20181218 Late CorrespondenceAGENDA ITEM::::\:\:=':;:,
RECEIVED FRO_M_: __,.~-----
AND MADE PART OF THE RECORQ AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: \Z..\1'(,j 1!)
!OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
La Cresta Pointe Homeowners Association
Palos Verdes Peninsula
12/17 /18
To Whom it may concern;
Ple ase be ad vi sed that the Board of Directors of the La Cresta Pointe Homeowners
Association (L CPHOA) has passed the following motion on this date;
The La Cresta Pointe Homeowners Association is strongly opposed to the
construction of any tower that comes into the line of sight, and diminishes the
view between our association's residences and the Pacific Ocean.
Please be further ad vi sed that Mr. Shawn Rysling, board member of the LCPHOA has
been fully authorized to represent our assoc iation's interests on this matter.
Sincere ly,
Gary Kessler, Secretary
La Cresta Po inte Homeowners Association
30900 Via La Cresta,
Rancho Pa lo s Verdes, CA 90275
/
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
AGENDA ITEM: S\A-JO ~hi ·
REG.QVED FROM: \ (). \lt (_\C) \..v<A
AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD \ATTHE
COUNCIL MEETING QF; \?-\ \$' \K
OFFIC~ Gt= TI=t~ CliV Cl.ERK
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 18, 2018
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
E Email from April Sandell
N Email from Noel Weiss
1 Email from Noel Park
2 Emails from: Gary Randall; Jim Hevener
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, December 17, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20181218 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Emily,
April Sandell < hvybags@cox.net>
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 2:44 PM
CityClerk
cc
City Council Meeting Dec. 18, 2018
Please accept my comments for the record.
Consent Calendar:
E. Border Issues Report for 2018. As a long time resident in Eastview RPV, I
respectfully ask that this item is pulled
from the agenda for discussion.
As you are aware, big yet slow changes have been happening on Western Ave.
for some 20 years so.
Far too many R-1 homeowner's lack adequate knowledge of the most current
happenings within the Western Ave. Specific Plan, including
myself.
I believe Quiet title actions are sometimes part of the process of change. And
sometimes the homeowner is left unaware of legal actions filed
but never served upon the defendant according to your legal council.
In any case, I hope you see that property ownership is key to the desired
change. I respectfully think you do. Securing the borders issues
report throughout 2019 is important.
Note: Please accept my sincere apology for my civil disobedience during the
Special Council Meeting last Saturday.
1
£.
Thank you and Happy Holidays and New Year.
April L. Sandell
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
LC for Item N
Emily Colborn
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:29 AM
CityClerk
FW: Memorandum of Debbie Landes -Item "N" -City Council Agenda -December 18,2018
Memorandum to Council (Debbie Landes) In Opposition to Issuance of Subpoena (Dec 18,
2018) with Attachments.pdf
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:22 AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Memorandum of Debbie Landes -Item "N" -City Council Agenda -December 18,2018
Teresa:
Enclosed please find a Memorandum (with attachments) signed by Debbie Landes in Opposition to the issuance of a subpoena
to her ...
This is Item "N" on the City Council Agenda of December 18, 2018 (tonight).
Thanks for distributing this letter to all councilmembers .. who are copied on this email.
Noel
(310) 822-0239
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DEBBIE LANDES
DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2018
RE: CONTACTS WITH DAVID ALESHIRE CONCERNING DAVID
ALESHIRE’S REVEALATION TO SHARON LOVEYS OF THE
(APPROXIMATE) AMOUNT NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE CITY & GREEN
HILLS IN SATISFACTION OF GREEN HILLS’ OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY
THE CITY OF RPV FOR THE DEFENSE COSTS & SUMS PAID BY THE CITY
IN SETTLEMENT OF THE MANDAMUS AND DAMAGE LITIGATION
BROUGHT BY VARIOUS VISTA VERDE CONDO OWNERS AGAINST THE
CITY & GREEN HILLS CONCERNING GREEN HILLS VIOLATIONS OF THE
CITY’S CEMETERY ZONING CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION,
HEIGHT, AND USE OF THE PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM
1. I, Debbie Landes, am transmitting this Memorandum to the Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council in opposition to the request by the City Attorney (Agenda Item No.
“N” (City Council Meeting of December 18, 2018) to issue a subpoena for my testimony
in connection with an on-going investigation by the City Council of the conduct of
former Councilmember Brian Campbell concerning the dissemination of information
regarding the sums incurred by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in settlement of the
damage and mandamus litigation brought by myself and other Visa Verde condo owners
against the City occasioned by the City’s issuance of building and use permits to
construct the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum within 8’ of the Vista Verde/Green Hills
property line, at a height in excess of that permitted under the City’s Cemetery Zoning
Code, and which permitted the City to develop and use the roof of the Mausoleum to
inter human remains in 720 “plots”, contrary to state law which does not contemplate the
use of the roof of a free-standing Mausoleum to inter human remains.
2. Because of the egregious nature of the violations, the City Planning
Commission and the City Council (on September 1, 2015) imposed a Moratorium on
Green Hills’ use of the roof of the Mausoleum to inter human remains, and insisted that
Green Hills apply for an amendment to its Master Plan and conditional use permit to
“legalize” the use of the Mausoleum Roof to inter human remains and to apply for and
procure a “variance” from the City’s Cemetery zoning laws with respect to the set-back
and height violations. These actions followed the recommendation of the (then) City
Attorney.
2
3. The City’s action was supported by two independent investigations
commissioned by the City which found that Green Hills had practiced fraud and deceit on
the City in procuring the building and use permits.
4. Green Hills strenuously objected, to the point of John Resich’s having
vigorously confronted Councilman Jerry Duhovic in the parking lot of the Fred Hesse
Community Park which, as reported by my counsel, constituted a “verbal whip-slapping”
as he has never seen. This was also witnessed by another Vista Verde Homeowner, Lisa
Pierson, with whom my counsel was engaged in discussion when they witnessed and
overheard a “ruckus” where Mr. Resich had his hand in Councilman Duhovic’s face.
5. Shortly thereafter, the City Attorney was fired, David Aleshire (and his firm)
was hired as the new City Attorney. Mr. Aleshire provided the City Council with a legal
“opinion” which reversed the recommendation of the prior City Attorney and provided
legal “cover” for the Council’s action on November 17, 2015, which reversed the prior
City Council action against Green Hills. The Council’s action of November 17, 2015,
also required Green Hills to indemnity the City for all costs and fees the City incurred in
defense of any litigation commenced by the Vista Verde Homeowners.
6. Litigation was thereafter commenced against the City and Green Hills by
eighteen Vista Verde condo owners (twenty-nine individuals) for damages and to set
aside the City Council’s actions of November 17, 2015. The litigation against the City
was subsequently settled in February, 2017, following a mediation between the Vista
Verde Homeowners and the City. Green Hills was not part of the mediation or settlement.
7. The terms of the settlement had the City paying the Vista Verde plaintiffs the
sum of $500,000 in return for a full release of the City of all damage and mandamus
claims. The City also demanded that my counsel, Noel Weiss, refrain from speaking
before the City Council for a period of five years, with respect to the litigation or Green
Hills past use of the cemetery. Mr. Weiss agreed to this demand.
8. Following the payment of the settlement proceeds, the City negotiated with
Green Hills on the reimbursement amount to be paid to the City under the indemnity.
Green Hills resisted payment and the matter was negotiated between Green Hills and the
City during the balance of 2017. Agreement was reached to reduce Green Hills’
obligation to indemnify the City. I am not aware whether this agreement was ever the
subject of open City Council discussion and formal approval. Green Hills has paid
$90,000 to the City against its indemnity obligation. I am uncertain of the exact amount
which is currently owed.
9. While the amount of Green Hills’ reimbursement to the City was being
negotiated in closed session, I am advised by Sharon Loveys that during a break at the
October 3, 2017 City Council Meeting, Dave Aleshire orally advised Sharon Loveys in
3
response to her oral request, that the amount of attorney’s fees the City had expended in
defense of the Vista Verde litigation was $200,000. Dave Aleshire later confirmed in
writing to Sharon Loveys that the attorney’s fees incurred and paid by the City on
account of the Vista Verde matters (litigation and non-litigation) was $237,199. A copy
of that email is attached to this Memorandum.
10. On November 1, 2017, Green Hills’ attorney, Ellen Berkowitz complained to
Dave Aleshire that he had revealed closed session information to Sharon Loveys. The
email exchange between Ms. Berkowitz and Dave Aleshire is also attached to this
Memorandum.
11. Based on the information given by Dave Aleshire to Sharon Loveys, Sharon
advised our attorney, Noel Weiss, of this information, for his use in connection with his
preparation of other appeals Sharon Loveys filed concerning Green Hills continued
violation of the City’s Cemetery Zoning Code in the development of the “Arroyo Visa”
sub-area of “Area 5” of the cemetery. Currently, there is litigation pending seeking to
overturn the City’s refusal to honor and enforce its cemetery zoning code with respect to
the Arroyo Vista development.
12. At subsequent Council meetings, Councilwoman Susan Brooks and
Councilman Ken Dyda questioned Ms. Loveys how she came to know about the amount
of attorney’s fees and costs spent by the City in defense of the Vista Verde litigation. Ms.
Loveys did not want to embarrass David Aleshire, so she declined to answer.
13. Ms. Loveys testified at her deposition that she does not recall Mr. Aleshire
telling her orally that the City had expended $200,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Ms.
Loveys did provide Mr.Wynder a copy of Mr. Aleshire’s written confirmation dated
October 31, 2017. (See attachment to this Memorandum).
14. The total costs incurred by the City are a matter of public record regardless
because (i) the Settlement Agreement is a matter of public record, and (ii) the City’s
payments to its council for the Vista Verde litigation are also the subject of a public
records request.
15. Nonetheless, Mr. Bill Wynder, in defense of Mr. Aleshire’s conduct, has
recently publicly stated and postulated that Councilman Brian Campbell was the initial
source of the information relating to the costs incurred by the City in defense of the Vista
Verde litigation; and that this information was relayed by Councilman Campbell to Noel
Weiss at some time prior to October 3, 2017.
16. This sequence of events puts Mr. Wynder and his law firm in the position of
investigating itself, and thus present a classic conflict of interest meriting the City’s
retention of independent counsel to investigate the underlying leak of information
4
concerning Green Hills’ indemnity obligation to the City in connection with the Vista
Verde litigation and Mr. Aleshire’s role in connection therewith. It also undermines the
legal and factual efficacy of the results of any investigation. Yet despite this fact, Mr.
Wynder now wants to depose me in connection with this Green Hills’ matter as well as
other matters involving alleged leaks or misuse of email by former Councilman
Campbell.
17. This proposed legislative subpoena for me is a complete waste of time and a
waste of money for the City. For the record, the Council needs to be advised as follows:
a. I possess no documents responsive to Exhibit “1”. I never possessed such
documents;
b. Sharon Loveys asked Dave Aleshire what the City had spent on legal fees and
costs in defense of the Vista Verde litigation orally in early October, 2017 during a break
at the Council Meeting of October 3, 2017, and was told by Mr. Aleshire that the amount
was $200,000 (rounded);
c. Mr. Aleshire later confirmed this in writing via email to Sharon on October 31,
2017 (which stated that $237,199 was paid by the City to Mr. Aleshire’s firm – see
attachment to this Memorandum);
d. I have no knowledge with respect to any of the other items, beside the Green
Hills indemnity matters, to which the subpoena references. Specifically, I have no
knowledge of any facts which pertain to “short-term rentals”, Mr. Eric Mark, Mr.
Michael Huang, or Mr. Dave Tomblin.
18. When the $200,000 in costs is added to the $500,000 principal paid by the
City to the Vista Verde plaintiffs, the total is $700,000. This is the number that was
referenced in Sharon’s appeal on the Arroyo Vista sub-area development which I
supported in oral testimony before the City Council and Planning Commission.
In light of the foregoing, I consider the legislative subpoena unnecessary and a
waste of the City’s money and Mr. Wynder’s time.
19. Assuming the Council was concerned at the time about the source of how
Sharon Loveys learned of the $200,000 cost figure in October, 2017, and whether former
Councilman Brian Campbell was the source of the information, then Mr. Aleshire and
Mr. Willmore were both well positioned to tie down this information at the time. Yet,
nothing was done as far as I am aware. Instead, the City has replaced Mr. Aleshire as City
Attorney (ostensibly because Mr. Aleshire is too busy with administrative matters in
running the lawfirm of Aleshire & Wynder and has voluntarily withdrawn), effective
April 2, 2018 (a copy of which is attached with this Memorandum). There is nothing in
Resolution No. 2018-21 dated April 2, 2018, which states or stipulates that there is an
internal administrative "wall" against Mr. Aleshire's learning or being apprised of any
matters attendant the investigation of the "leak" of the Green Hills indemnity matter
referenced above. Yet, according to Resolution No. 2018-21, Mr. Aleshire is the
"managing partner" of the firm and confronts "demanding [administrative] duties, all of
which merit a clear indication that Mr. Aleshire is prohibited from any involvement by
the firm in the firm's provision of legal services to the City in connection with the
pending Brian Campbell investigation, particularly since Mr. Aleshire's errors and
omissions may have contributed to the City 's being unable to promptly and efficiently
mitigate the costs and administrative burdens occasioned by the alleged
maladministration by former Councilman Campbell of his official City email and any
alleged closed session "leaks" of information to the general public on the matters
referenced in the subpoena.
19. I am advised that a State Bar Investigation of Dave Aleshire has been
commenced; although the State Bar, due to privacy concerns, will not confirm or deny
the existence of any such investigation. However, the City Attorney has provided the
C ouncil and the public with a redacted letter from the State Bar dated September 14,
2 018 , which references the existence and pendency (as of that date) of such an
investigation). (See copy of letter attached to this Memorandum).
20. Based on the foregoing, I respectfull y request the City Council n ot a uthorize
the i ss uance of any subpoena to me.
Mldto ~
DEBBIE LANDES
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Da ve Ale shire <daleshire @awattorneys.com >
Frida y, Nove mber 03 , 2017 7:19 PM
'berkow itze @gtlaw.com '
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hill s
Categories: Red Category, Responsi ve
No-Those costs calculations are not confidential at this point. She asked for a summary of costs. Th is is in a form I've
already organized it. In fact, it really only shows costs since we came on board . If I hadn't given her this, and probably
satisfied her question, and if I went back over 3-4 years the summary would be far more.
From: berkowitze @gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4 :29 PM
T o: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillm ore@rpvca .gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Do yo u thi nk th er e's an y problem w ith t he fact th at you gav e her an exhi b it th at w as present ed to Co unci l in
cl osed se ssion?
Ellen Ber kowit z
Share holder
Greenbe rg Tra urig , LLP I 1840 Century Pa r k Eas t
Suite 1900 I Los Ang e les, CA 90067 -212 1
Tel +1310586 7763 I Mo bile + 1 310592 3479
berkowitze @gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
II GreenbergTraurig ! ;,g
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02 , 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ -RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rovca.gov
Subject: RE : Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mail to: berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Ale shire
. Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
1
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has ref used to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Share hold e r
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 I Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 I Mobile + 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
liGreenbergTraurig I ~
From: Dave Alesh ire [ma ilto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rovca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disclosable once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw .com J
S e nt: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4 :38 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE : Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
discussed in closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise .
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Sh a reh older
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 I Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 I Mobile+ 1 31 0 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www .gtlaw.com
liGreenbergTraurig I ~
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Beh a lf Of Dave Alesh ire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14 PM ·
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
2
Cc: Doug Wil lmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussea a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantial. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31 , 2017 6:19 PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is la beled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charge s on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you B as it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another co st was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need .
Th.anks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com , and do not use or disseminate such information.
3
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com
Sent:
To:
Friday , November 03, 2017 4:28 PM
Da ve Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hill s
Categories: Red Category, Responsi ve
Do you think there's any problem with the fact that you gave her an exhibit that was presented to Council in
closed session?
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Gre enberg Trauri g, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 I Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 I Mobile + 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
II GreenbergTraurig I g}:
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12 :14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto: berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12 :00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWi llmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees . Wondering where she might have gotten that
information.
Thanks.
Ellen
·Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 I Lo s Angeles , CA 90067 -2121
Tel +1 310 586 n63 I Mobile + 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
4
II GreenbergTraurig ( .§Q:
From: Dave Aleshire [ma ilto:daleshire@awattorneys .com ]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWill more@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
She made a public records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disclosable once litigation is concluded . Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
cons istent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher .
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DW illmore@rpvca .gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public. I was under the impression they were
disc ussed i n closed session, and that our correspondence was confidential.
Pl ease advise.
Thank you .
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 I Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 77 63 I Mobile + 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
II GreenbergTraurig 1.§G:
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mai lto:rburleson@awattorneys.com ] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to
Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantial. I wanted you to be aware of this.
Let m_e know if there is anything else you need .
Dave
5
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19 PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon-
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email , please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
6
From:
Sent:
To:
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:31 PM ,
'berkowitze@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
We have had the same concerns.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [ma ilto: berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 7 :14 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
That disclosure strikes me as fairly problematic. Information discussed in closed session should not be
provided to members of the public, particular members of the public that have taken (and contin ue to take)
positio ns adverse to the City.
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 I Los Angeles, CA 90067-212 1
Tel +1310586 7763 I Mobile + 1310592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
II GreenbergTraur ig I ~
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto :daleshire@awattorney s.com ]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed se ssion we did say that was the upper li mit of
what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and
t hen decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as ev idence we were settling too low. Didn 't know she
already had it!
From: berkowitze@ gtlaw.com [ ma ilt o:berko wi tze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore @rpvca.gov
.subject: RE: Green Hills
Got it. Ha v e you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMP has refused to pay the City $700,000 in fees. Wondering where sh e m f ght h ave gotten that
information.
7
· T h anks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Centu ry Park East
Suite 1900 I Los Angeles , CA 9006 7·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 I Mobile + 1 310 592 3479
ber kowit ze@ gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw .com
II GreenbergTraurig I ~
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11 :47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DW illmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE : Green Hills
She made a publ ic records act request. By being friendly and giving her summaries of costs I'm avoiding giving her
actual bills which are disclos able once litigation is concluded. Wanted to give her summary I'd given to Council so
consistent . If we'd gone back earl ier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01 , 2017 4:38 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWill more@rnvca .gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
I wasn't awa r e that our communications regarding cos ts we r e public. I was under the impression they were
d i scussed in closed sessio n, and that o u r correspon den ce w as confide n tia l.
Plea se a d vise .
T hank y ou .
Ellen
Ellen Berk ow itz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Ce ntu ry Park Eas t
Sui t e 1900 I Los An geles, CA 90067 -2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 I Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkow itze@gtlaw .com I www.gtlaw .co m
II GreenbergTraurig 1 w)g:
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:r burfeson@awattorneys.com ] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Berko wi tz, Ellen (Shfd-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on beha lf of Dave Aleshire
8
Ellen-Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee
d ispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to
· Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our
costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantial. I want ed you to be aware of this.
Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19 PM
To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn'
Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information
Sharon -
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a
cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of
course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also
another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you Bas it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A.
Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group-
there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which
you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record
requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification
agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the
indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public
records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else-it's all controversial-but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the
attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I
can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,
notify us immediately at postmas ter@gtlaw .com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
9
j_1·'·'lll4 unread) -sharon.loveys@yahoo.com -Yahoo Mail
/
sharon loveys, search your mailbox -------
8111/18, 9:38 AM
• Home a sharon ()}
,f Compose + Search results +. <.._ .... i;;;;+ Restore to lnbox ia Move v l:IEilill:DpseCfl sjimf.. X•"
lnbox (9999+)
Drafts (341)
Sent
Archive
Spam (1564)
Trash (1)
> Smai1 Views
': Folders (5)
Deleted Messages
Drafts
Junk
N
Notes (1)
Sent Messages
sharonlovey. .• (4)
,r--... ecent
Re: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information (31)
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
To 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com'
CC Teresa Takaoka, Juliette Tran, Rebecca S. Burleson , Doug Willmore,
'Emily Colborn'
Sharon-
@ 10/31/17 at 6:19 PM
Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills
litigation. I've attached a cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is
labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded
charges on the public records items whic h were about $25,000 and also another.$25,000 which
was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I
gave you B as it was therefore about $50,000 higher then Exhibit A.
Additionally, your emall mentioned the Investigation expenses before we came on board of the
Lilley Planning Group-there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that
personnel investigation was $24,535 which you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that.
I should mention that in these costs we've Included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but
also public record requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost
was negotiating an indemnification agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are
not responsible for many costs incurred before the indemnification agreement, and that other
costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public records requests, are
not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them).
Like everything else -it's all controversial -but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view
of costs and I felt the attachment I used with councll would be the simplest way to summarize.
There are pages of bills supporting this, and I can talk to you or give you specillcs on anything
else you might need.
Thanks again,
Dave
~ Reply <+. Reply to All -+ Forward ••• More
sharon loveys Information I requested, personal response from Mr. @ 11/01/17 at 9:37 AM
sharon loveys Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Begin forwarded mE (/}-11101117 at 10:19 AM
Debbi e Landes Very interesting. I see they spent $700+ on Julie Ke· if} 11/01/17 at 11 :01 AM
sharon loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>
To Debbie Landes
11/01/17 at 11:b4 AM
;.:,~-tJ,l,"'( 0\.11110 .~·1•a• St. ... TIE
.~--·1 HAMH S·E•._.t. VA UO
AARDVARK
Exhibit 4
S. Loveys
September 4
SRC1ifforct, cs~ 2018
10154
..
·/
/
.--
..
EXHIBIT B
RP\/ -Green Hills and Vista Verde Matters
From /\ugust 2 015 tliru 6/7 /2017
SUMMARY
TOTAL NON-LITIGATION $ 118,297
TOTAL LITIGATION $ 118,903
GRAND TOTAL $ 237,199
Non-Litigation Matters
Annual Review $
Closed Session s
CUP Appeal (Fall 2015) $
Inspiration Slope $
Planning
General $ 10,152
Maps $ 3,397
SUBTOTAL PLANNING $
PRA REQUESTS
Berkowitz $ 4,634
Daily Bree ze $ 21
I< eye $ 738
Weiss $ 19,362
SUBTOTAL PRA REQUESTS $
TOTAL NON-LITIGATION $
litigation Matters
Litigation
General $ 2,607
Interpretation $ 4,279
Settlement $ 36,561
Tolling $ 1,189
Indemnity $ 17,497
Mediation $ 12,154
SUBTOTAL LITIGATION $
Vista Verde
Administrative Record $ 13,974
Case M anage ment $ 1,594
Court Appearance $ 1,450
Damages $ 7,5 04
Motions $ 3,827
Writ Petition $ 15,580
Other $ 690
SUBTOTAL VISTA VERDE $
TOTAL LITIGATION $
16,426
25.Rl10
24,278
13,449
13,549
24,755
118,297
74,285
..
44,618
118,903 . .
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
DESIGNATION OF CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP ("A&W") is a full service public law firm founded
in 2003 with expertise in planning and land use, labor and employment, public finance,
code enforcement, litigation, land movement, contracts, public works construction , public
records, Brown Act, coastal , and all other areas of municipal law; and
WHEREAS, in September 2015, A&W, by its name partner David J . Aleshire , Esq.,
was appointed City Attorney of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"); and
WHEREAS, since that time A&W has acted as City Attorney performing legal
services involving a number of significant legal issues for the City, including: Green Hills
Memorial Park land use issues and resolving the Vista Verde litigation; landslide issues
including the Park and Joannou litigations; prepared a wireless regulatory o rdinance and
processing of Crown Castle applications; the revision of the decades-old general plan ;
adoption of a short-term rental regulatory ordinance and related enforcement actions;
negotiated the City's first MOUs with its bargaining units; successfully defended
employment actions and prepared new City employment pol icies; prepared and adopted a
Council Rules of Procedure Manual, updating Council policies and a Code of Conduct
including means to enforce adherence by its members; dealt w ith numerous public records
issues; and pursued other transparency policies including adopting a Fraud Hotline ; and
WHEREAS, the designated City Attorney also serves as the A&W Managing Partner
which has resulted in his undertaking increasingly demanding duties; and
WHEREAS, William W . Wynder, Esq ., also a named partner in A&W, has been
practicing public law for well over 30 years , is a former litigator with Latham & Watkins, LLP
and Rutan & Tucker, LLP . and has, over the last 20 years, served as the city attorney for
the cities of Carson, Cypress, and Lawndale; and Genera l Counsel for the Palmdale Water
District and the Rossmoor Community Services District; and
WHEREAS, given the increasing administrative and other demands on the A&W
Managing Partner, A&W has proposed that Mr. Wynder replace Mr. Aleshire as the City
Attorney for City, and its subordinate and related public entities; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has carefully considered A&W's proposal, interviewed
Mr. Wynder, reviewed h is resume, and find him appropriately qualified to serve as City
Attorney with sufficient time and legal skills to provide quality legal services to C ity; and
WHEREAS , A&W, and Messrs. Aleshire and Wynder, in particular, shall coordinate
a transition in the role of City Attorney in an efficient, cost-effective, and seamless manner
to City with Mr. Aleshire continuing to provide legal services fo( special projects such as the
preparation and presentation of a City charter; and ""
WHEREAS, that certain "Contract Services Agreement for City Attorney Services"
(the "Agreement") provides at, Section 1 thereof, that the "designated City Attorney and
Assistant City Attorney may be established from time to time or modified by resolution of
the City Council."
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
California, does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby appoints William W. Wynder, Esq., as City
Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, and its subordinate and affiliated
entities, effective April 17, 2018, with Mr. Aleshire available to assure an efficient, cost-
effective, and seamless transition and work on and complete special projects.
Section 2. The City Council hereby reaffirms Elena Q. Gerli as Assistant City
Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
Section 3. The provision of this Resolution shall become effective April 17, 2018.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 17th day of April 2018 .
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2018-21 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 17, 201
01203.0001/464346.2 Resolution No . 2018-21
Page 2 of 2 •
T JI E STATE BAR
OF CAL IF ORN IA
OFFrCE OF Cl llEF TRJAI COUN SEi
ENFORCEMFNT L Nn
Mclame J l.3\\Tcn cc , Interim Chief Trial Counsel
~~· '\OIJTii lfOl'FROA STRffT IDS ANCiM f \ C>..LlfORNlA 90017·2SI• THOllO'l C1I ll 76S· 100o
~ .... tlllJ 7bS.13 11
DlaLM OIAI (213) 76$·1°*'1
!(11'1!1o) pt_>1A!!.<lllhl! •• 01
September 12, 2018
Re· Res pondent:
Case Number:
David J. Aleshire
18 0 16022
Dear--···-····---···-··
The complaint against auomcy Davtd Aleshire has been reviewed and forwarded 10 the Enforcement
Unit for fun.her investiga1ion and prosecution, if warranted.
Please note 1he ~case number above and refer 10 thi~ number in all furure correspondence.
I have assigned lrwes1igator • • • ------and Senior Trial Counsel ------· --to invcs1 igatc your
complain I.
All documents that you send 10 the State Bar. whether copies or originals, become State Bar property
and arc subjcc1 to destruction. If you have any questio·ns regarding th is m atter, or if you have•
change of a ddress or t elepho ne number, please call Investigator ·· • • • • • directly at··· • · · · · • -
Thnnk you for bringing this mnller 10 my nllcnlion . We look forward 10 your continued ossismncc .
Very truly yours,
Supervising Anomcy
Subject: Council Agenda of 12/18/18, Agenda Item 1
From: Noel Park <_119J:tlP..arkone@gmail.c9m>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 9:36 PM
To: CC <i=J;:_@.J]?.vca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@r~gy>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@JJ2y_ca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<8.rn.M.@I.P..Yg'hgQ\£>; Emily Colborn <~colborn@JJ2y_ca.gov>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Barbara Sattler
<gsattl.12r@igc.org>
Subject: Council Agenda of 12/18/18, Agenda Item 1
I direct your attention to emails sent to you concerning this item by Eva Cicoria on 12/16 and Al and Barbara Satler
on 12/17. I fully support and agree with the comments therein.
In addition, several other emails concerning the related Request For Proposal have been sent to you in recent days
including, but not limited to, those from myself and Ms. Cicoria. These are clearly related to the agenda item at issue.
I respectfully request that this correspondence by attached to the staff report so that all concerned can be aware of
them as the decision making process moves forward.
Sincerely,
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
/.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
grapecon@cox.net
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:59 AM
cc
CityManager; CityClerk
Dec 18, 2018 CC Meeting Regular Business Item #2 Ladera Linda park
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tern, and City Councilmembers:
I am writing in regards to tonight's city council regular business agenda item #2.
I will be brief ..
I urge you to not approve this $500,000 expenditure at this time. Instead, I would respectfully request that you consider
directing staff to generate a detailed usage analysis for the Ladera Linda community center. This should be in the form of a
report that quantitatively documents usage the past year or two and also quantitatively indicates desired/anticipated program
and usage levels (goals) in the future. This should detail how many youth classes, adult classes, private parties (such as
birthday parties or wedding receptions), sports activities, etc. This report should be delivered back to the CC for review,
community input, and approval for future use levels (and should, in fact, likely include traffic analysis associated with proposed
future usage levels).
As staff has stated in previous reports (notably the October 11, 2016 CC meeting), it is not staff's job to determine square
footage, but rather provide program usage information to the architect and allow the architect to recommend a facility size
that accommodates such usage. As such, having a published report should certainly come ahead of any detailed architectural
work (and, quite honestly, probably should have preceded the work Richard Fischer and Associates has already done at a cost
of more than $200,000 to the city).
If such a document has already been generated by staff, I would like to know where it can be located. I have reviewed prior
council meetings and reports on this project and cannot find such quantitative data.
It is interesting to note that the latest RFP issued by staff, which is the subject of tonight's discussion, set the square footage of
the new facility to be 8900 square feet +/-3%. Where is the specific programming data that drove this precise number, and
why is a new architect not allowed to come to his own conclusions of square footage based on the underlying program needs,
as opposed to be constrained to a number set by Richard Fischer and Associates?
One of our residents, Herb Stark, recently requested and received usage information for the community center for 2018. The
facility was booked roughly 52% of the available days (190 days), with 98.9% of those booked events (263 out of 266) requiring
only one room with a capacity of 40 people or less. Of those 263, only 13 times were events scheduled at the same time of day
on the same day, requiring more than one room to simultaneously accommodate the groups, but in no case were more than
three rooms needed. Herb also looked at the Discovery Room, which was utilized only 11 times in all of 2018 and remained
locked at all other times. I believe the data compiled by Herb provides a compelling reason why an 8900 square foot facility,
while smaller than the existing buildings, is still too large. Additionally, Herb has provided a number of creative ways to reduce
size and yet accommodate all current activity, with still room to grow in usage if needed.
The Lad era Linda site is certainly challenging for a number of reasons. I appreciate the difficult job staff, and ultimately you on
the City Council, have in trying to sort all this out, and know many hours have been invested already. I am thankful for the
efforts to date. However, there is much at stake with this project and it is very important to do it right ... a little extra time to be
sure all aspects have been fully and properly considered, in an effort to make sure this is a successful project, certainly seems
warranted before approval the expenditure of over $500,000.
Respectfully
1
Gary Randall
RPV Resident
2
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:21 PM
CityClerk To:
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Park --late correspondence
LC
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail,
From: Jim Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park --late correspondence
Members of the City Council
I am the current President of the Mediterrania HOA and also will be the Cubmaster for Cub Scout Pack 955 at Mira
Catalina starting in January.
My constituencies strongly support moving forward with the next phase of the Ladera Linda Park
Project. Unfortunately, I received late notice of the meeting this evening and cannot attend to express my support.
can assure you that I have spoken to several dozen residents just since late-last week (at the HOA Santa event, at a
Cub Scout event, and also at the School) and they all share these views.
1. The Current Direction Represents a Consensus after Much Compromise and Nothing Has Changed. There
simply is no way to make everyone 100% happy. There are a significant number of people who want nothing
and there are a significant number of people who want more amenities such as a swimming pool and a
gymnasium. The City Staff and prior design firm worked hard to integrate and balance competing interests
and agendas. The people who I represent did not get everything they wanted, but we understand that neither
have the residents of Ladera Linda. The current concept represents a reasonable compromise and we do
not believe anything has changed since last spring when the Council voted to move forward with the basic
concept. The legitimate concerns of specific residents still can be addressed during the final design phase
and we urge the Council to proceed.
2. The Process Leading to the Selection of Johnson Favarro Was Thoughtful and Thorough and Should
Continue. I participated in the two days of interviews and selection process which led to the selection of
Johnson Favarro. Staff did an outstanding job in the RFP process to identify and qualify a number of
excellent candidates. Staff and resident representatives then interviewed the top candidates. Johnson
Favarro (JF) emerged as a consensus favorite of both Staff and all of the resident representatives. I feel
strongly that JF will proceed with real sensitivity to the concerns of adjacent residents while developing a final
design that remains consistent with the already approved basic concept. I recommend Council direct Staff to
obtain input from representatives of the same HOAs as the process proceeds by continuing to use the same
ad hoc committee and perhaps by adding one additional resident per HOA. This is a manageable number
where the guideposts will be the spirit of compromise and community.
1
3. The Discovery Room is a Special Resource. I recently led one of our Cub Dens in a meeting at the
Discovery Room. That experience reminded me that the collection at the Discovery Center is priceless -
both literally and also because it is a small, intimate space where the Docents and kids can interact and learn
in a manner that cannot be replicated in the larger PVIC facility. I can't imagine the City would give this up, or
alter the plan to include only display cases, just to save a few hundred square feet of construction
costs. Once you shut it down or alter its basic concept, you will lose the resource for ever as it would be less
appealing to both docents and families and likely will slowly dwindle down to nothing.
4. The City Should Embrace a Modest Increase in Use and Plan for the Next 20-40 years. It is not fair to base
the cost/benefit analysis on current usage only. With all due respect to Staff who run the facility, it is run
down and unappealing. A new facility with an appealing Multi-Purpose Room and limited number of
classroom will be used by local residents. Modest outdoor recreation facilities will attract local families with
kids. The City needs these types of facilities to foster our community. That said, the current plan is modest
and will not result in an influx of outsiders or major nighttime or similar events. The current plan strikes the
right balance.
5. Avoid Death By a Thousand Small Cuts or Through Continuous Studies. We all understand that building this
facility will cost a considerable amount of money and I am sure that Staff and the Council will be diligent in
directing JF to keep costs in mind and work towards a cost-efficient design. But, it should be looked as an
investment and not just an expense. I remain concerned that certain residents want to keep chipping away at
the square footage and amenities until they get to a place where the costs really do outweigh the
benefits. There already has been a considerable investment in the process and both this phase and the
construction phase will involve minimum fixed costs and other costs that only can be justified by a park and
community center of a certain size and scope. I feel the current concept justifies the likely costs.
Thank you!
Jim Hevener
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 17, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 18, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
2
4
Description of Material
Emails from: Eva Cicoria; Barbara and Alfred Sattler
Emails from: Herb Stark; Donald Bell; Donald Latterman; Mickey
Radich
Updates to Attachment B (City Council Assignments -Redlined)
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20181218 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
Subject: FW: Landslide Remediation
From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:21 PM
To: CC <IT@.J:.QY.ca.gov>
Subject: Landslide Remediation
Good evening Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tern Cruikshank, and Council Members Alegria, Brooks, and
Dyda,
I appreciate that the DBS&A contract includes opportunities for public input during the contract term. And I
appreciate that the Staff Report emphasizes that any design work to line the canyons north of Burma Rd. is
not included in the proposal. There is quite a lot of ambiguity in the DBS&A proposal itself, however, that
should be cleared up before contract approval, particularly because Section 1.2 of the DBS&A contract
incorporates by reference the consultant's proposal. One option is to eliminate this section from the
contract, but that would necessitate close review of the contract to determine whether there is something in
the proposal that should be addressed in the contract directly.
Following are some areas that raise concerns/questions that should be addressed before contract
approval:
Remove CEQA review from the DBS&A proposal and adjust the budget accordingly. Although the
contract itself does not address CEQA work other than in the Schedule of Work, the proposal indicates that
DBS&A will be subcontracting that work to a particular firm, Envicom. Setting aside that the engagement
of Envicom brings a third Cullen into association with this project (Deborah Cullen, RPV Director of
Finance, Stephen Cullen, Principal in Charge at DBS&A, and now Travis Cullen of Envicom, and at least
two of them are related), CEQA review should not be subcontracted by the company designing the
project. An independent third party should be contracted by the City to evaluate whether or not a Mitigated
Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is required in connection with this project. DBS&A is
understandably focused on removing water from the area, but due regard must be given to the significant
environmental impact that water removal undoubtedly will have both within and outside of the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve. We cannot just look at the obvious damage to habitat that will occur as a result of the
project, we've got to look at the impacts to habitat that will occur over time as a result of removing vast
amounts of water. The impact may be that the coastal sage scrub habitat we're working so hard to protect
and restore becomes desert habitat.
Tighten up the scope of work to eliminate ambiguity that is created by incorporating the proposal by
reference. The scope of work should be precisely and specifically limited to what is stated in the contract.
In general, the DBS&A proposal goes too far, including channel lining in its proposal, for example, but there
are other ambiguities.
There is confusion over what is meant by a "phased" approach. DBS&A seem to interpret
phases as a design phase and a construction phase. DBS&A state that the Feasibility Study
Update "forms the basis for the drainage control and dewatering design for the Portuguese Bend
landslide." My understanding was that the phased approach was to not only refer to separating
design from construction, but to address the public's interest in tackling (and incurring costs for) just
one or two elements in the list of elements the Feasibility Study Update considered, then evaluating
the drainage and water retention status in the slide area anew before considering/designing other
elements. Even if the contract were to not address lining the canyons north of Burma Rd, as the
Staff Report indicates, it seems that pretty much every other element of the Feasibility Study Update
1 /.
besides dewatering wells is included in the design phase at this time, including lining channels other
than the canyons north of Burma Rd.
DBS&A state, "Full-scale construction of a stormwater control remedy in this area [the Red
Zone], such as full area regrading and installation of a stormwater liner system throughout the Red
Zone area, may best be installed later, after lateral land displacement is reduced through other
means (i.e., hydro-augers)." Is it DBS&A's intent to include this "remedy" in their design at this time
or not? It's unclear to me and incorporation of the proposal by reference creates this confusion.
Leave the canyons alone. I appreciate that the Staff Report indicates that this contract will not
involve lining the canyons north of Burma Rd. It's clear that DBS&A still has their eye on lining the upper
canyons, however, or at least part of them at some point. See Task C1. They clearly state that the purpose
of their field study of the stream beds in the canyons is to identify areas where surface water may be
infiltrating. Of course some of the surface water is infiltrating-that's obvious from the vegetation
there. Several times in the proposal DBS&A refers to their "innovative channel liner solution." It's unclear
how these references will be interpreted when the contract in turn incorporates them by
reference. Moreover, Task I refers to "lined channel installation". The Preserve should not become a test
case for their "channel liner solution". There are other remedies to focus on.
Stop the damming of water flow. Independent of the major design project currently before City
Council, perhaps the City should make it a priority immediately to allow water to flow through the
Portuguese Bend Reserve and "sandbox" without obstruction. Current policy focuses on "repairing"
damage done by water flow, but the consequence of those repairs is to dam the flow. Water wants to flow
out, but "we" won't allow it. I have commented on this in the past, providing photos to illustrate the
problem. Nothing changed on the ground as far as I can tell.
Related, regarding the DBS&A reference to "a bermed area along Portuguese Canyon just upslope of
Burma Road that likely impounds water, thus facilitating infiltration", there is a very large culvert under
Burma Rd at the point where Burma Rd crosses Portuguese Canyon and I assume that's what DBS&A is
referring to. I don't know whether clearing that culvert of debris build up is a matter of regular maintenance,
but it should be. I was last down there 10 years ago when I participated in a volunteer day to clear out
debris, including a network of wood and metal ramps, ladders and jumps installed by bikers. At that time
we cleared the culvert as well. It seems to me that those types of tasks should be undertaken immediately
and with due regard for minimizing habitat impacts.
Focus on the damming effects of Palos Verdes Drive South. The ancient landslide was triggered by
human activity. It is very likely that the ongoing land movement is a result of more of the same. We have
altered the canyon outflow dramatically, including damming the flow at PVDS. And now we are looking at
designing "remedies" that will have further adverse impacts on nature. It seems to me that DBS&A ought
to focus on developing innovative solutions to restoring the natural flow of water to the sea. I'm happy to
see that there is indeed emphasis in the contract on removing water and water infiltration in the area near
PVDS. The ambiguities in the contract cause me concern that the work will go beyond that in this first
phase.
Clarify any distinction that should be made between fissures/fractures and trenches and how any
particular remedy will be applied to each. Observation of the "sandbox" area shows that there are fissures
caused by land movement and trenches caused by water runoff. There are likely instances of overlap--
combined causes and similar effects. In any case, right now we have openings in the ground where rain
runoff accumulates. In some cases the problem of water infiltration has likely been exacerbated because
the trenches have been filled at particular points, blocking the flow of water from going out toward
PVDS. I'll be interested to see the design plans for this element, because I have concerns that filling may
create more damming effects.
Synoptic stream flow discharge survey clarification. DBS&A states that this survey is contingent on
there being a "suitable wet-weather event" during the project period, but if this is an important data set,
2
shouldn't any design that would be best developed with such data be delayed until that data can be
obtained?
Clean up. The DBS&A bid does not appear to reflect intent to remove all instrumentation and
infrastructure if/when it is no longer functional/beneficial to RPV and this should be addressed. It seems to
me that the cost of removal of any of the proposed remedies that ultimately fail for any reason should be
included in any cost benefit analysis as well.
Use this project as an opportunity to educate contractors and consultants on the environmental impact
minimization requirements of the NCCP. As an example, DBS&A includes McGee Consulting in their
proposal. I understand that Mr. McGee has significant, valuable expertise. However, the recent trail
building and trail widening (to the tune of 15 feet in some segments) done in the Preserve apparently at his
insistence is inconsistent with minimization of habitat impacts. Perhaps this is a good time to either
consider another consultant for this work or insist on different operational procedures on the ground going
forward.
Last, I find it difficult to follow how the public will have input into the design at 30% and 60% of completion
based on the schedule of work, Exhibit D-1.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Eva Cicoria
3
Subject:
Attachments:
-----Original Message-----
FW: comments re contract for services for landslide abatement
comments for 12-18-18 re landslide remediation.pdf
From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 3:17 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo
<RonD@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Allen Franz <afranz@PacBell.net>; Mary Beth
Woulfe <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Al Sattler <alsattler@igc.org>
Subject: comments re contract for services for landslide abatement
Attached please find our comments and concerns regarding the contract for proposed services for landslide abatement.
Barbara and Alfred Sattler
1 /
December 17, 2018
Re: Professional Services Agreement for design services associated with the Portuguese Bend Landslide mediation
work
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Staff:
Thank you for giving the public the opportunity to review and address the current proposal for landslide
abatement measures. Unfortunately, the proposed contract detailing the scope of work to be done was only made
available on December 14, leaving very little time for the public to review and comment on it.
There are still some outstanding issues:
1. Environmental analysis for CEQA is included on page D-1 of the Schedule; however it is not listed as a
"Task" to be done by Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A). Who will be doing the CEQA analysis
for this project? Is funding for CEQA analysis included in the overall cost of the current contract? CEQA
analysis should be done by an independent third party with substantial biological and ecological expertise
which is hired and directed by the city, not by a subcontractor of DBS&A.
2. We saw no mention in Tasks of any consultation required with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy or with the Wildlife Agencies.
3. The job description still includes work to describe textile options for lining canyons, despite the known
public opposition to such measures.
The Consultant's Qualifications are limited
The Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) includes examples of
previous work projects. Although they show a large range of projects for which they have provided
hydrogeological studies, the projects for which they have actually designed and fully implemented measures to
address hydrology issues seem to be landfills rather than any natural habitat areas. That apparent lack of
substantial experience with integrating and actually implementing protections for natural environments, rather
than just landfills, is concerning.
Although DBS&A has claimed to have biologists on staff, no biologists or ecologists were named in their roster of
company staff in their response to the city's RFP.
Furthermore, the Feasibility Study (FS) provided by DBS&A never recognized, acknowledged or evaluated the
potential contributions of intact native vegetation to ground water management.
Will DBS&A use the data provided by the synoptic stream flow discharge survey (Task C-1-2) to simply quantify a
presumption that any decrease in water volume from head end to out flow means that the "missing" water has
gone into the ground, or will DBS&A also consider the possibility that significant amounts of water may also be
pulled up by plants? Does DBS&A have any specific baseline information about what the rate of water uptake
might be for individual plant species? How does DBS&A propose to determine whether water migrates to a
problematic area of the slide zone as opposed to remaining underground for later uptake by plants?
Task C-2 refers to a "Water Balance/ Groundwater Source Assessment". Shouldn't such an overview include the
relationship of vegetation to the groundwater?
It is important that any baseline analysis for remediation design be truly comprehensive and include all relevant
and necessary biological data. Generic assumptions should not be made based upon water measurements alone.
An expert Biological Study of how the native coastal sage scrub and grassland depend upon and manage water is
needed.
1. How much water is needed for local native plant health?
2. How much water can locally native plant species pull up from the ground in wet conditions?
3. How fast does this happen? (Hours/days/weeks?)
These are questions for expert qualified biologists, ecologists and plant physiologists -not for geotechnical
consultants. The answers should be incorporated into any baseline for design for reduction or diversion of
groundwater in the Preserve before the city commits to any further actions.
In their response to the city's RFP, DBS&A mentions "Riparian Evapotranspiration" evaluation as being one possible
"Suggested Additional Task" that could be done for this project. A search for existing literature focusing on
riparian species could perhaps be quite useful in a comprehensive overview of the area hydrology. However that
limited plant data alone would not be enough since riparian species comprise only a small proportion of the
natural vegetation of the Preserve. A broader investigation is needed to identify the water taken up by all of the
plant species present in the area of concern.
Native vegetation can quickly take up more water than one might think
Evapotranspiration is commonly measured in situations where supplemental irrigation needs are being considered
and in evaluations of wetlands. Riparian plants have adapted to draw up large amounts of water that they then
transpire through their leaves in order to survive in extremely wet situations, including flooding.
Coastal sage scrub plant species are not so free about giving up water through transpiration, and in fact have
evolved various mechanisms to store water -such as waxy or hairy leaf coatings. But reluctance to give off water
to the air does not mean these plants are not taking up water from the ground. Many of the local native plant
species store quite a lot of moisture in their leaves and stems and can grow and enlarge quite dramatically and
quickly when water is available.
For example, it is not unusual for lemonade berry to become very large, adding many new very long branches in a
single season. Likewise, I have often noted when hand-watering the Native Plant Garden at Point Vicente, that
plants that look dried out initially can perk up visibly even in a brief one or two hour time span. These bits of
evidence tell me that local native plants can and do take up large amounts of water very quickly.
The city needs expert biological data to quantify the water take up (not just evapotranspiration) of the local native
plant species.
The natural hydrological functions of native vegetation should be integrated with any remediation design to
address water movement in the landslide area.
This is an approach that is proving to be effective in many situations dealing with water influxes. Native vegetation
can be part of the solution -it should not be regarded as part of the problem. Rather than blanketing our natural
Preserve areas with artificial membranes, perhaps we would be better served by understanding and restoring the
functions of native vegetation.
Perhaps much of the desired goal of reducing the flow of excess groundwater could be achieved by appropriate
revegetation and restoration of native plant species.
Perennial native grasses, for example, are known to have much deeper root systems than non-native annual grass
species. Restoration of this area by replacing weedy non-native grasses with native grass species could be helpful
in reducing excess groundwater. Likewise, many native coastal sage scrub (css) species are known to have very
deep root systems and restoration of the css can be beneficial.
Maintaining the health of the native vegetation in the Nature Preserve is an essential goal
The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is not a landfill, and should not be treated as if it were.
The goal of any geotechnical engineering in the Nature Preserve should not be to remove fill the groundwater.
There must be a determination of what amount of water is necessary to maintain healthy natural vegetation and
no attempt should be made to remove ground water other than that which is in excess of the needs of healthy
native vegetation.
The city must be mindful that any changes to the hydrology of this watershed that undermine the health of the
vegetation on site can potentially and substantially create other risks including fire and subsequent mudslides.
It is unfair that the burden of landslide mitigation be focused on the natural areas rather than on problematic
infrastructure.
It is obvious to anyone who is a passenger riding westward along Palos Verdes Drive South that the road itself
functions as a large dam blocking outflow of the canyons to the ocean. Why was this condition not specifically
discussed in the FS? Realistically, it seems that the road itself is the cause of many of the problems. Shouldn't
there at least be some attention paid to how that might be addressed?
Hydro-augers may be a reasonable design option to address the damming effect of Palos Verdes Drive South.
However, more biological data is needed to fill the biological "Data Gaps" regarding the take up and transpiration
of water by locally native coastal sage scrub and grass species before proceeding with other technological designs,
especially any considerations of lining any of the canyons.
Please provide videos of all future Public Outreach meetings
It would better serve the public if all of the future Public Outreach meetings were recorded and available on video
rather than solely relying on a project proponent to provide their summary notes. This, by the way, is true of all
Public Outreach and special Committee meetings that the city sponsors, not just those related to this topic. Please
provide video of these meetings in the future.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Barbara and Alfred Sattler
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:13 AM
CC; CityClerk
City Council Agenda item 2 under Regular Business CC 12-18-18
Ladera Linda Park Facility Sizing Study.pdf
On December 18th the Parks and Recreation Department will come before the Council for approval to proceed with
the development of construction drawings for Ladera Linda Community Center (LLCC). I have great concerns that
what staff is proposing is not consistent with a neighborhood community center and little or no studies have been
done to size the facility except to ask all stakeholders for their inputs and wish list. As a result I have requested and
obtained the facility usage for 2018. What that data shows is that the present baseline of a 9,800 sq. ft. building is too
large and should be scaled back to approximately 7,000 sq. ft. for a saving of $2.1 million. Further saving can be
obtained by eliminating one of two restrooms and going to the Hesse Park concept of a shared facility.
One concern and staff justification for the large building is to accommodate for growth. As you can see in the
attached document the two room configuration, assuming that the large conference room can be divided, can easily
handle the 2018 schedule with ample growth.
We all recognize the need for a new building but staff should be directed to re evaluate the size of the building before
proceeding with the final construction drawings.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda Resident
310-541-6646
1
Ladera Linda Park Facility Sizing Study
Figure 1 shows there were 266 events held at Ladera Linda during 2018. Fifty two of them were
scheduled on the same day but at different times. Only 13 had scheduling conflicts that would
require up to three rooms. Outside of three events all can be held in a room sized for 40 people.
If you subtract out the no conflict days and assume a three room configuration the 2018 usage
would only uses 28% of the facility. Thirteen events would require more than one room.
Figure 2 shows the number of days each month that the facility was used. This means that the
present facility was used only a total of 190 days out of the year, or 52% of the time.
Figure 3 shows the hours used at the facility each month during 2018. Assuming that the new
facility would be open from 10 am to 5 pm (PVIC) and adding the additional hours after 5 pm
used during 2018, the 2018 usage would only use 25% of the time that the facility would be
open.
Based upon this analysis of the 2018 Ladera Linda use data provided by the City a two room
configuration with one room capacity of 100 and one room with a capacity of 40 would more
than meet the present and future requirements provided that the 100 capacity room can be
divided in half with two entrances.
2018 Ladera Linda
Number Number
of People of Events
6 96
10 50
20 57
25 8
30 5
40 47
60 1
100 2 2018 Days Used 2018 Hours Used
Total 266 Month Days Used Month Hrs Used
Scheduled Januarv 12 Januarv 34
but at Number February 17 February 50
Different of Events March 15 March 42
Times April 17 April 43
2 47 May 12 May 42
3 5 June 23 June 130
Total 52 July 12 July 19
Conflicts in Number
Scheduling of Events
Auqust 10
Septembe 16
October 21
Auqust 28
Septembe 61
October 99
2 10 November 17 November 66
3 3 December 18 December 82
Total 13 Total Days 190 Total Used 696
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3
Discovery Room Usage
The proposed City baseline for the new Ladera Linda park facility calls for a 1,020 sq. ft.
Discovery Room and a 270 sq. ft. storage and workroom. The present Discovery Room
occupies 795 sq. ft. or an increase of 62%. Based upon the data provided by the City and use
analysis a single use Discovery Room is not justified. Figure 4 show that the room was only
used 11 times during 2018. At all other times the room was not open to the public. During 2017
the room was used 25 times. Figure 5 illustrates the poor usage.
Everyone recognizes the educational value of the Docent's children tours and recommends that
the discovery room be reconfigured as a storage room where the Docents can store teaching
aid carts, which can be rolled out in one of the proposed facility room or outside. This would be
consistent with the low usage of the tours.
Date
2/2/2018
2/16/2018
3/22/2018
4/3/2018
4/13/2018
4/29/2019
5/11 /2018
5/18/2018
5/30/2018
6/1/2018
11 /28/2018
12/7/2018
Total
120 c:
~ 100
"'O
2018 Discovery Room Usage
Children Adults Grade Program
60 5 4&5 Outreach
60 5 4&5 Outreach
25 5 8 Cancelled
25 4 8-11 years
55 5 2&3
11 9 9-10 years
60 6 2 Outreach
15 3 4
107 8 4
50 7 6
57 5 5 Outreach
65 6 4&5 Outreach
590 68
Figure 4
2018 Discovery Room Usage
Figure 5
:E 80 f'""'"''"'""""'"""""""""'"""""""""""""""'"'"""""""""'"""'""'"""~""'"""""'"~""""""'~""'~""'""'""''
~ 60
~ 40
Q)
.a 20 E
~ 0
Based upon the above, the present baseline configuration is oversized for a neighborhood
community center and should be sized for about 7,000 sq. ft. and not the 9,800 sq. ft. as
proposed. This would result in a cost saving of $2.1 million at a $750 per sq. ft. cost.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Thursday, December 13, 2018 2:39 PM
CC; CityClerk
Home Bell
City Council Meeting December 18, 2018
In Reference to the December 18, 2018 Council Agenda Regular Business Item 2
Wishing you Happy Holidays, I am Donald Bell and have lived at 3571 Vigilance Drive in Rancho Palos
Verdes for 39 years.
As you are at the point of making a critical go-no go decision, I note that the Recreation and Parks
Department is not tasked with Administration of the Contract. That is definitely a good strategy. Maybe
now an unbiased design can be generated with Direct Neighborhood Participation in the Pre-Design Phase
1. Ladera Linda HOA Committee has already developed design concepts for the building and park that we
firmly believe are economic, serve the community, and will meet neighborhood approval. Those concepts
were not incorporated into the R&P March 28, 2018 submission to City Council or in the RFP now in hand
of Johnson Favaro.
We still question how R&P proceeded to design a Neighborhood Community Center that has resulted in
neighborhood opposition. Ladera Linda Community Center has never been a well established activity
center due to its geographic and associated geologic separation from the majority of RPV
residents. Based on city data provided to the Ladera Linda Homeowners Park Committee, it is clear that
the existing facility is empty most of the time. Is there any assurance that building a new facility will cause
it to be filled with users? What activities does Recreation and Parks now offer that is filling the other Park
Facilities? Those buildings now also have empty schedules. A very close review of R&P plans needs to
be made to find ways to reduce the scope and amenities of the building and park. I hope cooperation can
be found to have an economic Community Center and Park and save millions in the process.
I would also ask before the project gets too advanced that budget estimates from R&P are presented to CC
to include many project costs that have yet to be defined. There will be costs associated with emptying,
moving and storing the contents of the existing buildings and grounds. There will be costs to furnish the
new building. There will be costs to install information, telephone, security, and fire alarm systems. There
will be costs to house the LL staff during project construction. There will be costs to create proposed
Discovery Room displays and carts. Then there are future increased costs for the R&P staff increase to
be open more hours, for more janitorial services, for the increased utilities expense of more park lighting
and a larger active building and for more park maintenance and security services. And finally there is an
internal soft cost of staff taking over parts of the project management with time that could be used on
alternate city business.
I finally ask that funding sources be clearly identified now to cover all the costs of what may be a $10
million dollar Park (Richard Fisher made a construction cost estimate in 2017 of $8.8 million). Already $1
million dollars in identified and unidentified costs (not included in the Fisher estimate) have likely been
spent or are being requested in the Professional Services Agreement. It is incumbent on City Council to
fully understand the entire fiscal impact of this project.
Smaller is also cheaper!
Thank you for your service to the community.
1
Subject: FW: Proposed Ladera Linda Park Facility
Attachments: IMG_0229.JPG; IMG_0222.JPG; IMG_0221.JPG; IMG_0223.JPG
From: Donald Latterman <latterrnand@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 5:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Ladera Linda Park Facility
Mayor Jerry Duhovic and RPV CC members,
On December 18th the Parks and Recreation Department will come before the Council for approval to
proceed with the development of construction drawings for the new Ladera Linda Park. The Ladera Linda
HOA as well as the Park subcommittee for the Ladera Linda HOA have grave reservations with proceeding
further until the City Council provides is a clear Mission Statement for the proposed Ladera Linda Park
facility.
There are a number of issues that must be addressed and resolved before you proceed further.
1. This project is lacking a clear written Mission Statement by the City Council, stating the intended
purpose and use for this new facility. Presently there are 4 different Mission Statements, depending
who you listen to: a) The Parks and Recreation Department's actions promote "Bigger Is Better" and
that the facility should be built to accommodate the public at large and be advertised on Social Media
as a go to destination, b) The City Council believes "Less Is More" with the facility to be built for the
use of residents and taking into consideration the concerns of the most affected Ladera Linda HOA,
c) The Los Serenos Docents want the whole facility to be a natural history museum with a 2,000 sq ft
Discovery Room and learning center for everything from climate change to environmental topics and
finally, d) The local residents believe that the new park should be sized to meet the needs of local
residents and not outside interests.
2. The building size calculation was determined by staff, seeking a number less than the square footage
of the old school buildings. However, the utilization of the new facility has never been defined in detail. What
are the specific plans for the use of the rooms shown in the last 8,900 sq ft configuration by staff? What is
taking place in the classrooms and meeting rooms? Presently there is definitely a very limited use of the
existing rooms at LL Park. Who is going to be using it to ensure efficient utilization of the space? A final
configuration based on specific community needs has not been established. Presently, Ryan Park has 1
available meeting room and Hess Park has 3 available meeting rooms. Why do we need 5 available rooms
at Ladera Linda?
3. Reviewing the existing data for 2018, provided by the City, shows that 95% of the events could be
handled with one room and a three room configuration would only be utilized 52% of the time under present
utilization. Looking at it from time utilization the facility would only be occupied 25% of the time. Why do we
need a 5 room complex? Assuming a facility configuration where the large assembly room (capacity 100
people) could be divided with two entrances only one additional 40 person room would be required and not
the two additional rooms shown in the proposed design. This design would have ample space for growth.
4. The proposed design also shows an enlarged Discovery Room with 1,300 square feet including
storage. The present room uses only 800 sq. ft. For 2018, City data shows that the room was only used 11
times and for 2017 15 times. Having a special purpose room that is only used 11 or 15 time a year seems
a poor use of taxpayer funds. The LLHOA Committee recognizes the educational value of the Docents
1 z...r
children tours and recommends that the discovery room be reconfigured as a storage room where the
Docents can store teaching aid carts, which can be rolled out in one of the proposed facility rooms or outside.
This would be consistent with the low usage of these tours. Our recommendation for the Discovery Room
has been ignored by staff.
5. Located just a few miles from Ladera Linda Park is Dean Dana Nature Center (a Los Angeles City
Park) (see attached photos of their Discovery Center and their efficient use of space). I suggest the City
Council visit that Nature Center before they decide the size and needs of our Discovery Room. It has live
animals including rattlesnakes, lizards, Tarantula's, and an owl with other hands on exhibits. On their web
site, they promote: picnic tables, children's play areas, restrooms, animal exhibits, barbeque areas, group
picnic shelters, hiking trails, historic value, museums, nature centers, animal presentations, bird walks, family
field trips, hiking, nature and plant walks, reading programs and spectacular views. Do we need a duplicate
Nature Center only a few miles away?
6. To date, the City has spent over $250,000 with Richard Fisher & Assoc., $50,000 on the RFP to select
an architectural firm, $500,000+ for the final blueprint firm, plus a significant undetermined amount of staff
time and expenses, which could now exceed $1,000,000 and we have no sense of direction and not turned
over one shovel of dirt. We also have some comments on the most recent RFP, which was to select the best
qualified architect to provide complete architectural prints to be used for construction of the new Park facility.
At direction of the City Council, 4 adjacent HOA's sent a representative to the meeting with the 5 finalists to
determine who we felt was best qualified to provide the construction blueprints. Each bidder gave the staff
their written bid for this RFP. We met, interviewed and convened to share our choices and all basically agreed
with the rankings. What was questionable about this RFP is how it was presented. At the March 20, 2018
City Council meeting, staff presented the final report from Richard Fisher & Assoc. that showed a 8900 sq ft
building. The City Council reviewed the report and made a motion and second to make changes to the RFP.
The City Council requested to reduce the size of the Discovery Room, square up the multi-purpose room
and to remove a bridge and dry stream bed. However, in this RFP staff stated that the building should still
be within + and -3% of 8900 sq ft. So much for listening to input from the HOA's. We, the HOA's, were told
that there was still time to reduce the building size in the next phase RFP, but that is not possible because
of how this RFP was written. After all was said and done, the building size is what the staff originally desired.
7. After our previous meeting, where we selected the best architect, the 4 HOA's asked if staff was going
to now open up all of the bid's? We were told, not now, but later they would only open up the bid from the
selected architect. The bidders were all informed that the City's budget was $500,000. We asked what
happens if that bid is higher than the budget number? We were told that they would negotiate with that bidder
to lower their price to our budget? Their answer was that even if their bid was still higher than budget, they
would present this higher bid to the City Council for approval. We found this process to be very strange.
There may have been a lower bid that could have been below budget and save the City a lot of money, but
we will never know.
8. This process of re-negotiating the bid has lost a lot of time and increased the cost of this project. Staff
had the architectural interviews on July 11th & 12th. The RFP release date was to be July 31•t with a pre-
submittal conference on August 14th and finished prints by Dec. 31•t. So far we are almost 5 months behind
schedule due to this bidding process. Because of this delay, one must assume that the selected architects
bid was significantly higher that our budget and staff's attempt to lower the bid to our budget number was
unsuccessful. We do not feel that the Parks & Rec. Dept. should be handling the RFP process in the first
place. We have a Public works Dept. that is better qualified, has more experience, are more capable and
they should be handling all of these projects.
Based upon the above information, the present baseline configuration is oversized for a neighborhood Park
and should be sized at about 7,000 sq. ft. and not the 9,800 sq. ft. as proposed.
Parks and Recreation has repeatedly said that they have worked with the local residents, holding working
group meetings and talked to individuals within the community. While this is true they have never resolved
2
the resident concerns on size, privacy, parking and noise. None of these issues are resolved in the proposed
design.
The residents have asked for five things that are of concern to us:
1. Privacy hedges along Forrestal Drive
2. Privacy hedges along the ocean side of the park to prevent people from looking down and throwing
trash into Seaview resident's backyards.
3. Maintain the lower field for passive activates only
4. Onsite Park parking, for preserve use, with a possible stairway up to Forrestal.
5. The size of the building to be 7,000 sq ft.
None of these items are incorporated in the proposed park layout.
Of equal concern is the contracting cycle controlled by the Parks and Recreation Department. Should this
bid actually have been managed and conducted within the Public Works Department who have the expertise
to manage large projects rather than Parks and Recreation who do not have that expertise? Indeed, a large
project such as this seems wholly out of the scope and purpose of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Parks and Recreation never opened all the bids but selected the winner based upon oral answers to six
questions. They then proceeded to negotiate a contract with the winner. Shouldn't all the bids be evaluated
and graded on set criteria of ability and cost to determine the winner and give the City a less expensive
alternative?
Assuming the City Council still wants to proceed with the design of the project, they need to incorporate the
above recommendations into a motion and proceed. In addition the motion should also restate the
requirement to have the contractor work with the involved HOAs.
If you wish to discuss our concerns and recommendations further, please feel free to contact me, and we
can set up time for further discussions with my LLHOA Board Members and our Parks sub-committee
members. Please remember that that the purpose of our city parks and facilities is to serve the needs of our
community. My HOA members all live in close proximity to Ladera Linda Park and this project is very
important to our quality of life. As you know, Ladera Linda is a special place in RPV in that we have a unique
geographic spot with the canyons and bordering the Land Conservancy with all of its trails and open space.
We want to keep it that way for our homeowners, guests, and the respectful use by all of our RPV residents
and all citizens.
Please respectfully consider our concerns and recommendations. Thank you for this opportunity to address
our city leadership
Very Respectfully,
LLHOA President
Donald Latterman
(310) 567-5569 (cell)
(310) 414-2888 (office desk)
3
Subject: FW: New Ladera Linda Park
From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodicJ:1@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:21 PM
To: CC <~.~@rgvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: New Ladera Linda Park
With yet another City Council (CC) meeting on the new Ladera Linda Park (LLP) coming up on December 18th,
where the staff will submit a bid higher than our Budget for an RFP to provide the final blueprints, you still must
resolve some important issues. Including this RFP, around $1,000,000 will be spent so far and we are still not under
construction. First of all there is no clear Mission Statement that can we used as a guideline to determine the purpose
and use of the new LLP .. So far the input from our Ladera Linda HOA has been ignored. We went to great lengths
and performed a detailed Survey on Park preferences and it has been completely ignored by staff. I have heard some
members of our CC say that LLP should be built as a low keyed passive park designed for our residents, but staff
keeps pushing for a Taj Mahal.
One cannot compare the location of this new Park to Ryan or Hesse Parks. Neither of these Parks impact the
surrounding homes and neighborhoods as Ladera Linda Park will. Ryan and Hesse Park can be directly accessed via a
main thoroughfare, Hawthorne Blvd. Their park traffic does not impact their neighborhoods. Hawthorne Blvd. is a 4
lane main thoroughfare with a center divider and Forrestal is a narrow 2 lane street with only one entrance and exit
with difficulty entering PVDS. That in itself should limit the size and amenities in this park.
The size of the new park is very critical because it determines the local traffic volumes. A bigger Park equals more
traffic. A 7,000 sq ft park will generate much less traffic than a 9,000 sq ft park. Staff wants to build a destination
park and have it advertised on Social Media to be used mostly by non-residents, while we in the Ladera Linda
neighborhood recommend a smaller version designed for the needs of our residents, which is the way it should be.
Based on the present activity at Ladera Linda, a 7,000 sq ft building would be adequate for all present and future
needs for our City.
Cost is another important factor. Including this RFP we will have spent close to $1,000,000 and we have no idea of
what the park will look like and what it is to include. Currently the cost has been estimated at around $9,000,000 and
rising. At the previous architect interview and selection process some of the interviewed architects have stated that
construction costs over the last few years have increased and will continue to increase by 12 1/2 % per year. The City
of Manhattan Beach just recently approved a 7,000 sq ft building for their seniors and docents at a cost of $3,400,000.
Whats wrong with a building like that for LLP.
People have said that Ryan and Hesse Park's are at full capacity. I disagree. I have been to Hesse Park on numerous
occasions and I have only seen all of the rooms occupied when used as a Polling Place or for the RPV Expo. I also
wonder how many groups that use Ryan and Hesse Park's are non-residents of RPV? Can staff provide us with that
information?
1 ~.
2018 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
ORGANIZATION DELEGATE/ALTERNATE**
Calif. Joint Powers Ins. Authority (CJPIA) Cruikshank/Duhovic
Chambers of Commerce Entire Council
City Selection Committee (LA Co. Board of Supervisors) Duhovic Must be Mayor /Alegria
Contract Cities Cruikshank Brooks/ Cruikshank Brooks
*L. A. County West Vector Control District Sala, Elizabeth (Term ends: 12/31/20)
League of Calif. Cities L.A. County Division Cruikshank & Alegria
League of Calif. Cities Annual Conf. Voting Delegates Alegria/Cruikshank
League-Coastal Cities Subcommittee Alegria Dyda/Alegria Dyda
*Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority Duhovic & Cruikshank
Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Brooks & Alegria
*Sanitation Districts (Dist. No. 5 & So. Bay San. District) Must be Mayor /Dyda Brooks(1st)/Dyda(2nd)
Santa Monica Bay Watershed Advisory Council Alegria Dyda/Alegria Dyda
*South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Alegria/Cruikshank
West Basin Water Association Cruikshank/Brooks
AD HOC COMMITTEES DELEGATES
Southside Public Safety Facility Task Force Subcommittee Duhovic/Alegria
Council Policy/Protocol Review Subcommittee Dyda & Duhovic
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Subcommittee Dyda & Brooks & Alegria
45th Anniversary Committee (New Committee for 2018) Brooks & Duhovic
City Manager Compensation Brooks & Dyda
Federal Advocacy Subcommittee Brooks & Cruikshank
Requests for Proposals (RFP) & Contracts Subcommittee Dyda & Cruikshank
Public Records Act Request Subpoena Subcommittee Duhovic & Alegria
Charter City Subcommittee Dyda & Cruikshank
STANDING COMMITTEES DELEGATES
Audit Subcommittee Cruikshank & Duhovic
Solid Waste Subcommittee Alegria & Cruikshank
Portuguese Bend Landflow Committee Dyda & Duhovic
LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS STAFF LIAISON
LAX Community Noise Roundtable Staff (Robert Nemeth)
Mediation Process Green Hills Brooks & Duhovic
Palos Verdes Peninsula School District Brooks/Alegria
* Form 700 Required
**/ = delegate and alternate
**& = 2 person participation
W:\01 City Clerk\City Council\2018\2018 City Council Assignments.docx