-,.x..,a..�S..�u..> k.. ....._ .:._r.•,....+.. ...n.....
Construction should begin prior to June 30th.
FY09-10 Arterial Pavement Project
(PVDW and PVDS)
CIP
2,543,560
Construction will likely begin in June 2011.
FY09-10 Residential Pavement
Project
CIP
1,648,152
Construction should be completed by June 30th.
FY10-11 Residential Pavement
The design contract for this project will likely be awarded summer 2011.
Project
CIP
1,520,000
Staff will request a continuing appropriation for this project.
The environmental impact report will likely be completed by mid-June
Grandview Park Improvements
CIP
2,046,595
2011.
Hesse Park Field Upgrade Phase 1 &
Construction is complete, and the City Council's ribbon cutting ceremony
II
CIP
223,150
is scheduled for May 11th.
Grant funding has been awarded. Staff expects that the design contract
Pedestrian Improvements on
will be awarded in July/August 2011, and will request a continuing
Hawthorne Blvd
CIP
1,427,000
appropriation for this project.
Staff is hopeful that the design will be completed by June 30th, and that
PVDE Safety Improvements - Early
construction will begin fall 2011. Staff will request a continuing
Action Improvements (Guardrails)
CIP
280,000
appropriation for this project.
Grant funding has been awarded. Staff expects that the design contract
will be awarded in July 2011, and will request a continuing appropriation
PVDS Bikeway Safety Project
CIP
801,000
for this project.
Construction is scheduled to begin on May 11th with completion in early
Ryan Park Field Upgrade
CIP
323,150
July 2011.
Traffic Signal - Crenshaw/Crestridge
CIP
254,000
Construction began on this project and should be completed by June 30th.
Work is under way to develop a master planning tool that will include aerial
images, inspection video, graphic information systems software,
maintenance tracking software, web based data viewers and imaging
tools. Staff expects that a portion of the appropriation will be continued to
FY11-12 to provide for data collection, addition of hydrology and hydraulic
Drainage Master Plan
WQFP
495,000
modeling tools, and prioritization of corrective projects.
A consultant engineer is currently developing a solution and design
PVDE San Pedro Canyon System
WQFP
370,000
recommendations, including construction drawings.
This allocation provides for an project study report, design of the project
and environmental clearances. The project study report was presented to
City Council on March 1, 2011. Design of the early action project to
San Ramon Canyon Stabilization
WQFP
1,385,000
stabilize the PVDE switchbacks is nearly complete.
The contract will likely be awarded by June 30th. Staff will request a
Storm Drain Lining
1WQFP
1 839,617 1
continuing appropriation for this project.
9
Page 1 of 2
From: Carolyn Lehr [clehr@rpv.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 9:59 AM
To: 'Ellen November'; 'Katie Howe'
Cc: 'Tom Odom'; 'Susan Seamans'
Subject: RE: Public Outreach to Consider Skate Park at Lower Hesse Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Blue
Folks,
I looked up that reference in the report, since I didn't recall seeing it. I think since it was mentioned as an example of design
analysis that would take place in the contract, the matter can be cleared up early on during the oral report by staff. I think it was
intended to show the advantages of plaza vs. bowl, rather than a consideration of bowl. But I see where someone could
misinterpret the reference. So we will clarify that point at the meeting.
Thank you,
Caro�ywLe w
City Manager
El City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
clehr@rpv.com - (310) 544-5202
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential
and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized
dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Ellen November [mailto:ellen.november@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 20119:04 AM
To: Katie Howe
Cc: Tom Odom; clehr@rpv.com; Susan Seamans
Subject: Re: Public Outreach to Consider Skate Park at Lower Hesse Park
Katie, as Director of Skatepark PV, Inc., a non-profit, who intend to raise the $400,000 to build the skate park, we do
not intend to build a bowl type of park. We intend to build a skate plaza. Attached is the concept drawing. No mention
was ever made of a bowl.
Will you please correct this on your document and resubmit to the public on the listserver?
Thank you,
My best,
Ellen
6/7/2011
/ of 3
5
Page 2 of 2
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Katie Howe. <katieh@rpv.com> wrote:
Good Morning,
On June 7th, 2011, City Council will consider an amendment to the city contract with Mia Lehrer and Associates for
public outreach and analysis to evaluate the prospect of incorporating a skate park into the conceptual plan for
improvements at Lower Hesse Park. To view the staff report, please click on the link below:
hqp://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/cilycouncil/agendas/2011 �Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-06-
07/RPVCCA�SR 2011�06�07�05�Mia Lehrer Skate Park.pdf
City Council Meeting Location: Hesse Park Community Center
Date: June 7th, 2011
Time: 7:OOPM
Thank You,
Katie Howe
Administrative Analyst
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
Ellen November
mobile:
'=Pof 3
6/7/2011
Page 1 of 1
From: Ellen November [ellen.november@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:00 PM
To: Katie Howe
Cc: Susan Seamans
Subject: City Council Agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Blue
Katie, if I may make a comment in regards to the agenda for tomorrow night.
I am hoping to have students attend to speak in favor of the skate park and it's finals week and it looks like the issue
may not come up until 9:00 pm or later which will put a hardship on any students who are able to appear. I am also
aware of people getting babysitters to attend as well.
Would you please share this with Carolyn so that she is aware of the situation?
Many thanks,
Ellen
Ellen November
mobile: 310-384-6912
S
6/7/2011
FW: Skate Park Page 1 of 1
Carla Morreale
From: Tony Teng [tony.teng@psd.toshiba.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 4:58 PM
To: tom.long@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com
Subject: FW: Skate Park
This letter is to express the concerns of those of us undersigned that live in the Pacific View
neighborhood adjacent to Hesse Park. All of us are vehemently against the building of a skate
park at Lower Hesse for the following reasons:
1. The increased traffic and noise, attracting non local residents to a neighborhood park
2. We do not wish the park to become an amusement park. It ought to be kept serene and
peaceful for residents of all ages to enjoy.
3. The liability of hosting a highly dangerous activity will be an added drain on city's
insurance, emergency response, etc.
4. The land use is catering to a small interest group
5. The tennis courts being considered is also catering to a small interest group
6. Parking and trash will undoubtedly become a problem
We only had time to contact four of our neighbors, and each one are strongly against this
proposal.
Best Regards,
Pamela Evans & Tony Teng — 6615 Verde Ridge Rd.
Gustav Krebs - 6627 Verde Ridge Rd.
Eilene Schneider — 6621 Verde Ridge Rd.
Isaac Reese — 6620 Verde Ridge Rd.
Jeff Corbett — 6608 Verde Ridge Rd.
This e-mail transmission contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information is
intended for the sole use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please send an e-mail or reply immediately to the sender of the e-mail and delete the
document from your system.
6/7/2011 5,
Second Report of the Pension Subcommittee of the City Council for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes
Members: Stefan Wolowicz and Thomas Long
Date 7 June 2011
This report supplements the Subcommittee's earlier report of December 7, 2010, a copy
of which is attached for your reference. The Subcommittee reaffirms the observations
and common agreements announced in its first report of December 7, 2010. The
purpose of this report is to advise the Council, the City employees and the public of
further efforts by the Subcommittee since the time of our last report.
The Subcommittee is continuing to study options designed to assure that the City's
pension plan remains sustainable and practical. Based on information gathered and
pending meeting with an advisory consultant the Subcommittee has tentatively. = 'I
concluded that the present range of options available to it is fairly limited. The
Subcommittee tentatively does not expect to recommend that Rancho Palos Verdes
leave CalPERS. These tentative conclusions have been reached due to two primary
reasons. First, the City is too small to bear the costs of maintaining its own pension plan
and presently securing an alternative plan and sponsor does not appear viable,
accordingly leaving CalPERS is not a viable option at this time. It is expected that
ultimately major reform by the state legislature will be necessary to provide the"levels of:
changes now required by CALPERS. Second, the Subcommittee hopes to avoid..
recommending changes to the City's pension that could pose a significant risk to the
City in litigation.
With the above restrictions in mind, the Subcommittee is continuing to work to develop a
consensus proposal to the Council for changes in the City's pension plan that will
bolster its sustainability by stabilizing the City's pension costs as a percentage of
payroll. The Subcommittee is exploring creating a second tier pension plan for new
employees. The Subcommittee is also exploring adjusting the contributions of current
employees toward the pension plan coupled with an equitable adjustment in the salaries
of current employees. Staff has presented the Subcommittee with a number of options
and predicted savings from each of the options. The Subcommittee needs additional
time to study these options and needs to confer with an independent pension
consultant. We hope to select and begin conferring with the independent consultant
within the following month.
In its first report, the Subcommittee indicated that it was planning to work with an
independent consultant. Staff promptly prepared a request for proposal but received
only one bid in response to that initial proposal. The Subcommittee felt it was
necessary to circulate a new proposal and to solicit additional bids. Through no fault of
the staff, the process of obtaining an independent consultant has, unfortunately, been
delayed. Nonetheless, the Subcommittee anticipates conferring with an independent
407722 1.doc 1
c:\docume-1\tdNocals^1\tempinetdgbt\printWO7722 i.doc
consultant to confirm its own assumptions and the information that staff has provided to
it and developing a final report to the Council with either a consensus recommendation
or viable alternative proposals for the Council to consider within the next three months.
The Subcommittee attended a recent presentation of the Los Angeles Division of the
League of California Cities on Pension Reform. A handout containing some
background information discussed at that meeting is also attached to this report. The
Subcommittee is providing this report and the attached information and will be prepared
at our meeting on June 7, 2011 to respond to questions by the Council.
Dated mow. 7 , 2011
Sincerely,
iA_IMAN 407722_1.DOC
=W=ments Wd WA aettin®sltemp"ary internet Neskontent. loockViag kp9Ua im n 407722 1..doc
First Report of the Pension Subcommiftee of the City Council for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes
Members: Stefan Wolowicz and Thomas Long
Initial Meeting. December 7, 2010
Although the subcommittee anticipates conducting additionaF meetings and working with
an Independent consultant to attempt to formulate one or more proposals for possible
pension revision to be considered by the city council as a whole, the subcommittee felt it
would be useful to issue a set of preliminary observations and common agreements
under which the subcommittee is working for the purpose of providing information to
those interested in the subcommittee's work. These observations and common
agreements are subject to revision if the independent consultant presents information
not currently known or considered by the subcommittee.
Observations:
A. The average benefit collected from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pension
plan by retirees is approximately $1,000 per month. Rancho Palos Verdes
employees do not earn Social Security benefits based on their time with the City.
According to the speakers at the December 7, 2010 meeting the City's pension
benefits are about average when compared to those offered by other comparable
cities.
B. Funding the City's pension benefits, even after significant investment losses have
required large increases in contributions, consumes about 3% of the City's
general revenue budget. Protective service employee pension costs are not
under the control of the city council. Fire Department pensions are under the fire
department's budget within the County of Los Angeles. Sheriff Department's
pensions are under the control of the Sheriff. Although the City contracts with the
Sheriff to provide police services, the City has no control over the Sheriffs
pension policies.
C. Prior to the initial subcommittee meeting the City Manager relayed a concern
expressed by Staff that included in the concept of "vested benefits" is the
percentage of employees' portion of contribution. While the core elements of the
existing employees plan should not change, the discretionary latitude of this
percentage needs to be clarified and understood. Moreover the independent
consultants may identify other factors that are not now known for consideration.
D. The subcommittee was established by the Council to address concerns
expressed by council members about the City's rising pension costs both in
terms of absolute dollars and as a percentage of covered payroll. The
subcommittee was also tasked to consider the potential impact, if any, of
underfunding of vested benefits.
40145M.DOC7-11
1
O
E. Various factors contribute to the complexity of the subcommittee's tasks and may
be beyond the control of the council and the City. These include:
(1) Unpredictable and uncontrollable impacts on investments from market
performance and changes in actuarial factors that affect the costs of
benefits.
(2) CaIPERS offers only a limited set of options. Based on comments from the
speakers during the December 7, 2010 it is our understanding that
CaIPERS does not provide service for Defined Contribution retirement
plans. CaIPERS would require cities offering a second tier defined
contribution plan to place the defined benefit plan with another plan
administrator.
(3) Adopting changes to the City's pension plan that would reinstitute Social
Security benefits or adopt currently unavailable formats may require
agency rulings, judicial interpretations, and/or legislative action.
Common Agreements:
1. The subcommittee Is considering changes in pension formulas,
contributions, and benefits only for newly -hired employees. The subcommittee is
not now considering any changes, whether it is in benefits or funding of contributions,
for existing employees and retirees of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
2. The subcommittee is not considering options which Involve the City
departing from the California Public Employees Retirement System ("CaIPERS").
Given the preliminary comments received, the subcommittee has found that departing
from CaIPERS is not now practical or cost-effective.
3. Any revisions made to the City's pension benefits should not
degrade the City's ability to recruit and retain high quality professional
employees. The City has a long established policy of attempting to provide
compensation at the 7e percentile when compared to other comparable California
cities as a way of recruiting and retaining skilled employees.
4. The primary purpose of pension revisions is to control costs and to
provide a sustainable pension plan. It may be found that given viable alternatives
now available retirement costs cannot be significantly reduced but only limited in the
increases. The purpose of pension revisions is not to cut pension benefits to existing
employees or otherwise disrupt the City's relationships with its employees or with
potential recruits. Instead, the purpose is to assure that pension contributions both
appropriately fund promised benefits but also are within the City's abilities to support.
Future pension cost increases should be controlled such that the City's overall pension
costs remain a relatively low share of the City's budget and do not grow
disproportionately compared to other of the City's costs. A sustainable pension plan
providing good value benefits is in the common interest of both the City's employees
and its residents.
40145s_I.Doc 2
5. Broader pension revisions are likely to be effective, if at all, only at a
higher government level. Members of the subcommittee andlor members of the
public may support different and more considerable revisions to pension benefits for
public employees. However, a broader scope of revision may not be possible at the
level of a City the Consultants will be asked to identify viable (practical and cost-
effective) alternatives. Significant alternatives may be made available to municipalities
through action by the governor, legislature, ballot initiative, or new models developed for
municipalities. The current or future Councils should be free to consider those
alternatives as they arise.
As the subcommittee proceeds forward, it hopes to develop a consensus as to
whether or not a viable revision to the City's existing pension program is necessary and
possible. If such a consensus in favor of a revision emerges, the subcommittee will
either reach a consensus on a single proposed option for a revision or perhaps two or
more options for the entire Council to choose among. We anticipate at least one
additional report summarizing the results of recommendations from the retained
independent consultant and our additional work.
Dated January 4, 2011
Sincerely,
Pension Subc9mrniftee
City own o Valos Verdes CiV Ceyncil
Thomas D. Long, Mayor
401458_1. DOC 3
�Q
LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA
�,... CITIES
Background on Pension Reform
This background document is aimed at keeping city
officials informed about the current state of pension
reform in California.'
Public pension reform has emerged as a major issue
in recent years as state and local agencies have
struggled to adjust to declining revenues and
volatile financial markets. Questions have emerged
over whether public agencies can continue to offer
the level of pension benefits that they have in the
past.
Local governments, reeling from budget pressures,
have been at the forefront of this discussion. In
many cases, agreements have been secured at the
local collective bargaining table resulting in second
tiers for new employees, greater cost sharing among
existing employees as well as other concessions.
While reform efforts continue at the local level,
some argue that larger statewide reforms must
happen in order for pension systems to remain
sustainable in the long term.
At the state level, the pension discussion is taking
shape in different forms. In February, a report by
the Little Hoover Commission (LHC) sparked a
heated debate about how far some are willing to go
to make what is believed to be necessary changes.
In late March, after budget negotiations broke
down, Gov. Jerry Brown released his 12 -Point
Pension Reform Plan. As part of these same
negotiations, Senate Republicans released proposed
pension reform ideas, many of which are contained
in a package of bills authored by Sen. Mimi Walters
(R -Laguna Niguel). Additionally, there have been
efforts to place an initiative on the ballot for the
next statewide general election.
Some contend that for reforms to take place they have
to happen now, otherwise the momentum for change
1 The information contained in this document was used in a
handout at the League's Legislative Action Days for a panel
discussion on pension reform. The information may have
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
on this issue will be lost. It will be interesting to see
whether the Legislature will seriously address this issue
or whether the voters will be deciding the fate of public
pensions. In any event, public employee unions are
gearing up for a fight to protect the pensions they've
been promised, and recently launched a new website
www.dontscapegoatus.com, which is dedicated to
debunking various assertions about the need for
reforms.
The following is a snapshot of the discussions on pension
reform in California.
Little Hoover Commission recommends changes
In February, LHC issued its report Public Pensions for
Retirement Security with comprehensive
recommendations to reform California's public pension
systems including altering unearned future benefits for
current employees, putting into place a "hybrid" model
containing both a defined benefit and defined
contribution, and placing caps on the amount of salary
that can be used to calculate retirement benefits. LHC
made several other recommendations.
Governor proposes 12 -Point Pension Reform Plan in
March
The Governor released his pension reform proposal
shortly after budget negotiations broke down in March
which:
• Eliminates "airtime" purchase;
• Revokes pensions if convicted of felony arriving out
of official duties;
• Prohibits retroactive increases in benefits;
• Requires full funding of pension obligations;
• Prohibits employer paying member share of
contributions;
• Prohibits pension spiking; and
• Applies reforms to LIC and local system
Senate Republicans release demands
Several of LHC recommendations were put forward by
the Senate Republicans in March as part of the budget
negotiations including altering unearned future benefits
for current employees, putting into place a "hybrid"
model containing both a defined benefit and defined
contribution, and placing caps on the amount of salary
that ran hp iispri to ralmilatp rptirpmpnt hpnpfit-,_
Senator Walters introduces pension reform
package (Senate Bills 520 - 528)
These bills propose to impose a hybrid retirement
pian; require full funding of post -employment
health care benefits with employees and employers
each pay half, eliminate "airtime" purchasing
option; prohibit PERS pensions for publicly -elected
officials; eliminate retroactive benefit increases;
raise minimum retirement age for state employees
to 55; eliminate pension spiking; limit collective
bargaining of pensions except for amount of
employee contributions; and replace elected with
appointed PERS board members.
League Board identifies pension sustainability as a
strategic goal
The League is committing to work with stakeholders
to promote sustainable and secure public pensions.
Actions taken to date include the following:
• Roughly 300 cities responded to a survey to
determine what changes are taking place
locally.
• League website added the Pension Information
Center, a clearinghouse for pension -focused
research, studies, surveys and other relevant
information, including the City Managers'
Department white papers and local area group
principles.
• Pension reform panel discussions held at League
conferences.
• Employee Relations and Revenue and Taxation
Policy Committees reviewing reform proposals.
• City Managers' Department developed a Pension
Reform Action Plan that will be reviewed by the
League policy committees and the board.
Commissioned a legal opinion on the question of
"vested rights" to pensions
Continue outreach to employee unions and other
stakeholders
Voters on pension reform
In January, the Public Policy Institute of California
released its "Californians and their Government" poll,
which found:
• Three of four Californians view the money spent on
public employee pensions as a problem;
• The percentage calling it a big problem has grown
ten percent since January 2005;
Republicans (54%) more likely than independents
(42%), Democrats (35%) to consider big problem;
• Four in ten across income groups hold this view,
while this perception increases with older age; and
• 67% would favor changing the pension system for
new public employees from defined benefits to a
defined contribution system. Support increases
with rising income.
A Los Angeles Times - USC poll conducted in April found
that:
• 70% support cap on pensions for current and
future public employees;
• 66% of Democrats support pension caps for current
and future workers;
• 68% support raising employee contributions to
their retirement plans;
• 66% support a blend of traditional pensions and a
401(k); and
• 52% support increasing the retirement age.
Statewide ballot measures
No statewide ballot measures have qualified for the February or November 2012 ballot or have been cleared for
circulation. However, former Assembly Member Roger Niello's proposed initiative, the "Public Employee Pension
Reform Act," has been submitted to the Attorney General for review. Signature gathering may begin once the review
is completed. This proposed initiative would prohibit retroactive benefit increases, provide minimum retirement age
of 62, require five consecutive years of service, limit benefits to 60% of highest base wage over three years and
require equal employee and employer contributions.
Additionally, California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility advocates its proposal 'The Fair and Sensible Public
:r;.. Retirement Plan Refona, iAct," which, among ocher things, sae'\ -s :o aiian .Zate and Io•::j� government
retirement benefits with those offered by the federal government and large private employers.
I,os Angeles County Division
I.rasr.uc��l (:alif�n-nia(:iiic:
I F
I i' I
r n
June 2011 Pension Forum. ( Panel Bios
Ron Cottingham I President I Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Ron Cottingham has been continually employed by the San Diego Sheriffs Department since 1973 and holds
the rank of Lieutenant. During his career with the Department, Ron has worked every assignment including:
Detentions, Patrol, Investigations, Internal Affairs, and Administration.
Ron was elected president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) in November
2003 and has been unanimously re-elected to consecutive terms. PORAC was established in 1953 and is a
federation of Local, State, and Federal public safety associations. PORAC currently has a membership of over
775 public safety associations comprising a total membership of 60,000 individual members. PORAC is the
largest statewide association for public safety in the Nation.
Rod Gould I City Manager I City of Santa Monica
City Manager Rod Gould officially joined the City of Santa Monica in January 2010. Mr. Gould's remarkable
resume includes a bachelor's degree in Economics and Political Science from Yale University and master's
degrees in both Public Administration and Education from Harvard University. He has previously served as
city manager in the cities of Monrovia, San Rafael and Poway, California. He is a past president of the League
of California Cities' City Managers Department and has served on the League's Board of Directors since 2007.
Richard Hiller I Vice President, Government Market I TIAA-CREF
Richard A. Hiller has served as vice president, Government Market since 2010. Mr. Hiller is responsible for
defining, developing, building and delivering the TIAA-CREF approach for pension, supplemental savings and
retiree health care to state and local government employers and employees.
Prior to his current post, Mr. Hiller served as vice president for Institutional Business Development from 2003
through 2009. In this role he was responsible for managing the activities of sales representatives among core
clients and prospects. From 1998 to 2003 he was vice president for Western Division Consulting Services. Mr.
Hiller joined TIAA-CREF in 1981 as a service assistant, rising to manager of the Denver Branch Office in 1988
and, three years later, second vice president in charge of Customer Service.
Alan W. Milligan, F.S.A., F.C.I.A, M.A.A.A., F.C.A. I Chief Actuary I CalPERS
Alan W. Milligan was named Chief Actuary in June of 2010. He has been with CalPERS since 2001 and served
previously as Deputy Chief Actuary. Mr. Milligan plans, organizes, evaluates and directs the work of the
actuarial staff. He also develops and implements actuarial policies and procedures; independently provides
advice to the Board of Administration and the Benefits and Program Administration Committee; provides
ongoing reports and presentations to the Board and the Committee on actuarial issues; coordinates the
activities of the independent consulting actuary and acts as liaison between the consulting actuary and the
board.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 6, 2011
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 7, 2011 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
4 Letter from: EDCO; Universal Waste Systems, Inc.
5 Emails from: Brian Haig; Karen Kordich; Larry and Dorothea
Weeks; Norbert Nastanski; Don and Mei-lin Wiedlin; John
Freeman
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110607 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
--- ---------
- - - ---- ----
June 3, 2011
Ms. Lauren Ramezani
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Dear Ms. Ramezani,
It is our understanding on June 7, 2011 the city of Rancho Palos Verdes is scheduled to consider
under Regular New Business, item #4, as such; EDCO respectfully withdraws its proposal for
your consideration.
Family owned and operated EDCO looks forward to serve the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes
for many years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Efrain Ramirez
Vice President
EDCO
"We'll Take Care of It"
6762 Stanton Avenue - PO Box 398 - Buena Park, California 90621
(562) 597-0608 - Fax: (714) 522-8429 ® www.edcodisposal.com - Printed on Recycled Paper
June 3, 2011
Universal Waste Systems, Inc.
P.O. BOX 3038 • WHITTIER, CA 90605 • (800) 631-7016
Telephone: (562) 941-4900 - Fax: (562) 941-4915
Ms. Lauren Ramezani
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Dear Ms. Ramezani,
Universal Waste Systems, Inc. is in receipt of your notice that the Edco proposal
has been withdrawn. Universal Waste Systems, Inc. is in support of withdrawing
the proposal and moving forward with the rate adjustment outlined in our
contract.
Signed, ;
Matt Blackburn
Vice Presidents
Universal Waste Systems Inc.
Li
Page 1 of 1
From: eahaig@netzero.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:44 AM
To: cc@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com
Subject: Skate Park Outreach
Dear City Council Members,
What is the point of having outreach on the proposed skate park for Lower Hesse Park?
You already did outreach for the proposed improvements to the park, even to the point of
surveys. However, you did not listen to the results of the outreach or the surveys and continue to
proceed with development of Lower Hesse Park. So why continue with this sham of wanting
input, when you just ignore the results. You are wasting our money.
By the way, the survey that was conducted last summer showed that 11 out of 866 RPV residents
surveyed wanted a skate park in Lower Hesse Park. Out of all the improvements listed, a skate
park got the fewest votes. Based on prior experience, I know that RPV staff won't think it is
relevant to include in the staff report and I know that you don't care about facts. Once again, I
don't understand the use of public funds to discuss a facility that clearly is not a priority for
residents. Speaking of priorities, wouldn't preventing flooding of streets be a greater priority over
a skate park.
I am disappointed in the constant game of charades that you continue to play with the
development of Lower Hesse Park. Feigning interest in wanting public input, only to ignore the
results when they don't fit your vision of what parks should be. It would be easier to accept that
you were going to develop the parks and not seek public input. However, to say you are going to
conduct outreach when the determination is already made is deeply disappointing.
Sincerely,
Brian Haig
GrouponTM Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
Groupon.com
6/2/2011 / `� 1
Carla Morreale
From: Karen Kordich [karen.kordich@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 11:55 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Hesse Park Plans
Hello City Council Members,
As a resident who lives near Hesse Park, I'd like to drop a quick note to you regarding my
(and many of my neighbor's) thoughts on the proposed plans for lower Hesse park. I know
as a mother of two young children that attending a meeting at 7pm is just not going to
happen. I also know many of my neighbors will not attend to have their concerns heard.
There is a a very vocal presence of those supporting a skate park. Although we are not
opposed to a skate park per se, it seems quite odd that this is the new direction after
there was such a fuss from some local residents over a dog park. I had many conversations
with those who petitioned against the dog park. Their main concerns included the noise
and the draw of non -locals to the area for such a park. I still strongly disagree with
this. Dogs do not bark continuously at a dog park. They run and play. Unstimulated,
bored dogs that are confined to our postage -stamp property lots here in Palos Verdes are
the ones who bark and cause disturbances. As to attracting "undesirables" to the area,
well that is just silly. People who care for their pets enough to go out of their way to
let them get fresh air and exercise are not looking for trouble. They respect the dog
parks and clean up after their pets.
I wonder what these same anti -dog park residents are now thinking about this skate park
proposal? Which plan will really bring the possible troublemakers, the noise, and the
messes left behind? Which plan better suits our local residents? If I went house to
house and took a census of those homes that have a dog vs. those who have a skater, I
don't think the numbers would be remotely close.
What is the basic purpose and goal of improving our local parks? It is to strengthen the
sense of community. For those of you members who are dog owners- you will have to agree
with the fact that owning a dog is a great way to get out in your neighborhood and get to
know your neighbors. I feel a greater sense of community by knowing so many of my fellow
residents whom I have met and consistently see by walking our dog several times a day.
These are not people I would get to know if getting out of the house meant we had to jump
on our skateboards. :)
Dog owners are a big part of our community. These dogs allow us to get to know our
neighbors. They deserve a place to run off -leash and get proper exercise. So many of us
would love to have a local place to let our pets run and play together and give us a
chance to get to know each other even better.
Again, I am not opposed to a skate park, but let's be honest here... a dog park would
serve many more local families and be a less risky addition to the "peace" of the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your time,
Karen Kordich
From:
Dorothea Weeks [weeksdh@cox.net]
Sent:
Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:57 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
katieh@rpv.com
Subject:
Re: Outreach to Consider Skate Park at Lower Hesse Park
Sirs:
Hesse Park of Rancho Palos Verdes, with 180 -degree -views of the Pacific Ocean and
surrounded by an established quiet neighborhood on dangerously hilly streets, is, we
think, an unsuitable place for a skateboard park. In our opinion, the Council would be
spending money unwisely to fund a study on this use of Hesse Park, and we recommend that
it look elsewhere for placement of any skateboard park in Rancho Palos Verdes. There seem
to be mixed opinions among the skateboarding proponents about what is a good location, as
posted on their online petition. Some feel that an enclosed area is better, with food and
drinks, etc., available. (Similar to an enclosed ice rink, perhaps?) Then skating fans
would also be able to skate in all kinds of weather.
Proximity to PVP High School is mentioned as desirable. Others have commented on the
petition that it should be away from homes and suggest Ernie Howlett Park since it's not
that far from the high school and transportation, etc. It was interesting to see how many
comments came from far and wide, people I assume who would not be using any skateboard
park here on a regular basis, so it's not possible to assume that the number of signatures
or many of the comments are really pertinent to the needs of our skating community.
Many, as stated, are not even from California, and many of those who say they're from
California don't list their city. A good number are from other countries.
We also think Council might join with the city of Torrance to look into revitalizing
Torrance Skate Park near Wilson Park, which has fallen into disrepair. It would be
interesting to know why and how that has come about.
Website on Google maps includes one comment on it,.
As Kenny Anderson, a resident and supporter of establishing a skateboard park in RPV,
commented in a long interview in Easy Reader
(11/19/2010) :
"We looked at Santa Monica and considered moving up north to be away from everything
because we like the preserved land," Anderson said.
"But I was floored with Palos Verdes. We're only a half hour away from LA. but far enough
away to be home. We looked into school districts and everything the hill had to offer
which was the best of the best.
We plan on being here forever. It has an energy that has a positive vibe. It's quiet and
just feels like home."
The comment that "it's quiet" will not be true for the Hesse Park neighborhood if a
skateboard park is built in the midst of all those homes.
We urge the Council to read this very important article on serious skateboarding issues,
including severe injuries and lawsuits, in Orange County areas similar to ours, as well as
changes in LA county communities. It's from the New York Times of April 1, 2011, entitled
Bringing Skateboarders Doing 60 to a Halt.
Laguna Beach, Calif., Set to Ban Downhill Skateboarding - NYTimes.com or
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/us/02skateboard.html?scp=2&sq=skateboard%20&st=cse
We wonder why attempts to build skateboard parks are not moving along in Manhattan Beach
and elsewhere? They have been in limbo for five years or more according to information
from Manhattan Beach Patch.
We hope the Council will consider our views on this issue in its deliberations.
Yours truly,
Larry and Dorothy Weeks
(Lawrence H. Weeks and Dorothea H. Weeks)
6701 Kings Harbor Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1 0
f A �,5
310-541-4520
weekslh@cox.net, weeksdh@cox.net
2 0� d
From: N Nastanski [nastano@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 20114:09 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: clehr@rpv.com
Subject: Skate Park in Lower Hesse Park
June 5, 2011
Dear Council members:
I hope that council members and city staff have familiarized themselves with the potential legal
and long-term maintenance problems associated with a skate park. A good starting point would be
to do a Google search on: "skateboard park problems" (Graffiti and maintenance costs seem to be
the prevalent issues with skateboard parks)
Some state laws define skating and related sports as "hazardous activities" and prohibit claims
against public entities for personal injuries that result from these activities. Other laws require that
skate parks be unsupervised to avoid liability, as is the case in California.
Having a staffed building in lower Hesse Park, as in the current plan, may be construed as
supervision, thus making the city liable for any skate park related injuries.
Torrance recently closed its Skate Park due to reasons stated in the following link:
http://www.torranceca. gov/Parks/Documents/RecCommissionReportSkatePark4809.pdf
A skate park, located 3 blocks down a very steep hill from Hawthorne Blvd, will invite users to
skateboard down Locklenna (either on the sidewalk or the street). The proposed location for a skate
park creates a very dangerous situation for which the city could be held liable, if an accident were
to occur on Locklenna, due the location of the skate park (attractive nuisance liability).
Additionally, I strongly concur with concerns expressed in the June 4th correspondence from
Sharon Yarber relating to a skate park in Lower Hesse Park (or elsewhere on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula).
Thank you,
Norbert Nastanski
29513 Baycrest Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
6/6/2011
S
From: Donald Wiedlin [dwiedlin@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 12:06 PM
To: CC@rpv.com
Subject: NO on skate park for Hesse Park!
We would like to put our 3 cents(inflation) in regarding the placement of a skate board facility in Hesse Park. This a
residential area and as such the residents do not want this across the street from where we live. If we cannot keep
things as they are in Hesse Park, then at least listen to the people living near the park and go with one of the original
plans. I heard something at one of the meetings about building a skate park across from Ernie Howett where the
disposal site used to be. That or any other location away from & not surrounded by homes makes more sense.
Thanks.
Don & Mei-lin Wiedlin
6614 Locklenna Lane
6/6/2011
S
From:
John Freeman Urfree@cox.net]
Sent:
Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:53 AM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
Carla Morreale
Subject: Mia Lehrer & Associates contract issues (June 7, 2011 agenda item #5)
Attachments: PacificView_HOA_Plan 040611 copy.jpg
City Council Comments for June 7, 2011 agenda item #5 for Mia Lehrer Contract Amendment
Mayor Long and City Council members:
You're the stewards of our city and our finances. You're businessmen and attorneys. You understand contracts.
The original Mia Lehrer & Associates contract (see details below) explicitly required 3 designs for each park. Note
the contract wording says "must include three (3) options." However, Mia Lehrer produced only 2 per park. See
my email from September 27, 2010 below in which I exposed this issue.
I believe you have several alternatives to consider:
1. Direct Mia Lehrer to refund 1/3 of $49,750 ($16,583) back to us taxpayers for not producing the
required third design.
2. Direct Mia Lehrer to develop and bring back to the Council the Pacific View HOA design plan concept
(see attached design -sketch which was presented to City Council on October 19, 2010) as our HOA
official "compromise" alternative plan #3, fulfilling their original contract.
3. Reject the proposed contract amendment altogether and direct Mia Lehrer to produce the Skate Park
design as alternative #3 within the terms of the original agreement.
4. Continue this item so that staff can complete option 1 or 2 above, then bring both matters back at a
future council meeting for review and possible approval.
You don't give more money to reward incomplete behavior or an unfulfilled contract.
A contract is a contract!
John Freeman
Pacific View Homeowners Association,
representing the 345 homes immediately surrounding Hesse Park
From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:19 AM
To: 'cc@rpv.com'
Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr (clehr@rpv.com)'
Subject: Mia Lehrer & Associates contract issues
Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members:
This past weekend Mia Lehrer and Associates conducted their final "We Want Your Input" community outreach
meeting. Thank you Mayor Wolowicz for attending.
We saw two conceptual designs that Mia Lehrer is evidently planning to submit to the City Council for your
October 19, 2010 meeting.
What puzzles me and which I later discussed with the City Manager Carolyn Lehr, was why were there only two
desians (a "Pacific Plan" and a "Catalina Plan") and not three for Lower Hesse Park as required by the original
council RFP? I don't recall any subsequent City Council meeting or council action modifying the contract terms
with Mia Lehrer and Associates.
6/6/2011 /,0 3
My questions are:
1. The City Council RFP, the Mia Lehrer response, and the final contract award are all consistent: 3 designs
(not 2) for each park are required to fulfill the contract awarded to Mia Lehrer and Associates.
2. Where is the third design?
3. If Mia Lehrer & Associates submits only two designs for each park by October 19th, will their $49,750
contract award be reduced by 1/3? The taxpayers deserve a partial refund of their money spent.
4. Additionally, the original Lower Hesse Park RFP issued by the City Council on December 17, 2009, page 4,
specifically required:
"Improved/Expanded Active Recreation
• Constructing two tennis courts (non -illuminated)"
Then, why do the two final park designs from Mia Lehrer both show three tennis courts for Lower Hesse
Park, not two?
5. Who will remove the third tennis court from their designs?
References:
The original City Council Request for Proposal for Lower Hesse Park issued by the City Council on December 17,
2009, page 1, specifically asked for:
"The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is requesting a statement of qualifications and a cost proposal from a
landscape architect or other qualified consultant, to provide professional services for the preparation of
conceptual design(s) for two city park sites, Lower Hesse and Grandview. Conceptual designs for each
park site must include three (3) options or alternatives with one preferred option that is based on numerous
factors including but not limited to public comments, market/demographic analysis, city documents and
other applicable background, data or historical information." [Emphasis added]
http://www. palosverdes. com/rpv/recreation parks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/S35C-
110072208050267.pdf
Mia Lehrer responded with their "Contract and Scope of Work" document, upon which the City Council awarded
$49,750 of taxpayer money on April 20, 2010. On page 3-29 of their contract, Mia Lehrer promised:
"B. Preliminary Conceptual Plan
Develop three (3) preliminary concepts for each park which will addresses, circulation and access,
parking, signage, trail system. amenities such active and passive recreational programming.
restrooms, site furnishings, park. drought tolerant vegetation, as picnicking, water resources
management, connections to surrounding communities and satellite activities."
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010 Agendas/MeetingDate-2010-04-
20/RPVCCA SR 2010 04 20 03 Landscape Design Hesse Grandview.pdf
John Freeman
Rancho Palos Verdes
4 3
6/6/2011 0
From: John Freeman Urfree@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:41 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: possible Skate Park locations in PV
Mayor Long and City Council members:
FYI, the enclosed information comes from an online petition website created by Skatepark PV, the organization
that is currently advocating skateboarding in Lower Hesse Park.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1 /SkateparkPV/
Their unscientific survey currently has 372 respondents so far. Supporters include those living in Luxembourg,
NY, MA, OR, ID, NC, Canada, Illinois, Brazil, NJ, VA, Spain, etc. and of course California.
There's no consensus from respondents that a skate park should be built in Lower Hesse Park. Their suggestions
are all over the place. Here are some highlights which I copied from their website.
• near the mall across from the library and Rolling Hills Barbers on deep valley Dr.
• Near the baseball field on the hill right under PVIS
• anywhere around the peninsula center
• Howlett and Hess park have plenty of space.
• By the Peninsula Center
• near peninsula center
• lunada bay skate while watching the ocean
• By Hawthorne and Palos Verdes Drive South
• Ernie Howlett Park easy access and homes are not bordering the entire park.
• Lower Hesse Park in Rancho Palos Verdes or next to the dog park on Montemalaga.
• Ernie Howlett Park
• The old Dump off Hawthorne
• What about Del Cerro?? Lots of room, low use now ... parking not so good though
• Should build by old Marineland site or by Lighthouse ..... could put at Del Cerro Park at the end of Crenshaw
too
• Ridgecrest Park ? Down by RPV City Hall ?
• Indoor, at the top of the hill.
• anywhere off of Hawthorne blvd in PV
• Ernie Hallet Park
• Fred Hesse Park
• We sponsored an extremely successful Expo event (skateboard) on the PV Library roof in April. Now PCH
Sk8 is holding 5 weeks of skateboard classes in Ernie Howlett Park with the blessing of RHE. Come to
Skate the Hill Friday and Saturday evenings from 4 to 8. What a wonderful opportunity to skate safely and
legally for kids of all ages! A skate park could be located on existing city -owned land, on privately owned
donated land, or perhaps in a shopping center! We are exploring all possibilities.
• Fred Hesse Park
• Promenade
• Near Ridgecrest or by pen high.
• Within Fred Hess Park, or Ernie Howlett Park
• Right by the beach
• The skate park should be located in the mall, so that it will increase hill business, and create a place where
kids can safely go after hours.
• Near the Peninsula Center
• hesse park or somewhere close to PVPHS
• In the open space inside Ernie Howlett Park would be great
1 frequently see young children, particularly boys, skateboarding on our hilly roads, streets, steps, ramps
6/6/2011 f G a45
°l
and curbs and a variety of other completely unsafe, unsupervised locations. We need to provide more safe
recreational opportunities for our children.
Skate boarding is a Peninsula wide (RHE, PVE, and RPV) issue to solve, not just an RPV problem.
John Freeman
Pacific View Homeowners Association
6/6/2011 v� 4
From:
John Freeman Urfree@cox.net]
Sent:
Monday, June 06, 2011 12:48 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
Carla Morreale
Subject: Bringing Skateboarders Doing 60 to a Halt
Dear Mayor Long and City Council members:
Skateboarding may be a well -loved sport, but not going 40 mph or more down the steep Locklenna Drive towards
Lower Hesse Park. Let's collaborate with our neighboring cities and find a SAFE environment and location for our
children.
John Freeman
Pacific View Homeowners Association
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/us/02skateboard.html
Bringing Skateboarders Doing 60 to a Halt
Chance Gaul, 14, who reaches up to 60 miles per hour on his skateboard, is facing a ban set to be imposed in
Laguna Beach, Calif.
By IAN LOVETT
Published: April 1, 2011
LAGUNA BEACH, Calif. — Chance Gaul cannot drive a car yet. He is only 14. But he is already the fastest thing
on wheels around here.
Ann Johansson for The New York Times
6/6/2011
Barbara Evans, in her S.U.V., told Chance and his mother, Ginger DeLong, "I don't want to see a skateboarder on
this hill."
While Porsches and Mercedes -Benzes precariously descend the windy canyon roads here at 25 miles per hour,
Chance bombs down at 40, sometimes even 60 m.p.h. on his skateboard, savoring the sea breeze on his face.
But this may be his last ride here.
The future of downhill skateboarding is in jeopardy in the region where the sport was born, with bans spreading
across Southern California and lawmakers questioning whether people — teenagers mostly — should be barreling
downhill at 60 m.p.h. with very little between them and the pavement.
Laguna Beach is set to become the latest city to severely restrict high-speed skateboarding, sometimes known as
"bombing hills," following other coastal cities like Malibu and Newport Beach. Once a final vote is taken on
Tuesday, eight canyon roads will almost certainly be entirely off limits, while others will remain open on a six-
month trial basis, after which they, too, may be closed to skaters.
"From a public safety standpoint, there is a lot to worry about," said Mayor Toni Iseman. "I understand why kids
want to do it, and I appreciate the skill set it takes, but I don't think public streets are the place for this sport."
Almost since its inception, skateboarding has drawn ire from pedestrians and governments. Norway banned even
skateboard ownership in the 1970s and '80s, and Nike later made light of animosity toward the sport with an ad
campaign that posed the question: "What if we treated all athletes the way we treat skateboarders?"
These days, skaters can "ollie" (a trick jump) and "kickflip" (a variation on the ollie) on sidewalks with relative
impunity, and the popularity of downhill skateboarding has boomed. Dozens of local boarders now don helmets
and gloves to bomb Laguna Beach's hills, up from a handful a few years ago.
The prospect of a ban here has made Laguna Beach — whose majestic cliffs overlooking the Pacific attract, and
produce, some of the best boarders in the world — the center of the debate over downhill skateboarding.
"The best talent in the world is here in Laguna," said Mark Golter, a two-time world downhill skateboarding
champion who grew up here and trains younger skaters. "We're trying to fuel and help the sport, and all of a
sudden the city is saying we can't ride."
But residents say the boarders' growing ranks have made driving a harrowing undertaking, rife with worries about
hitting young skaters and legal liability. Because boarders are considered pedestrians under state law, they are not
subject to speed limits; almost any collision with a vehicle is considered the driver's fault.
"It just scares the dickens out of me trying to avoid these skateboarders screaming down the hills," said Peter
Weisbrod, 73, a longtime resident. "I worry about their safety, even with helmets. And I worry about liability."
As Chance, last year's 14 -and -under U.S. Nationals Open Downhill Skateboarding champion, skated down Nyes
Place after school last week, Barbara Evans pulled over in her S.U.V. to tell him to get out of the street.
"I don't want to see a skateboarder on this hill, or any hill that I'm going down," said Ms. Evans, who has lived here
since 1975. From the back seat, her grandson, a toddler, yelled "Never!" and "Bad boy!"
Chance said most opposition to downhill skateboarding was because people were not yet familiar with the sport.
"It's something new that they don't know, so their eyes aren't open to it yet," he said. "Skateboarding was always
looked down on, and now downhill skateboarding is, too. People are used to seeing bikers, so they don't react this
way to them."
Still, injuries do happen in downhill skateboarding — as do lawsuits. Mr. Golter broke his elbow, wrist, arm,
shoulders, ribs and pelvis before he retired in 2003 after his fifth concussion. And the family of a 17 -year-old boy
sued and settled with the nearby City of Mission Viejo after he suffered brain damage in a 2004 skateboarding
accident on flatter ground.
So far, Laguna Beach has tried to broker a compromise, closing some roads to skateboarders but leaving most
open for at least six months and imposing speed limits. It will also look into allowing skaters to use emergency fire
6/6/2011 0? 0 �-- 3
roads, where there is no traffic.
But even if the city banned downhill skateboarding outright, the sport's ties to Laguna Beach would probably not
end anytime soon. Although Malibu banned downhill skateboarding in 2009, boarders still frequent its canyons.
"There are so many people joining the sport every day," said Michael Brooke, author of "The Concrete Wave: The
History of Skateboarding." "I think if they ban it and turn it into an outlaw thing, it will probably add to the sport's
appeal."
A version of this article appeared in print on April 2, 2011, on page A11 of the New York edition.
6/6/2011 3 (D I 3
From:
John Freeman Urfree@cox.net]
Sent:
Monday, June 06, 2011 12:58 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
Carla Morreale
Subject: Bombing the hills becoming a bygone pastime
More Laguna Streets Off -Limits to Skateboarding
Bombing the hills becoming a bygone pastime
After hearing nearly three hours of requests to stop a ban against skateboarding on steep streets in Laguna
Beach, the City Council on Tuesday unanimously voted to move ahead with prohibiting downhill skateboarding on
eight blocks with grades of five percent or higher.
More:
http://www.lagunabea6hindependent. com/2011 /03/23/more-laguna-streets-off-limits-to-skateboarding/
John Freeman
Pacific View Homeowners Association
6/6/2011 / 01
5
Young activists' plea to reject a ban on
skateboarding was turned aside by the City
Council this week. Photo by Ted Reckas ng o
After hearing nearly three hours of requests to stop a ban against skateboarding on steep streets in Laguna Beach, the City Council on Tuesday unanimously voted to move ahead
with prohibiting downhill skateboarding on eight blocks with grades of five percent or higher.
The council's action gives preliminary approval to requiring that skateboarders go no faster than 25 mph, ride on the right side of the road without traversing over the center line,
obey all stop signs, remain upright while skateboarding and refrain from skateboarding at night.
"I don't know where this came from that we want to ban skateboarding," said councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson. "We want to ban it on the most dangerous streets." When the
council initially discussed the issue last month, four streets were singled out as off-limits for skateboarding: Alta Vista Way, Summit Drive, a section of Morningside Drive and
Bluebird Canyon Drive between Morningside Drive and Cress Street. Additional banned streets now being considered are the Third Street hill, the upper end of Diamond Street,
Crestview and Temple Hills Drives. The entire length of Nyes Place was left open to skateboarders who follow the new road rules.
The council is also considering two roads as designated downhill skateboard runs: the police firearms range access road behind the Festival of Arts grounds and an access road
off of Quivera Street in Arch Beach Heights. Shooing skaters off the firing range road, said Laguna Police Employees Assn. president Larry Bammer, creates a problem. "It's
closed for police access only for training," he told the council. "We routinely go up there to sight -in our rifles." Bammer said his association opposes using the firing range road
for downhill skateboarding, citing potential hazards as well as its short length, the expense of a needed fence and noise concerns to Pageant of the Masters performances below.
The proposed downhill skateboarding restrictions are "discriminatory," according to Noah Hunt, 16, a skateboarder who asked the council to consider facts rather than the
emotional issues. "They're not banning streets for bicyclists." More than 1,000 residents, according to proponents at the meeting, signed a petition circulated last weekend
supporting open streets for skateboarding.
The council is expected to pass the skateboard street ban ordinance at its April 5 meeting with laws going into effect 30 days later with a review six months later. First warnings
will be issued with fines increasing from $25 to $50 to $100 for each additional offense.
More about the story in Friday's Indy. Add your reaction on the Indy's Facebook page
Related posts:
1. Revisit the Compromise Rules on Skateboarding
2. SNAG's Demands are Unreasonable
3. Unhappy With Curbing Skateboarding
4. One Hill Down
5. Open Paved Fire Roads to Skateboarding
Tags: City Councildownhill skateboarding, Morningside Drive, Third Street
. Share this post:
Author: Rita Robinson
Leave a Reply
Name (re
Email (wi
Website