20191106 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 6, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
B
2
Description of Material
Corrections to Minutes
Email exchange between Mayor Duhovic and C. J. "Kit" Ruona;
Letter from Sharon Loveys; Emails from: Krista Johnson; Jeff
Lewis; Bob Nelson; Letters from City Attorney Wynder
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Tuesday, November 5, 2019**.
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\201911 06 additions revisions to agenda.docx
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
CALL TO ORDER:
A special meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for the purpose of a Closed
Session was called to order by Mayor ProTem Cruikshank at 5:40P.M. at Fred Hesse
Community Park, McTaggart Hall, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been
given with affidavit thereto on file.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Alegria, Brooks, Dyda, and Mayor ProTem Cruikshank
ABSENT: Mayor Duhovic (excused)
City Clerk Colborn announced that Mayor Duhovic would be participating via
teleconference from Wind gate by Wyndham, 108 Saluda Pointe Court, Lexington, SC
29072.
Also present were Doug Willmore, City Manager; Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager;
William W. Wynder, City Attorney; Teresa Takaoka, Deputy City Clerk; and Emily
Colborn, City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ANNOUNCED:
City Attorney Wynder announced the items to be discussed in Closed Session.
1. PENDING LITIGATION -INITIATION OF LITIGATION BY CITY
GC 54956.9(d)(4)
Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency
has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation in two cases.
2. PENDING LITIGATION -EXISTING LITIGATION
GC SECTION 54956.9 (d)(1)
Name of case: York Point View Properties, LLC v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS174116
3. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
GC SECTION 54957
Title: City Manager
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION (FIRESIDE ROOM):
At 5:50P.M., the Council recessed to Closed Session.
Mayor Duhovic was called at his teleconference location at 5:51 P.M. and participated in
the discussions for Closed Session.
RECONVENE TO STUDY SESSION (MCTAGGART HALL):
At 7:15P.M., the Council reconvened the meeting for a Study Session.
STUDY SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE STUDY
SESSION:
None.
DISCUSSION TOPICS:
SS1. Review of Tentative Agendas and Ongoing City Council Goals and
Priorities
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff regarding items on the upcoming
City Council meetings as listed on the tentative agendas.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Alegria, to approve the
tentative agendas as presented.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Dyda, Cruikshank, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
SS2. Consideration of Tongva Memorial at Abalone Cove
Tom Steers, Chairman, Tongva Monument Committee, gave a presentation on the
proposed memorial.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING:
At 7:30P.M. the Study Session was adjourned to the Regular meeting.
REGULAR MEETING -OPEN SESSION
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 2 of 10
CALL TO ORDER:
A Regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was called to order by
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank at 7:32 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Park, McTaggart
Hall, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Alegria, Brooks, Dyda, Cruikshank, and Mayor Duhovic
ABSENT: None
Mayor Duhovic was called at his teleconference location at 7:35P.M. and participated in
the discussions for the regular meeting.
Also present were Doug Willmore, City Manager; Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager;
William W. Wynder, City Attorney; Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance; Ara Mihranian,
Director of Community Development; Octavia Silva, Senior Planner; Elias Sassoon,
Director of Public Works; James O'Neill, Engineering Assistant; Cory Linder, Director of
Recreation and Parks; Teresa Takaoka, Deputy City Clerk; and Emily Colborn, City
Clerk.
Also present was Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Dyda.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Attorney Wynder reported that with regards to Closed Session Item No. 1, matter
was discussed with no reportable action taken; Closed Session Item No. 2, the Council
authorized the City Attorney and Staff to move forward with recommended strategy; and
Closed Session Item No. 3, selected executive search firm Peckham & McKenney to
conduct the recruitment of a new City Manager.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank shared the following: announced that Ara Mihranian,
Director of Community Development, has been selected as the Interim City Manager. A
subcommittee comprised of Councilman Alegria and himself has been created to assist
with the selection of a new City Manager.
RECYCLE AND EMERGENCY PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS KIT DRAWING:
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank announced the Recycle Winners for the September 3,
2019, City Council meeting: Edna Yoshii and Eric Bernard. He indicated that all winners
receive a check for $250 and urged everyone to participate in the City's Recycling
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 3 of 10
Program. He noted that in addition to winning the Recycler Drawing, the two individuals
also won a Personal Emergency Preparedness Kit from the City valued at $60.00.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Councilman Alegria moved, seconded by Councilman Dyda, to approve the agenda as
presented.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mayor Pro Tern Cruikshank announced that public comments would be limited to two
minutes due to the large amount of speakers.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Jon Sansom, Noel
Park, Larry Maizlish, Roger Hawkins, Sharon Loveys, Debbie Landes, Noel Weiss, and
Lori Brown.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:
City Manager Willmore announced the following: the City achieved the Platinum Level
tier on the Southern California Edison Energy Leader Partnerships program causing a
$0.12 per kWh reduction in cost to power City facilities; Public Works has launched a
new service request portal accessible on the City's website; San Pedro Pet Pals is
having an adoption event on Sunday, September 22 from 1 :00 PM to 4:00 PM at City
Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes; and candidate forums for the
November 5 general municipal election have been scheduled for September 18,
October 10, October 17, and October 23. Additional details can be found at
www.rpvca.gov.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
City Clerk Colborn reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
meeting regarding items B and E.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Alegria, to approve the
Consent Calendar, as amended.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 4 of 10
A. Motion to Waive Full Reading
Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting
with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all Council Members
after the reading of the title
B. Approval of Minutes
Approved the Minutes of the August 6, 2019, August 20, 2019, and September 3,
2019, City Council meetings
C. Register of Demands
Adopted Resolution No. 2019-41, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE
PAID
D. Consideration and possible action to extend the County Sanitation Districts
Contract #3059-Eastview Park Property Lease Agreement for an additional
five (5) year term
Approved the County Sanitation District Eastview Park Lease Agreement for an
additional five (5) years
E. Consideration and possible action to receive and file a report on the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's designation of Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones
Received and filed report
F. Consideration and possible action to amend the existing list of City streets on
which the use of skateboards, roller skates, in line skates, scooters, and
similar non-motorized wheeled devices is prohibited to include Nuvola Court
and Albero Court
Adopted Resolution No. 2019-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE OF SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES,
INLINE SKATES, SCOOTERS, AND SIMILAR NON-MOTORIZED WHEELED
DEVICES ON DESIGNATED PUBLIC STREETS
G. Consideration and possible action to approve the July 2019 Cash
Balances/Monthly Treasurer's Report
Approved the July 2019 Cash Balances/Monthly Treasurer's Report
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 5 of 10
H. Consideration and possible action for second reading and adoption of
Ordinance No. 624, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING
CHAPTER 12.20 (SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS) OF TITLE 12 (STREETS,
SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE
Adopted Ordinance No. 624, regarding special event permits, as amended
I. Consideration and possible action to receive and file a second quarter report
on the implementation of the City's Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in
the Public Right-of-Way Ordinance (Case No. PLCA2019-0002)
Received and filed report
J. Consideration and possible action to authorize Staff to submit veto requests
to Governor Newsom in the event of the passage of 58 13 (Accessory
Dwelling Units) and/or AB 1482 (Tenant Protection Act of 2019) by the state
Legislature.
Authorized Staff to prepare and submit veto requests for the Mayor's signature
regarding SB 13 and/or AB 1482, if passed by the state Legislature
K. Consideration and possible action regarding a claim against the City by John
Meek
Rejected the claim and directed Staff to notify the claimant
L. Consideration and possible action regarding a claim against the City by Betsy
Niksefat
Rejected the claim and directed Staff to notify the claimant
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) PULLED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Consideration and possible action to receive and file a report on the updated
draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Zone 2 Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance revisions and obtain comments from the general public
and the City Council
City Clerk Colborn reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, no
written protest was received, late correspondence was received and distributed prior to
the meeting, and there were requests to speak.
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 6 of 10
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank declared the public hearing open.
Octavia Silva, Senior Planner, presented a staff report and introduced Joe Powers,
Project Lead, Rincon Consultants, who presented a PowerPoint presentation.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Robert Crockett, Neil
Siegel, Maria Gutierrez, Leanne Tidwell, Peter Napper, Jennifer Mendonca, Larry
Maizlish, Cassie Jones, Suzanne Griffith, Jim Knight, and Gordon Leon.
With no other requests to speak, Mayor Pro Tem Cruikshank declared the public
hearing closed.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilmember Dyda, to receive and file
the report.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank called for a brief recess at 8:24P.M. The meeting
reconvened at 8:40P.M.
2. Consideration and possible action to amend the City Council-adopted Master
Schedule of Fees and Charges to establish new fees to process minor
wireless telecommunications facilities applications and eligible facilities
requests (EFR)
City Clerk Colborn reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, no
written protest was received, late correspondence was received and distributed prior to
the meeting, and there was a request to speak.
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank declared the public hearing open.
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development, presented a brief staff report.
The following member of the public addressed the City Council: Mickey Radich.
With no other requests to speak, Mayor ProTem Cruikshank declared the public
hearing closed.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Councilman Alegria moved, seconded by Councilman Dyda, to adopt Resolution No.
2019-43, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 7 of 10
PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-77, THE MASTER SCHEDULE
OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES, AND RESOLUTION NO. 2018-37
REGARDING FEES FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES PERMITS,
TO UPDATE THE FEES FOR THE PROCESSING OF WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY PERMITS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
REGULAR BUSINESS:
3. Consideration and possible action to appropriate additional funding in support
of the City's fuel modification efforts and to support the City's new goal to
eradicate acacia; award a three-year contract to Fire Grazers; award a contract
amendment to Hardy & Harper; authorize Staff to negotiate contracts for tree
trimming and removal; and authorize Staff to negotiate a contract with
lnterwest Consulting Group to oversee and manage the City's efforts, and
coordinate with associated agencies and manage associated contracts
City Clerk Colborn reported that late correspondence was received and distributed prior
to the meeting and there were requests to speak.
James O'Neill, Engineering Assistant, presented a staff report and announced a
correction on recommendation No.4, which will be reflected in the motion.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Noel Park, Mickey
Radich, Barbara Sattler, and AI Sattler.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Dyda, to (1) Authorize an
additional appropriation of $399,800 in support of the City's Fuel Modification efforts; (2)
Award a three-year contract amendment to Fire Grazers for two goat herds to be
utilized for Fuel Modification in the amount of $450,000 (with an annual expenditure of
$150,000, of which $140,000 is already included in the adopted budget); (3) Authorize
staff to negotiate contracts up to $200,000 for tree trimming, "up-limbing" and tree
removal related to Fuel Modification, as well as removal of Acacia shrubs; (4) Authorize
staff to negotiate an agreement with a geologist for professional services tree trimming,
"up limbing" and tree removal related to Fuel Modification, as well as removal of Acacia
shrubs, not to exceed $25,000; (5) Award a contract amendment to the Hardy & Harper
contract to make necessary repairs to the Peppertree Trail and Water Tank trails in the
amount of $39,800; and (6) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract up to $125,000 with
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 8 of 10
lnterwest Consulting Group to oversee and manage the City's Fuel Modification efforts
and associated contracts
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
Councilman Alegria moved to extend the meeting to 10:45 P.M. Without objection,
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank so ordered.
4. Consideration and possible action to amend all advisory board and Planning
Commission terms to expire on June 30 of even-numbered years
City Clerk Colborn reported that late correspondence was received and distributed prior
to the meeting.
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank moved to waive the staff report on this item. Without
objection, Mayor ProTem Cruikshank so ordered.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Mayor Duhovic, to (1) Approve adjusting
future terms to expire on June 30 of even-numbered years; and (2) Approve City Council
Policy No. 6 pertaining to advisory board recruitment and selection processes, as
amended; (3) Introduce Ordinance No. 627, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING SECTION 2.20.020 (MEMBERS) AND
SECTION 2.20.060 (ORGANIZATION) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE AMENDING TERM EXPIRATION DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND
SELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON; and (4) directed staff to stagger Emergency
Preparedness Committee (EPC) terms for better ratio. Adjustments will be made as EPC
terms expire.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
5. Consideration and possible action to advise the City's voting delegate on the
City Council's positions regarding the League of California Cities' 2019 Annual
Conference Resolutions
Mayor ProTem Cruikshank moved to waive the staff report on this item. Without
objection, Mayor ProTem Cruikshank so ordered.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 9 of 10
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Alegria, to (1) Authorize the
City Council's voting delegate to support the adoption of League of California Cities
General Assembly Resolution No. 1 (Amendment to Rule 20A) and support Resolution
No. 2 (International Transboundary Pollution Flows) instead of taking no position.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda, and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) PULLED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER:
None.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
The following items were raised by Council Members as future agenda items:
Councilwoman Brooks requested that a discussion regarding the future placement of
"Bubbles" be scheduled.
Councilman Alegria requested a report on the status of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment 6th Cycle Allocation Plan.
Councilman Dyda requested a discussion regarding a possible Tongva memorial
plaque.
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Each Council Member present reported on his/her attendance at various organization
and association meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:39 P.M., Mayor Pro Tern Cruikshank adjourned to 6:00P.M. on October 1, 2019
for a Closed Session meeting and 7:00P.M. for a Regular meeting.
Attest:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
/s/ Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
City Council Minutes
September 17, 2019
Page 10 of 10
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:36 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: RPV Election
Please make this Late Carr for item 3
Thank you
From: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:32 PM
To: Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: RPV Election
Hi Emily,
Please accept this email thread as Late Correspondence.
Thank you.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry V. Duhovic
MAYOR -City of Rancho Palos Verdes
jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov
City Hall:(310)544-5207
Cell :(310)502-8036
1
2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
WY.:!Y.'! .. JJl..'illUJ.QI£
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It
should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and
should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
From: cjruona@cox.net <cjruona@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 7:39AM
To: Jerry Duhovic
Subject: RE: RPV Election
Your honor-
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.
cjr
From: Jerry Duhovic <Jerrv.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 10:51 PM
To: cjruona@cox.net; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; ken.delong@verizon.net; billpatton21@icloud.com;
davidkoch89@gmail.com; mrsrpv@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com> <emenhiser@aol.com>;
bradley 4 rpv cc@earthlink.net; steve@electperestam.com
Cc: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; anneruona@cox.net; jmarckx@cox.net; Joan Barry
<itsthebarrys@gmail.com>; sandraide@cox.net; margemx@cox.net; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>;
rpvcrg@protonmail.com; shawn@bhhscp.com; paulmarcelino@aol.com; gvancans@terranea.com; dasork@sjf.org;
bill@pattonsite.com; wrsmith760@yahoo.coll1.; m_tanios@yahoo.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: RPV Election
Dear Kit,
Thank you for your email. It is encouraging to know that you are as outraged as
I am, along with many others in our community, with respect to this type of
despicable, disgusting, distasteful and dirty politics, if you can even call it that.
It is more correctly described, as you put it, a "cowardly" attempt to influence
our elections, misstate the facts and demean, besmirch, and defame good
people that have served our community well, all under the cloak of anonymity. I
have heard from numerous residents voicing their concern and contempt for
this type of cowardly behavior.
Your analysis of the erroneous facts is right on point. As such, I will not revisit
them now. And your commentary with respect to Ken Dyda was spot on. It
doesn't matter which candidate(s) you support, this type of garbage is totally
2
unnecessary, unfair and just not right. Especially when it comes to Ken Dyda.
He bleeds RPV blue and green. What a disgrace. Whether you agree or disagree
with his positions, decisions or actions, this type of character assassination can
only be generated by a disturbed, hateful and spiteful individual(s) -those I
would consider the lowest of the low.
It will take good people, those with decency and a conscience, to stand up and
condemn this garbage if it is to be curtailed. For the fact that you initiated your
email, I consider you one of those individuals.
One point of fact I must share with you. The RPVCRG website came into
existence almost a year and a half ago now, sometime in mid-2018. City Staff
discovered that the owner and registrant of that website was BC Urban, a
company owned and operated by Brian Campbell.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns. My hope is for
better times with respect to this and future elections in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Regards,
Jerry
City Council -Please do not reply or reply all.
Jerry V. Duhovic
MAYOR-City of Rancho Palos Verdes
jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov
City Hall:(310)544-5207
Cell:(310)502-8036
3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
.\'.IWW..nm::il.9.9V.
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes or any of its employees/ agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It
should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and
should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
From: cjruona@cox.net <cjruona@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 1:36 PM
To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; ken.delong@verizon.net;
billpatton21@icloud.com; davidkoch89@gmail.com; mrsrpv@aol.com; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>;
bradley 4 rpv cc@earthlink.net; steve@electperestam.com
Cc: Jerry Duhovic; john Cruikshank; anneruona@cox.net; jmarckx@cox.net; Joan Barry; sandraide@cox.net;
margemx@cox.net; Ken Dyda; rpvcrg@protonmail.com; shawn@bhhscp.com; paulmarcelino@aol.com;
gvancans@terranea.com; dasork@sjf.org; bill@pattonsite.com; wrsmith760@yahoo.com; mtanios@yahoo.com
Subject: RPV Election
Yesterday a Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) resident forwarded me a disturbing unsolicited
e-mail that person had received from the e-mail address of rpvcrg@protonmail.com I
am including that address in my recipients of this e-mail. I have no idea who this is, if it
is an RPV resident, or simply some coward trying to effect our election behind the cloak
of anonymity. 1 will not enhance the exposure of the flier in the e-mail that was sent,
but I will describe its contents.
It begins by mocking & disparaging the age of Ken Dyda. The writer claims Dyda to be
in his 90's. This is untrue. I attended the candidate forum at the Palos Verdes
4
Interpretive Center (PVIC) & believe Dyda publicly announced his age there. A simple
public record check on the internet will confirm his age.
There is a Latin phrase used in common law "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." That is
if you are false in one of your facts, all of your facts should be considered false. This
maxim pertains to this entire cowardly e-mail.
It goes on that the outgoing RPV city manager Doug Willmore is rigging our upcoming
local election. Willmore is leaving RPV in a month to pursue another career. Why
would Willmore give a rip who is elected to the city council when he will no longer be
associated with RPV? The logical answer is that he does not care. While trying to make
this absurd rigging point the e-mail writer misspells the name of our mayor. The writer
is a real beauty!
The e-mail writer then claims that Dyda lost his train of thought during his opening
statement at the PVIC candidate forum. I was at that event. Perhaps the writer was
not. I cannot recall Dyda stumbling & remember walking away that evening feeling all
the candidates handled themselves pretty well. Anyone who puts himself in the arena
as a public figure spends a lot of time in front of a microphone & an occasional loss of
train of thought or miss peak is not uncommon. The only gaff I recall that evening is
that the moderator forgot to ask the candidates for their closing statements (that was
rectified) and he engaged the candidates in a petty trivia contest. However, I am sure
his time was volunteered & we should be thankful to him for his service.
The writer continues that over SO% of the RPV city staff have resigned over the last
four years & allude that it is due to Dyda & Willmore. I suspect this to be false based
on the writer's other untruths. Men & women leave their jobs every day for various
reasons. The writer has no idea why these employees sought employment elsewhere.
The writer then says that "we" have been unable to find any campaign workers
supporting Dyda in this election who supported him in the past. Perhaps that is
because if ANY former campaign workers who have deserted him were located it is a
select few. Based on Dyda's incumbency & his many years of service to the city I am
sure that he has no lack of supporters & campaign workers.
Let me be clear. I am not supporting Dyda in this election. I have voted for him in the
past, but this time I feel there are better candidates who represent my point of view on
5
how RPV should be run. However, Ken Dyda has my respect for what he has done for
our wonderful city. There is no living person who has meant more, done more &
dedicated more of his time to form RPV into what it is today. Whether I am going to
vote for him this election cycle or not is irrelevant. I admire the man for what he has
done & mud slinging from the shadows should be condemned.
At the last candidate forum at Fred Hesse Park an uncommon collegiality was shown
when more than one candidate stated how outstanding the entire field of candidates
is. I agree. I hope that every candidate & civic group publicly condemns this cowardice
form of campaigning & that the voters study the issues & make their choices based on
which of the candidates they feel will best lead our city forward. Your vote is
important!
C. J. "Kit" Ruona
Rancho Palos Verdes
6
AGENDA ITEM:_ ' .----:.-"'-----·····
RECEIVED FROM:
October 11, 2017 AND M~ 0 ~~18'o
From: Sharon Loveys couNciL MEETING oF: '-0
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council oFFI9§.9f.!l:!!L91TY CLERK
Re: Agenda comments for the October 15, 2019 council meeting
Hello City Council,
I am writing this correspondence to address the statements made on page 9 and 1 0
of the City Council agenda for the meeting coming up on October 15, 2019 regarding
the source of the information for the $700,000 figure. My responses are bulleted:
When later asked, during her examination under oath, where she obtained this
confidential information, Ms. Loveys stated that she did not remember.
• This was a true statement given my memory at the time.
As her examination progressed, her attorney passed her a note telling Ms. Loveys to
state that she got the $700,000 number from then-City Attorney Dave Aleshire.
• Because, at the time, I did not have a clear memory regarding where the $700,000
figure came from, I did not repeat the statement.
Still later in her examination, Ms. Loveys testified that she had relied on an email with an
attachment sent to her by Mr. Aleshire (which she provided) in calculating the $700,000
number included in her appeals.
• At the time of my answer, I remember thinking that the data I received from Mr.
Aleshire may have been the source of the information. However, after reconstructing
the timeline, I see that the data provided to me by Mr. Aleshire was sent via email on
October 31, 2017 but in reviewing email correspondence between myself and my
attorney, I note that the $700,000 was referenced by my attorney on October 2, 2017.
I do not know his source for the information.
Ms. Loveys further testified that both of her appeals were written for her by her
attorney, Mr. Noel Weiss. Attorney Weiss, during his examination, stated he received
the $700,000 number from Ms. Loveys who, in turn had received that number uoral/y"
from Attorney Aleshire during a City Council meeting pre-dating her October appeal.
• I never stated that I received that number from Attorney Aleshire orally.
Ms. Landes, during her examination, adopted under oath a written statement that
she had previously submitted to the City Council, dated December 17, 2018. In that
statement Ms. Loveys is reported to have relayed to Ms. Landes, during an October
2011 conversation between the two of them, that it was Attorney Aleshire who
disclosed the amount of attorneys' fees from which Ms. Loveys was able to calculate
the $100,000 settlement demand made by the City on Green Hills.
2
• I propose that Ms. Landes is referring to the data that Mr. Aleshire provided for
me via email on October 31, 2017. Those data are the only values Mr. Aleshire
has ever provided for me-verbally, or in writing.
As far as how the $700,000 calculation was arrived at, you will need to speak with
my attorney.
This disclosure was made, according to Ms. Landes, during a conversation between
Attorney Aleshire and Ms. Loveys ''during a break" at an October 3, 2017 City
Council meeting.
• I did not make that statement. To support this fact, I have an email dated
October 4, 2017 where I state: "David Aleshire was not there, the gal with the
curly hair took his place. "
However, Mr. Aleshire was not in attendance at either the October 2 or 3, 2017 City
Council meetings because he was in London on vacation. This is confirmed by his
personal calendar, the video recording of the October 2 and 3, 2017 City Council
meetings, and by the approved minutes of the City Council meetings, which indicate
that the Assistant City Attorney was in attendance at both of these meetings in place
of Mr. Aleshire.
• As noted above, I am (and was) well aware of Mr. Aleshire's absence from the
October 3, 2017 City Council meeting. Therefore, it does not makes sense that I
would state that I spoke with him that evening.
Respectfully,
Sharon Loveys
From: Krista Johnson <kristamjohnson@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:15AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Krista Johnson <kristamjohnson@cox.net> <kristamjohnson@cox.net>
Subject: Concerned Resident on Oct 15 Agenda Items
To Mayor Duhovic and the RPV City Council-
I see the City of RPV has on its agenda Tuesday October 15, 2019 an item to discuss whether a lawsuit should be filed against a
city resident and former Mayor and councilmember.
• I feel having this discussion outside of a closed session regarding an individual is highly inappropriate, not prudent and
blatantly disrespectful given the contentious nature of the situation. There is absolutely no reason to have this
discussion in the open versus a closed door session.
• The City has traditionally always had lawsuit discussions in closed session and I am not clear why there is a deviation
from that process for this particular situation.
• In addition, the City should not be expending any more taxpayer dollars on investigations and lawsuits that haven't
uncovered substantiated evidence that serves the residents.
• To have this discussion in the open, shortly before the RPV City Council Election Nov 5, 2019 raises serious issues
regarding election integrity and processes for the city. This item should be in a closed door session or deferred to
after the municipal election for proprieties sake.
• Using legislative subpoenas to garner information from residents that may appear to be on the unpopular side of an
issue or concern is a very slippery slope to go down. It may fact, cause more issues and create a higher level of
distrust of local government than currently exists.
As you know, I ran for city council in 2017 and I am very involved in the community and I hear just about everything from every
side of the community and before I make a decision I weigh all of the facts and then consider the unintended consequences of
any decisions. I urge you to consider the same before you publicly proceed with a discussion of this nature on your agenda.
A couple other items to consider-as taxpaying residents, my husband and I need to know our tax dollars are being spent
prudently and effectively.
• You have several very large, costly projects in various stages and I would highly recommend and strongly suggest for
the unity of the city you put them on a ballot for a vote of the residents before proceeding down any predetermined
path.
• If you don't get this public support and provide all of the facts about the costs and benefits of the projects for the
residents, you will have a large community outcry on your hands that will be detrimental to the city.
Your service to the community is greatly appreciated and I commend you for your service to RPV, but please consider the
precedent you may be setting in moving forward in this manner.
Sincerely,
Krista Johnson
58 Avenida Corona
1 2
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 2:22 PM
CityCierk To:
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 3 I Closed Session Investigation 1 Brian Campbell
Attachments: 20180711 -Response to Lewis July 5, 2018 letter.pdf; 2080503 PRA 14-day response
determination letter-K.DeLong SBrooks email lists and other .. pdf; 20181221 -Lewis to
Wynder.pdf; 20181004 -Recusal Letter.pdf; 20180330 -Lewis to Aleshire.pdf
Late Correspondence
From: Jeff Lewis <jeff@jefflewislaw.com>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 3 I Closed Session Investigation I Brian Campbell
Mayor Brooks and members of the City Council
I am litigation counsel for Brian Campbell. I am writing to you pertaining to agenda item 3 for your October 15,
2019 meeting pertaining to the City's failed closed session investigation and the threat of litigation against Brian
Campbell. I request that this email and my attachments to this email be included in the administrative record.
Legislative subpoenas and lawsuits should not be used a political tools or to further personal vendettas between
political opponents. I raise the following points for your consideration as you deliberate on this matter on
Tuesday evening:
1. The City accepted the City Attorney's recommendation to spend in excess of $45,00 on an
investigation into closed door leaks and found nothing other than the City Attorney is inept at
investigations. Isn't this lawsuit against Brian Campbell a similar waste of taxpayer funds? Hasn't the
City Attorney already demonstrated its incompetence as to the closed session leak investigation and
should the City authorize a further waste of taxpayer funds?
2. For the first time in its history, this City Council authorized the use of legislative subpoenas--
directed at the political opponents of the council. The subpoenas were also used to target a lawyer
who represented a party that sued the City, Noel Weiss. Should the City study this issue and enact
guidelines about whether and when to use legislative subpoenas in the future to ensure this abuse is
not repeated
3. The City typically hears matters in closed session before authorizing a lawsuit and then "reports out"
the result of that closed session in open session. For the matter of Brian Campbell, the City Council is
discussing the matter in open session on Tuesday. Do members of the City Council have a personal
reason for airing these allegations against Brian Campbell in public? Wheri is the last time the City
Council held an open session discussion item on whether to file a lawsuit? Who made the decision as
to whether this topic would be discussed in closed session or open session? Does the decision to
conduct this report in public suggest a bias against Brian Campbell?
4. The City was originally scheduled to hear the report on this matter in June 2019 based on the
tentative agendas published earlier this year. The matter was delayed and the City has timed
the disclosure of its investigation into the closed session leaks to fall within 30 days of a city
council election. Is the current City Council or Attorney seeking to influence the outcome of
1 2
the election with the timing of this disclosure of its failed investigation? Should the timing of
future reports regarding former public officials be avoided this close to an election?
5. The City has previously insinuated that Brian Campbell leaked information from a closed session
meeting. Has the time come for the City to issue a retraction and apology to Brian Campbell?
6. As a matter of policy, do we want our council members authorizing lawsuits against former officials
under these conditions? Isn't this a slippery slope that can be abused to target political opponents?
7. If the City Council chooses to to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell, what City policy is served by
that objective?
8. Should the decision of whether to sue Brian Campbell be made by a council majority with only a few
weeks of service left and no voter accountability or should the next council majority make that
decision?
9. The City's basis for filing a lawsuit is a claim that Brian Campbell did not comply with Public
Records Act requests by third parties. Yet none of those third parties have sued the City and the time
to do so has lapsed. There has been no real harm incurred by the City except for the padded fee bills
of the City Attorney to "fix" a "problem" of its own creation.
10. The City wants Brian Campbell's email list. Is this really a legitimate basis for a lawsuit? Do future
council members wish to disclose their list? What is the chilling effect on public communications if
such lists are disclosable? What is the City trying to achieve with the lawsuit other than satiation of
personal animosity?
11. What is the City Attorney's budget for filing such a lawsuit and are there any grounds for the City to
recover attorney's fees spent on this project? In other words, if the City spends $200,000 to file a
lawsuit against Brian Campbell yet only recovers $100,000 from Brian Campbell, the City will suffer
a net loss of $100,000 is that in the City's best interests? Can the City Attorney assure the Council
with any certainty that the legal fees incurred by the City in its lawsuit will not exceed the recovery?
12. What are the prospects of Brian Campbell filing a counterclaim against the City and City Attorney?
13. The City Attorney claims that it has $130,000 in damages against Brian Campbell. On March 20,
2018, I presented any contrary evidence that suggests that the City Attorney's figure is not accurate.
See attached March 30, 2018 email. For example, that $130,000 include the cost of the City Attorney
attending the deposition of Brian Campbell in the Green Hills litigation when the City was not a party
to that litigation. That $130,000 includes costs that have nothing to do with Brian Campbell. I sent the
City documentation demonstrating that $130,000 number is padded and the City has ignored that
evidence at the advice of the City Attorney. Why?
14. Brian Campbell filed a State Bar complaint against the City Attorney. Shouldn't the City Attorney
have recused itself in light of that complaint?
15. On July 11, 2018, the City Attorney and I negotiated the contents of a supplemental declaration by
Brian Campbell. See attached July 11, 2018 letter from the City Attorney. The City Attorney advised
me in writing that "upon compliance with the foregoing, the City will deem your client to have
complied with the legislative subpoena." Brian Campbell signed the negotiated declaration and
thereafter the City Attorney inexplicably claimed that Brian Campbell failed to comply with the
subpoena. Why did the City Attorney say in writing on July 11, 2018 that it would deem the subpoena
complied with and thereafter change its position? Is there a personal animus between the City
Attorney and Brian Campbell that requires the City Attorney to recuse itself? Does that July 11, 2018
communication by the City Attorney give rise to an equitable indemnity claim by Brian Campbell
against the City and City Attorney?
16. On October 4, 2018, I made a demand on the City Attorney that the City Attorney recuse itself from
the closed session investigation. The City Attorney did not. Why not?
17. On October 4, 2018, I demanded that the City Subcommittee investigate the City Attorney regarding
closed session leaks. Why was this not done?
18. On October 4, 2018, I presented documents to the City outlining a conspiracy between the City
Attorney and Green Hills to deceive Sharon Loveys. Why was this allegation not investigated?
2
Please give these matters due consideration before you vote to open a Pandora's Box which will affect not only
Brian Campbell but all current and future council members. All of Mayor Campbell's rights are expressly
reserved.
Jeff Lewis
Jeff Lewis Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 • E-mail: Jeff@Jefflewislaw.com
Web. JefflewisLaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for N.ewsletter
Certified Appellate Specialist
Certified by The State Bar of California
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately.
3
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ATTOHNt~V~ AI LAW
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES i RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
July l 1, 2018
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattomeys.com
(310) 527-6667
SENT VIA E-MAIL jcff(mjcfflewislaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
Subject: Mr. Campbell's Document Productions in Response to City Council
Legislative Subpoena; Your July 5, 2018 Letter
Counsel:
Thank you for your letter of July 5, 2018. With respect, our notice of insufficiency could
not properly be construed as "requesting additional information" from your client. All of the
missing public records identified in our notice to you are encompassed in the topics identified in
that legislative subpoena.
We note that your letter identified an e-mail address, ascent@cox.net, not previously
known to the City and from which your client produced no public records in response to the
legislative subpoena. In light of the same it will be necessary for your client to supplement his
declaration to indicate that he neither sent nor received public records from or at this e-mail
address.
With respect to closed session memoranda sent to the City Council by the former City
Attorney, it will be necessary for your client to supplement his declaration to include a
representation that "he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and was not able
to locate the closed session memos the City provided him and [that] he ... affirm[s] that no
closed session memos were forwarded by Mr. Campbell to anyone." We are advised that there
exists such e-mails sent to your client at one or more of his "private" e-mail accounts of which
the City has knowledge. It is surprising, indeed, that he did not retain the same given other
communications between himself and the City Attorney which he has produced.
Next, it was anticipated that your client would attempt to invoke the City's responses to
the frivolous public records act requests from Mr. DeLong of May 17, 2018. There, of course, is
a fundamental difference between the DeLong requests and the Huang requests. That difference
is that we are informed that, using the bully pulpit of his office as Mayor, your client sent the
e-mail(s) identified in the Huang requests (and admitted in your letter) in his capacity as the
Mayor ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
01203.0032/487896.2
Jeffrey Lewis
July 11, 2018
Page2
Mr. DeLong, on the other hand, sought only "campaign related" materials from Mayor
Brooks that "were not sent or received using any city account or address and [which] were
created and distributed using her personal email account." These purely political
communications are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council or the City for
that matter as defined in the California Public Records Act.
While it is true that the City, as a public body corporate and politic, disavowed the
content of your client's e-mail(s), that does not alter the fact that your client was using his office
as Mayor to circulate e-mail comments about Mr. Huang and, as such, the requested information
is a public record. Alternatively, if your client persists in his unfounded position that e-mails
responsive to the Huang public records requests (and incorporated into the City legislative
subpoena) are not public records, your client will need to supplement his declaration to state that
all e-mail(s) sent about Mr. Huang (and incorporated into the legislative subpoena) were sent in
his personal capacity outside the course and scope of his duties as Mayor of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
The City appreciates your client's willingness to supplement his declaration as noted at
page 5 of your July 5, 2018 letter with the following clarifying statements (new text in hold &
italics or deleted text in strikethrough):
"(A)(l)-(A)(2) Although Mr. Campbell has an email list it is not a public record
and, is therefore, not responsive to the subpoena for the reasons specified above.
(A)(3)-(12), (15) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry and produced all responsive documents that he could
locate.
(A)(13)-(14), (16)-(17), (19)-(23) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a
diligent search and reasonable inquiry and was not able to locate the responsive
documents.
(A)(18) As set forth in our April 30, 2018 letter to your office, certain email
communications between Mr. Campbell and this office were withheld and
identified on a privilege log based on attorney-client privilege.
(B)(l)(2),(5)(6) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search and
reasonable inquiry and produced all responsive documents that he could locate.
(C) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry and produced all responsive documents that he could locate.
01203.0032/487896.2
Jeffrey Lewis
July ll, 2018
Page3
(D) Mr. Campbell states that he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry and was not able to locate the responsive documents."
Accordingly, upon compliance with the forgoing, the City will deem your client to have
complied with the legislative subpoena.
Copies:
01203.0032/487896.2
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
Very truly yours,
wu~~w~~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
CITY OF
Sent Via Electronic Email
May 17,2018
Mr. Ken Delong
ken.delong@verizon.net
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Re: Public Records Act Request Received via Email on April 23, 2018
Dear Mr. Delong:
This letter is in response to your request for public records to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
{"City"), received via email on April 23, 2018, pursuant to the California Public Records Act {CPRA)
{Government Code§ 6250, et seq., hereinafter "PRA"), as discussed herein.
Your PRA request seeks various documents. Please refer to each item listed below for the City's
response to your request.
1. The list of email addresses receiving Susan Brooks' August 25,2015 email entitled: "Susan Brooks
launches re-election campaign".
2. The list of email addresses receiving Susan Brooks' November 10, 2011 email entitled: "We Won!
Thanks for Your Support."
CITY RESPONSE Items No. 1 and 2:
My office is advised by legal counsel that writings that relate to a political campaign are not
prepared, maintained, or used by the City, particularly given that such writings are subject to the
jurisdiction of the voters and are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. As
such, the requested documents do not constitute public records.
So far as my office can determine, Mayor Brooks' campaign related emails were not sent or received
using any city account or address, and were created and distributed using her personal email
account for or during one or more election campaigns. Campaign emails are neither necessary nor
required for a Councilmember to discharge her official duties, and campaign documents are neither
in the actual nor constructive possession of the City.
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
TEL (310) 377-0660 I FAX (310) 377-9868 I EMAIL: fjJY.f!g.[~_@CPYf .. ? .. ·.KQY. I .W.\'YW.·XPY£9,gQY.
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17, 2018
Page 2 of 5
Accordingly, your request Nos. 1 and 2 do not seek the production of public records within the
meaning of the California Public Records Act. See, also, the City's response to Item Nos. 5 & 6, below.
See, also, the City's response to Item No.3, below.
3. The list of email addresses maintained by Susan Brooks as of April 2018 for the purpose of
communicating city business.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 3:
This request requires the subjective determination by this office as to the purpose for which Mayor
Brooks maintains email addresses on her personal email system(s) and is, therefore, beyond the
scope of the California Public Records Act. My office is advised by legal counsel that to qualify as a
public record, a writing must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the people's business;
"communications that are primarily personal, containing no more than incidental mentions of
agency business, generally will not constitute public records." City of San Jose v Superior
Court (2017) 2 Ca1.5th 608, 618. See Govt Code§ 6252(e); Braun v City of Taft (1984) 154 Cai.App.3d
332; San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983) 143 Cai.App.3d 762.
Notably, records must not only relate to the public's business, but also must be "prepared, owned,
used, or retained by any state or local agency." Thus, documents not prepared, owned, used, or
reta.ined by public agency are not public records even though they may contain information relating
to conduct of the public's business. (Regents of Univ. of Cal. v Superior Court (2013) 222 Cai.App.4th
383.) "Whether the record is in the actual or constructive possession of a public official, the
requirement is still that the record be required by law to be kept by that official, or that it be
necessary or convenient to the discharge of his official duty."
A requestor "must establish that the files (1) qualify as public records and (2) were in the possession
of the [Agency]. 'Possession' in this context has been interpreted to mean both actual and
constructive possession. '[A]n agency has constructive possession of records if it has the right to
control the records, either directly or through another person." Based on the above, writings that
relate to a political campaign are not prepared, maintained, or used by the City, even if they are
about the public's business, do not qualify as public records.
All email addresses on City servers or City email system(s) are maintained by City personnel and not
under the exclusive control of any elected or appointed public official. Next, my office is advised by
legal counsel that the City has no obligation to inquire of the Mayor for what purpose(s) email
addresses are maintained by her on her personal email system(s). Accordingly, as framed, the City
has no documents which have designated as being "maintained by [Mayor] Brooks for the purpose
of communicating city business."
Indeed, my office is advised that to seek the items identified above constitutes an unlawful invasion
of Mayor Brooks' personal privacy. See, American Academy of Pediatrics v Lundgren (1997) 16
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17,2018
Page 3 of 5
Cal.4th 307; Times Mirror Co. v Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325; Britt v Superior Court (1978)
20 C3d 844; Wilson v Superior Court (1996) 51 Cai.App.4th 1136; Black Panther Party v Kehoe (1974)
42 Cai.App.3d 645. See, also, the City response to your Item #6, below.
4. Copies of all communications between City Attorney Aleshire and RPV resident Michael Huang.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 4:
The City has documents responsive to this request. Paper copies of the same will be made available
to you upon payment of the statutorily required fees noted at the end of this response.
5. Reviewing RPV website, City Clerk pages, no longer posted on the Public Records Request (PRR)
logs for 2017 concerning the 85 or so Public Record Requests previously submitted by Michael
Huang to RPV. Also, there is no log for 2018 Public Record Requests posted under the Public
Records Request Folder.
CITY RESPONSE Item #5:
As noted above, the California Supreme Court defines a public record as (1) a writing, (2) with content
related to the conduct of the people's business, which is (3) prepared by, or (4) owned, used, or
retained by any state or local agency. City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) 2 Cai.Sth 608, 617. This
request appears to be a declarative statement and not a request for any public record. However, in
the spirit of public service and transparency, you are invited to visit http:/lwww.rpvca.gov/227 /Public-
Records-Request to review the PRA request logs. The 2018 log has been uploaded to the web page.
Also, an up-to-date log is included in every Administrative Weekly Report and can be found by
visiting http:/lwww.rpvca.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=85
6. Furthermore, it appears that RPV has not defined what is a Public Record?
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 6:
Like the item before it, this request appears to be a declarative statement and not a request for any
public record. My office is advised by legal counsel that the definition of what is a public record is
defined in state law, and not in local ordinance, as "any writing containing information relating to
the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency
regardless of physical form or characteristics." Govt Code§ 6252(e).
To qualify as a public record a writing must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the
people's business; "communications that are primarily personal, containing no more than incidental
mentions of agency business, generally will not constitute public records." City of San Jose, supra, 2
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17, 2018
Page 4 of 5
Cai.Sth at 618; Govt Code §6252(e); Braun v City of Taft {1984) 154 Cai.App.3d 332; San Gabriel
Tribune v Superior Court (1983) 143 Cai.App.3d 762.
For example, records containing purely personal information unrelated to the conduct of an
agency's business are outside the scope of the Public Records Act. See San Gabriel Tribune, supra,
143 Cai.App.3d at 774. Also, documents that an agency does not actually or constructively possess
at the time of the request may not be subject to disclosure. See American Small Bus. League v U.S.
Small Bus. Admin. (9th Cir 2010) 623 F.3d 1052 (holding that records no longer under control of
agency are not public records).
7. Does an elected official (Councilman) lose his I her Constitutional rights when elected to a public
position?
8. What determines when a Councilman is conducting public business? What makes it public
business if a Councilman makes an inquiry to a member of another body concerning an issue
that RPV has no jurisdiction?
9. Why are elected officials not protected from harassment when they disagree with proponents
of issues where there is disagreement? For example, Mr. Huang was a vociferous anti Airbnb
advocate and Mr. Campbell believed that resident's rights were being ignored by anti Airbnb
advocates. Is it illegal to have a differing of opinion?
CITY RESPONSE Item Nos. 7, 8, and 9:
These requests seeks legal advice or opinion which this office and the Office of the City Attorney are
not authorized to provide. No public records are requested in this item.
10. The RPV Council has been derelict by not having better defined what is and what is not subject
to Public Records Requests.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 10:
This request seeks legal advice or opinion which this office and the Office of the City Attorney are
not authorized to provide. No public records are requested in this item. See, also City Response to
Item No. 6, above.
Mr. Ken Delong
May 17,2018
Page 5 of 5
11. Please provide material in electronic format and not in paper format unless specifically
authorized.
CITY RESPONSE Item No. 11:
Please remit payment in the amount of $13.80 with respect to 60 pages of responsive documents.
We find that this fulfills your request. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
our office at (310) 544-5217.
Sincerely,
~
Emily Colborn, MMC
City Clerk
cc: William W. Wynder, Esq.,
City Attorney
December 21, 2018
VIA E-MAIL (wwynder@awattorneys.com) AND CONFIRMED BY U.S.
MAIL
William W. Wynder
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245-4916
RE: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Subpoena
Dear Mr. Wynder,
We are in receipt of your letter of December 4, 2018 inquiring about
additional responsive documents to the legislative subpoena from former
council member, Brian Campbell. Did you receive my email of December 6,
2018 3:31 p.m. asking: "Bill, I received a letter of today's date from your
office. Should I also be expecting a subpoena or is the letter the only request
that will be directed to Brian Campbell in the near future?" I did not receive
any response. Please let me know if your email address has changed or if
there is some technical problem with you receiving my emails.
With respect to the substance of your December 4, 2018 letter, please be
advised that Mr. Campbell has produced all public records that he has as
previously outlined and he has no additional documents to produce. Should
you elect to refer this matter to the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, I
would ask that you include in your package to the District Attorney's office:
1. This letter.
2. My July 5, 2018 meet and confer letter over the scope of the legislative
subpoena and suggesting that Mr. Campbell sign a supplemental
declaration by way of compliance with the legislative subpoena.
3. Your July 11, 2018letter where you accepted my offer of a
supplemental declaration and stated that "upon compliance with the
foregoing, the City will deem your client to have complied with
the legislative subpoena."
4. My October 4, 2018letter to you requesting that your firm recuse itself
from investigating Brian Campbell.
p: 310.935.4001 f: :J \0.872$389
G09 Deep VallrJy Driv<J, StHle 200 I Rolling Hills E~tate, CA 90274
JeffLewi~Law.com
Poge 2 of 2 ! !!
Decernbt~r 21, 2018 : . .Jl.
Please advise if you have any further questions about this matter.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Lewis
October 4, 2018
Hon. Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tern
Hon. Eric Alegria, Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: In reInvestigation of Unauthorized Disclosures
Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and Councilmember Alegria,
I am writing to you in your capacities as members of the City's subcommittee
for the investigation of unauthorized disclosures from closed door meetings of
the council. As you know, I am litigation counsel for former Mayor Brian
Campbell. He retained me to assist him in response to the City's failure to
provide him an attorney at a deposition in the Green Hills litigation and,
thereafter, to comply with a legislative subpoena served by the City. In the
course of that representation, I made a Public Records Act request to the City
and received the enclosed email exchange between Green Hills attorney,
Ellen Berkowitz, and the then-City Attorney David Aleshire. I am writing
this letter on behalf of former Mayor Campbell and other residents of the
City who have concerns about the City's transparency and handling of the
current investigation into leaks of closed-door meetings. I would urge you to
carefully review the entirety of the enclosed email exchange closely and make
your own judgments about the implication of the statements made therein.
The email is disturbing for the following reasons:
First, your subcommittee has been charged with investigating leaks from
closed door session meetings of the City Council. On November 2, 2017, 12:14
p.m., Dave Aleshire disclosed to Ms. Berkowitz confidential information
shared with the City Council in closed session. That is an unauthorized leak
that the City should investigate. On October 31, 2017, 6:19p.m. Mr. Aleshire
disclosed to Sharon Loveys a costs summary shared with the City Council in
closed session. That is also an unauthorized leak that the City should
investigate.
p: 310.935.400'1 f: 310.872.5,389
009 Deep VfJIIey Dl'ive, Suite 200 I Rolling Hillt; Et~tate. CA 90:!74
JeffLewisLaw.com
Page 2 of4
October 4, 2018
Second, Sharon Loveys is a member of the public (albeit not a City resident).
She has in the past served Public Records Act requests on the City. The
enclosed exchange documents a tacit agreement between Mr. Aleshire and
Ms. Berkowitz to dupe Ms. Loveys about the subject matter of her Public
Records Act request -the true costs incurred by the City in the Green Hills
litigation. On October 31, 2017, Mr. Aleshire emailed Ms. Loveys a
spreadsheet and misled Ms. Loveys to conclude the spreadsheet was an
accurate summary of Green Hills related litigation costs. Mr. Aleshire
suggested there are "pages of bills supporting" the costs summary. Mr.
Aleshire's October 31, 2017 statement to Ms. Loveys about the accuracy of
the costs was a lie. Mr. Aleshire thereafter emailed Ms. Berkowitz on
November 2, 2017 and stated:
[Sharon Loveys] 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.I
(Emphasis added).
Third, the email chain reflects that Mr. Aleshire is the originator of the
(unfounded) accusation that former Mayor Brian Campbell leaked
information to Ms. Loveys. On November 2, 2017, Mr. Aleshire emailed Ms.
Berkowitz that Brian Campbell "may have told [Sharon Loveys] that .... "
There was no basis for that statement. To the contrary, by November 2, 2017,
the information at issue-the $700,000 that the City had incurred in Green
Hills related litigation, was a piece of public information and included in staff
reports made to the RPV Planning Commission.2
Coupled with the foregoing, the California State Bar has opened an
investigation (State Bar Proceeding No. 18-0-16022) into Aleshire & Wynder,
1 The amount of litigation costs is significant with respect to the City's
transparency to its residents, the intense public interest surrounding the
manner of the approval of the Green Hills mortuary, the settlement of claims
between Ms. Loveys and the City and the obligations owed by Green Hills
under an indemnity agreement with the City.
z On October 26, 2017, Sharon Loveys filed a written appeal to the planning
commission of a grading permit. The appeal included a reference to the
$700,000 figure. That October 26, 2017 appeal was thereafter included in
public staff reports.
Pago 3 of4
October 4, 2011\
LLP over a complaint regarding Dave Aleshire's improper disclosure of
confidential communications to City Resident Michael Huang, Dave
Aleshire's breach of the duty of loyalty by siding with Green Hills against the
City's interests with respect to former Mayor Brian Campbell, duping both
Sharon Loveys and the RPV city council regarding the true costs of the Green
Hills litigation and other issues regarding Mr. Aleshire's handling of the
Green Hills litigation, indemnity agreement and Public Records Act requests.
Based on these developments, I'd ask you to consider the following requests:
1. The law firm of Aleshire & Wynder should recuse itself from any
further investigations into the leaks of Green Hills related closed
session items. That firm has no business investigating former Mayor
Campbell or anyone else for the allegation of leaks of closed session
information about Green Hills. At best, Mr. Aleshire is a witness and
the complaining party who originated this accusation. Additionally,
Mr. Aleshire himself improperly disclosed closed session materials on
October 31, 2017 and November 2, 2017 and is now the focus of an
investigation by the State Bar. In either event, to avoid even the
appearance of impropriety, Aleshire & Wynder should recuse itself.
The existence of an open State Bar investigation against Aleshire &
Wynder compels the conclusion that Aleshire & Wynder cannot offer a
neutral and dispassionate analysis of the evidence on the question of
leaks.
2. A neutralla w firm should be hired to continue the investigation into
closed session leaks. If further legislative subpoenas are issued by the
City, a practice I personally and many in the community find
abhorrent, those subpoenas should be directed to Ms. Berkowitz and
Aleshire & Wynder. Those subpoenas should seek all communications
between those two law firms on the subject of the Green Hills
litigation.
3. The investigation should be broadened to include whether Mr. Aleshire
had sought and obtained City Council approval before making the
October 31, 2017 disclosure to Ms. Loveys and the November 2, 2017
disclosure to Berkowitz and if any RPV council members were
individually involved.
4. The subcommittee should examine how Ms. Loveys' Public Records Act
request was handled by the City, including the enclosed email
exchange and the subcommittee should report back to the full City
Council its findings on whether the City Attorney's concerted actions
with Green Hills and against the interests of Ms. Loveys was in the
City' best interests and if it is consistent with the law.
Page 4 of 4
October 4, 2018
Putting the legalities aside, the enclosed emails do not portray the City in a
positive light. After the City's actions in approving the Green Hills construction
that impacted Ms. Loveys' home, she deserved more than a concerted effort
between Mr. Aleshire and Ms. Berkowitz to deceive her. I look forward to your
prompt and written confirmation that Mr. Aleshire's firm has recused itself
from any further involvement in this matter.
cc: Susan Brooks (susan.brooks({l)rpvca.gov)
Encl.
John Cruikshank (john.cruikshank(a)rpvca.gov)
Ken Dyda (k~n .. dy_d_n.@..rpv.~~p,.gQy)
Noel Weiss, Esq. (noelweiss@ea.rr.eOJn)
Karl Olsen (kolson@cofolaw.com)
Enclosure
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Categories:
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Friday, November 03, 2017 7:19PM
'berkowitze@gtlaw.com'
Doug Willmore
RE: Green Hills
Red Category, Responsive
No-Those costs calculations are not confidential at this point. She asked for a summary of costs. This 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 4:29PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
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
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
IJ GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@rpvcs:t.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
1 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: berkdwitze@qtl aw. com [ ma ilto: berkowitzeCCilgtlaw .com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rgvca.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 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
m 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: DWillmore@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
consistent. 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 4:38PM
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 thal our correspondence was confidential.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile + 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
~~ GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca s. Burleson [rm:~ilto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
2
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 me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
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 postmastcr(ZI),gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
3
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com
Sent:
To:
Friday, November 03, 2017 4:28 PM
Dave Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
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
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
tiJ GreenbergTraurig I
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: berkowltze@gtlaw.com [mai!to:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@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 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
4
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: DWillmore@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
consistent. 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: 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 Berkowit?:
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurlg, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 9006 7 · 2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
bc;:rkowitzc®gtlaw.com 1 www,gtlaw.cgm
II GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca s. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattoroeys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
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 me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
5
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
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 8 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 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(ilJ.utlaw.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 [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:14PM
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 continue to take)
positions adverse to the City.
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
bqrkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
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
1 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: DWillmore@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.
7
Thanks.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traur1g, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
R~C~QW.[t;:;~~g_t;.l,g)Y,.!;_Q.!JJ..I WWY.I.Jtt~l!Y.L&Q!!l
m 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: 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: berl<owitze@qtlaw .com [!D_<;JjJto: berkowitz§_@gtl_gw.corn]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
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
Shareholder
Greenberg Traur1g, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com
m GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca s. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: FW: Green Hills
Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire
8
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! 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 6:19PM
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.
9
From: berkowitze@gtla·w.com
Sent:
To:
Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:13 PM
Dave Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
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 continue to take)
positions adverse to the City.
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2.12.1
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592. 3479
P.~r:h9W.J.t<[Q_@il!l~W.,.(;QIJJ..I w.w.w.,gtJAW.&QIJJ.
e5i GreenbergTraurig I "''
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@qtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@qtlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@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 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
10
!J GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:dalesbire@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE)
Cc: DWillmore@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
consistent. If we'd gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@qtlaw.com [m<?ilto:berkowitze@qtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
To: Dave Aleshire
Cc: DWillmore@rovca.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
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berk<;lv:!iJ~g@gtli;lYf.,t;;Q!TI..I www. gtlaw.com
!J GreenbergTraurig f
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rqurleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
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 me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
11
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
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 controversiaF-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(~V,gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
12
From:
Sent:
To:
Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM
'berkowitze@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
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: DWillmore@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 1 1840 Century Pllrk East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
a GreenbergTraurig I
From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshjre@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ·RE)
Cc: DWillmore@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
consistent. if w~'d gone back earlier in time would have been higher.
From: berkowitze@gtlaw .com [ mailto: berkowitze@gtlaw .com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38PM
To: Dave Aleshire
13
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
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze@gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
m GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
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 me know if there is anything else you need.
Dave
From: Dave Aleshire
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19PM
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.
14
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 coundl 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.
15
From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com
Sent:
To:
Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM
Dave Aleshire
Cc: Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Green Hills
Categories: Red Category, Responsive
Got it. Have you seen the appeal she filed in connection with the grading permit? In the appeal, she asserts
that GHMPhas 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 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 9006 7 · 2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
li 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: DWillmore@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
consistent. 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: DWillmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: RE: Green Hills
1 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
16
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East
Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067·2121
Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile+ 1 310 592 3479
berkowitze®gtlaw.com 1 www.gtlaw.com
m GreenbergTraurig I
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com] On Behalf Of Dave Aleshire
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14PM
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! 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 6:19PM
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.
17
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 postmasteri{Ptgtl~w.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
18
Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney at Law Mall-Request for Retraction I Inaccurate Information Supplied to Dally Breeze and the City Council 10/11/19, 12:43 PM
·., ,j
Request for Retraction /Inaccurate Information Supplied to Daily Breeze and the
City Council
Jeff Lewis <jeff@jefflewislaw.com> Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:51 PM
To: Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, Valerie Osier <vosier@scng.com>
Dave,
I read with interest the Daily Breeze story that Brian Campbell cost RPV "nearly 90,000 in legal fees." I have also read
the staff report I hit piece you put together for Tuesday's city council discussion of this item. I hope the City Council will
check your math and look at your staff report. Attached please find an alternative version of your spreadsheet with
some notes by me. I have segregated approximately $24,000 in legal costs that you attribute to Brian Campbell that
have nothing to do with him. For example, the public records act request sent by me last year has nothing to do with
Brian Campbell -they have to do with the City's relationship with the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. It also appears
that you have billed a lot of time relating to the City's October 2017 violation of the Brown Act and negotiation of a
settlement agreement of that violation and attributed that to Brian Campbell. As you may recall, the City convened an
illegal closed session meeting when Brian Campbell stepped outside to get his reading glasses. While I understand
why the City chose to settle the Brown Act litigation, attributing your time to settle that case to Brian Campbell is not
fair. If anything, the City Attorney present for that meeting should have counseled the acting mayor-not Brian -that its
actions were illegal.
I also note from the staff report that your staff spent thousands of dollars doing legal research and other acts to decide
not to represent Brian Campbell at his deposition noticed by Green Hills. Compared to the five hours of attorney time
to simply attend the deposition, these dollars seem like a waste.
I will conclude with observing that the City has incurred legal fees in response to the improper approval of a burial
structure spitting distance from residents of Lomita. Green Hills filed a lawsuit and sent the City public records act
requests and there has been discovery. The true cause of the city's legal fees was the decision to approve the burial
structure. Pinning this on Brian Campbell is not accurate or fair.
Now that I have seen your billing summaries, on behalf of Brian Campbell, I request that you personally, your law firm
and the City offer a written retraction of the following statement attributed to you in the Daily Breeze in its March 26,
2018 : "City Attorney Dave Aleshire said Brian Campbell has cost the city $87,500 in legal fees because he refuses to
respond to multiple records requests dating back to 2016." I ask that you send that written retraction to me and the
Daily Breeze. I also ask that you notify your malpractice carrier of this potential claim. Finally, I ask that you preserve
all evidence bearing on this issue as litigation is quite likely.
Jeff Lewis
Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 • Dir. (310) 935-4002 • E-mail: Jeff@JeffLewisLaw.com
Web. Jefflewislaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for Newsletter
htt ps :/ /mall.goog le .com/maii/U/O?Ik= 7e34c81 df6&view= p t&search= ... msg-f%3A 1596408 58 778544 6518&slmpl =msg -f%3A 159640858778 5446518 Page 1 of 2
Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney at Law Mail -Request for Retraction f Inaccurate Information Supplied to Daily Breeze and the City Council 10/11/19, 12:43 PM
Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of
this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately.
2 attachments
~ Pages from Agenda_Report-1.xlsx
29K
'f-t'l BC Agenda Report.pdf
~ 2439K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O?Ik=7e34c81df6&view=pt&search= ... msg-f%3A1596408587785446518&simpl=msg-f%3A1596408587785446518 Page 2 of 2
OJA
OJA
OJA
EQG
EQG
JSA
JSA
JSA
JSA
JSA
CMB
EQG
EQG
OJA
OJA
CMB
JT
AEM
AEM
OJA
OJA
EOG
RB1
CMB
CMB
CMB
CMB
OJA
EQG
CMB
CMB
JSA
MWR
MWR
MWR
MWR
MWR
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
CAMPBELL RELATED PUBLIC
21212018 87.5 0 (BROWN ACT LEWIS)
219/2018 35.00 (BROWN ACT-LEWIS)
218/2018 140.0 0 (CAMPBELL-LOGO)
212/2018 525.0 0 (CAMPBELL DEFENSE
2/2/2018 52.5 0 (CAMPBELL DEFENSE
2/21/2018 64.5 0 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2114/2018 64.5 0 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2114/2018 64.5 0 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2122/2018 64.5 0 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
2/21/2018 21.5 0 (CAMPBELL DEPO)
9/14/2016 66.00 (COUNCIL MEMBER PRA)
12128/2017 129.0 0 (COUNCIL POLICY 46)
1/2/2018 236.50 (COUNCIL POLICY NO. 46)
1/5/2018 1,170.00 (COUNCIL PROCEDURES)
1/4/2018 385.00 (COUNCIL PROCEDURES)
5/16/2016 66.00 (COUNCILMEMBER PRA)
215/2018 43.00 (DAILY BREEZE/PV NEWS)
2/12/2018 192.50 (DEFENSE OF CAMPBELL
2/1212018 420.00 (DEFENSE OF CAMPBELL
2/23/2018 150.50 (DEPOSITION)
2116/2018 322.50 (DUTY TO DEFEND)
2/7/2018 17.50 (IMPROPER USE OF CITY
5/22/2017 130.00 (JEFF LEWIS PRA)
6/13/2016 181.50 (LADERA LINDA FIELDS)
6/14/2016 132.00 (LADERA LINDA)
6/10/2016 33.00 (LADERA LINDA)
9/6/2016 33.00 (LEWISPRA)
211/2018 430.00 (LITIGATION)
1214/2017 35.00 (MEETING WITH DOUG
6/6/2016 16.50 (PILOLLA PRA)
6/14/2016 33.00 (PILOLLA PRA)
12121/2017 86.00 (PLANNING COMMISSION
4/6/2017 322.50 (PRA-NOEL WEISS)
4!7/2017 64.50 (PRA-NOEL WEISS)
4/5/2017 236.50 (PRA-NOEL WEISS)
4/12/2017 279.50 (PRA REQUEST-NOEL
4/13/2017 172.00 (PRA REQUEST-NOEL
I 0/2/2017 21.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
10/16/2017 150.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
I0/11120 17 43.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
I 0/26/2017 817.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
12/6/2017 494.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
1116/2018 537.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
1126/20 I 8 387.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
1/23/2018 344.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
1/24/2018 322.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/1/2018 322.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/3/2018 258.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/l 112018 688.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
2/15/2018 537.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
2/16/20 I8 774.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
7
?
?
?
?
?
?
'!
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
JT I 0/14/2017
JT I 0/19/2017
JT 10/21/2017
JT 10/24/2017
JT 10/20/2017
JT 11/13/2017
JT 11/16/2017
JT 11/17/2017
JT 11/21/2017
JT 11/24/2017
JT i 1/27/2017
JT 11/28/2017
JT 11/29/2017
JT 11/30/2017
JT 1211/2017
JT 1211/2017
JT 1215/2017
JT 1/11/2018
JT 11/20/2017
RB1 12114/2017
RB1 12111/2017
RB1 121812017
JT 12114/2017
RB1 10/13/2017
JT 9/21/2017
JT 1/22/2018
JT 10/1212017
JT 11/1/2017
JT 1/10/2018
OJA 217/2018
OJA 215/2018
OJA 218/2018
OJA 211/2018
OJA 216/2018
OJA 21212018
JSA 2123/2018
731.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
279.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
451.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
559.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
365.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
365.5 0 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
301.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
537.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
322.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
774.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
258.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
150.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
580.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
322.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
258.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
537.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
236.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
516.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
43.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
150.00 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
100.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
125.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
860.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
100.00 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
215.00 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
580.50 (PV LAND CONSERVANCY)
559.00 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
215.00 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
537.50 (PVLAND CONSERVANCY)
172.00 (SETTLEMENT LETTER)
322.50 (SETTL.F.MENT LETTER)
107.50 (SETTLEMENT)
193.50 (SETTLEMENT)
172.00 (SETTLEMENT)
193.50 (SETTLEMENT)
21.50 (DEPOSITION)
24 414.50
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
7
?
?
?
?
?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Emily Colborn
Monday, October 14, 2019 1:41 PM
CityCierk
FW: Council10/15: Item 3: Late Correspondence
Nelson Late Corres Item 3 10:15 CC.pdf
Late Correspondence
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208 direct
(310) 544-5217 office
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Robert Nelson <robert.nelson@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 12:55 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council10/15: Item 3: Late Correspondence
Council, DCM Gabi, Interim CM Ara
The hard copy has the req'd 'as an individual' verbiage.
Was quite surprised at the the staff report for item 3, the lawsuit against Brian Campbell and, after much
deliberation and thought believe we should simply close this matter now; receive and file, thanks attys for
doing their job and call the next item. That is, your legacy doesn't have to be a court suit against a former
Mayor for something it seems the then acting Mayor also did but which was deemed perfectly fine!
Compromise! Close this door and don't open door #3.
I am providing hard copies for time stamping and inclusion in this meetings late correspondence.
Bob Nelson
2
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19/tem #3
Bob Nelson LATE CORRESPONDENCE
COUNCIL MEETING 10/15/2019 6612 Channelview Court
RPV, CA 90275 ITEM #3: SUING EX-MAYOR BRIAN CAMPBELL
Council, DCM Gabi, Interim CM Ara
The view(s]_ opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the vlew(s),
opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
or any of its employees, agents, contractor~ Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It should be interpreted
solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as
the official position direction or decision of the City.
As one who received one of your legislative subpoenas and met with Atty Wynder, CM Willmore, et al,
I have first-hand knowledge and experience with this item.
And, my careful, measured suggestion is we quietly close the books on this. 'Receive and
file' staff report. Close the door. Say your attorney did what was requested and, in your opinion,
has completed his statement of work. Add a "thank you, Dave Aleshire and William Wynder. Next
item."
Your investigation I was interrogated on was whether I or Brian had leaked closed session Council
information on Green Hills negotiations. I brought with me and submitted documents our Planning
Commission received on a Thursday as part of a Green Hills appeal to us for our Tuesday PC meeting.
These contained a negotiating number. We obviously could and did address the negotiation number the
following Tuesday. And, as soon as I produced the appellant's letter with that data we received Thursday
for our Tuesday meeting, my interrogation basically ended. Since there was no court reporter present, I
brought a witness re any future city quotes about my testimony. FYI one subpoenaed Commissioner
lawyered up with our past SeaBluffHOA RPV neighbor and past Los Angeles County District
Attorney Steve Cooley -of course, that Commissioner was never called in!
Your investigation then switched to one about emails. As you know, Planning Commissioners have heen
advised to delete all emails after 30 days, jic. This Council established a rule that any Committee
member, any Commissioner must use their city email for any city related communications 'so
these can quickly be accessed.' That has become the mostly usual case. As of this date, my city email
shows I have deleted 957 emails, 563 of which were junk emails. And this email will be part of my city
email record, though I will also send it out via normal channels.
Below, in the interest of civility and fairness, is past RPV Planning Commissioner and attorney
Jeff Lewis's thoughts on tonight's item. Every item usually has two sides and his is the other side
of your staff report. And, FYI, when I introduced Brian at the Long Point Debate Sept. 18 (the debate
where I was too 'biased' to be moderator and which you said you'd film and re-broadcast but
which you filmed but then refused to re-broadcast to our community, another RPV first!), it was
my pleasure to describe to our RPV audience in attendance Brian's achievements on their behalf:
"I'd like to now introduce our moderator for tonight. Its someone who has been both a candidate and
the moderator at this event multiple times in recent years.
* Our moderator has quite a history of national and community service, both elected, appointed and
as a volunteer:
Page 1 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19/tem #3
* Has served as both the president of his own HOA association, the city-wide Council of
Homeowners Associations (CHOA) and for two years on the RPV General Plan Update
Committee.
* Has served over 20 years both domestically and overseas in both the US Army and Cal State
Guard where he is currently the Deputy Commander of the State Guard Special Operations
forces.
* He is a former RPV mayor and served eight years on the city council.
*Currently serves as an elected Trustee for the Palos Verdes Library District and has recently
won a second term as Trustee.
*And, most interestingly, just about this time a year ago he was in Kabul, Afghanistan, with his
troops. I'm sure he'll be willing to share some travel tips for any of you who are planning on going
there in the near future!
I'd like to welcome our distinguished moderator, the honorable Brian Campbell."
I'm not sure any lawsuit against Brian will be worth RPV citizen money, our atty time, risk of Council
embarrassment at the end or to even be part of this Council's legacy. Think compromise: do you really
want to go out with this as some of your baggage for our next Council's consideration? You
might remember, when some of you first came on board, your early meetings cancelled many ofthe prior
Council's last-minute motions.
The decision is up to you-again -you might consider 'receive and file' and close the door. Of
course, you can sound the alarm and leave future legal maneuvering to the incoming Council
and let their thought processes judge the value of suing past Mayors.
Bob Nelson
For readers, here is the other side of this item:
From: JeffLewis <jeff@jeftlewislaw.com>
To: those copied
Sent: Fri, Oct 11, 2019 12:06 pm
Subject: Tuesday Evening's RPV City Council Meeting, Item 3
Friends,
I am alerting you to a matter coming up for discussion at the Tuesday October 15 7:00 meeting ofthe
RPV City Council. Items 1 and 2 of the agenda concern the construction of a new civic center for which
I have no strong opinion. Item 3 of the agenda ... pertains to: 1) the outcome of the City's use of
legislative subpoenas, depositions and other tactics to investigate an alleged leak of closed session
materials; and 2) whether the city should file a lawsuit against former Mayor Brian Campbell.
As to the closed session matter, the City spent in excess of$45,000 dollars to investigate the public and
found absolutely nothing. They have nothing to show for that shameful waste of money and residents,
who now feel mistrustful of government.
As for the latter issue, the gist of the City's complaint against Brian is they feel he should have
turned over an email list he used because, per the City Attorney, his email list is a public
record. However, my office has taken the position that the email list is private and not a public record.
To test this matter, a citizen of our community made a public records act request for the then-mayor's
Page 2 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19/tem #3
email list that was used to communicate with the public. The City Attorney took the position that the
then mayor's email list is not a public record and refused to produce it. Therefore, Brian
Campbell is being singled out for personal reasons. The City proposes to spend taxpayer money to
go after Brian Campbell in a new lawsuit as part of a personal vendetta by sitting council
members that do not like Brian Campbell. Some background materials regarding the dispute between
the City and Brian Campbell are attached. If you have strong feelings on this matter about whether the
City should send legislative subpoenas to its residents and file lawsuits against former officials, I would
encourage you to to go to the October 15 meeting and make your voice heard. Alternatively, you can
send an email to the city council regarding this matter at: s;;£{i}!fpvquJ~Q.y.
Legislative subpoenas and lawsuits should not be used a political tools or to further personal
vendettas. If you agree, below are some points that the public could raise in emails or in person if
they felt agreement with these points:
1. The City accepted the City Attorney's recommendation to spend in excess of $45,000 on an
investigation into closed door leaks and found nothing other than the City Attorney is inept at
investigations. Isn't this lawsuit against Brian Campbell a similar waste of taxpayer funds? Hasn't
the City Attorney demonstrated its incompetence as to the closed session leak investigation?
2. For the first time in its history, this City Council authorized the use oflegislative subpoenas
-~directed at the political opponents of the council. The subpoenas were also used to target a
lawyer who represented a party that sued the City, Noel Weiss. Should the City study this issue
and enact guidelines about whether and when to use legislative subpoenas in the future to ensure
this abuse is not repeated
3. The City typically hears matters in closed session before authorizing a lawsuit and then "reports
out" the result of that closed session in open session. For the matter of Brian Campbell, the City
Council is discussing the matter in open session. Do members of the City Council have a
personal reason for airing these allegations against Brian Campbell in public? When is the last
time the City Council held an open session discussion item on whether to file a lawsuit? Who
made the decision as to whether this topic would be discussed in closed session or open session'?
4. The City was originally scheduled to hear the report on this matter in June 201 9 hased on the
tentative agendas published earlier this year. The matter was delayed and the City has timed the
disclosure of its investigation into the closed session leaks to fall within 30 days of a city
council election. Is the current City Council or Attorney seeking to influence the outcome
of the election with the timing of this disclosure of its failed investigation? Should the timing of
future reports regarding former public officials be avoided this close to an election?
5. The City has previously insinuated that Brian Campbell leaked information from a closed
session meeting. Has the time come for the City to issue a retraction and apologize to Brian
Campbell?
6. As a matter of policy, do we want our council members authorizing lawsuits against former
officials under these conditions? Isn't this a slippery slope that can be abused to target
political opponents?
7. If the City Council chooses to to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell, what City policy is
served by that objective?
8. Should the decision of whether to sue Brian Campbell be made by a council majority with only a
few weeks of service left and no voter accountability or should the next council majority make
that decision?
Page 3 of4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
9. The City's basis for filing a lawsuit is a claim that Brian Campbell did not comply with public
records act requests by third parties. Yet none of those third parties have sued the city and there
is no real harm to the city for the claimed misconduct.
10. The City wants Brian Campbell's email list. Is this really a legitimate basis for a lawsuit?
Do future council members wish to disclose their list? What is the chilling effect on public
communications if such lists are disclosable?
11. What is the City Attorney's budget for filing such a lawsuit and are there any grounds for the
City to recover attorney's fees spent on this project?
12. If the City spends $200,000 to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell yet only recovers $100,000
is that in the City's best interests?
13. What are the prospects of Brian Campbell filing a counterclaim against the City and City
Attorney?
14. The City Attorney claims that it has $130,000 in damages against Brian Campbell. Has Jeff
Lewis presented any contrary evidence that suggests that number is not accurate? For
example, does that $130,000 include the cost of the City Attorney attending the deposition
of Brian Campbell in the Green Hills litigation when the City was not a party to that
litigation?
15. Brian Campbell filed a State Bar complaint against the City Attorney. Shouldn't the City
Attorney have recused itself in light of that complaint?
16. On July ll, 2018, the City Attorney and JeffLewis negotiated the contents of a
supplemental declaration by Brian Campbell and noon July ll, 2018 the City Attorney
advised Jeff Lewis in writing that "upon compliance with the foregoing, the City will deem
your client to have complied with the legislative subpoena." Brian Campbell signed the
negotiated declaration and thereafter the City Attorney inexplicably claimed that Brian Campbell
failed to comply with the subpoena. Why did the City Attorney say in writing on July ll,
2018 that it would deem the subpoena complied with and thereafter change its position? Is
there a personal animus between the City Attorney and Brian Campbell that requires the City
Attorney to recuse itself?
17. On October 4, 2018, Attorney JetfLewis made a demand on the City Attorney that the City
Attorney recuse itself from the closed session investigation. The City Attorney did not.
Why?
18. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis demanded that the City Subcommittee investigate
the City Attorney regarding closed session leaks. Why was this not done?
19. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis presented documents to the City outlining a
conspiracy between the City Attorney and Green Hills to deceive Sharon Loveys. Why was
this allegation not investigated?
p.s. full disclosure, I am litigation counsel for and friends with Brian Campbell. I do have a bias toward
Brian. Please read the attached and make your own decision. (Not attached: Contact Jeff for copies.)
Thank you.
Jeff Lewis
Jeff Lewis Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 • E-mail: Jeff@JeffLewisLaw.com
Web. JeffLewisLaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for Newsletter
Certified Appellate Specialist
Certified by The State Bar of California
Page4 of 4
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(310) 527-6667
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (31 0) 527-6660
ATl()f<N}::.YS Ai LAVV F (310) 532-7395
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES! RIVERSIDE l CENTRAL VALLEY AWArl'OI"~NEYS.COM
December 22, 2018
SENT VIA E-MAIL jeff@jcfflcwislaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep VaHey Drive, Suite 200
Rolting Hills Estates, CA 90274
Subject:
Counsel:
Mr. Campbell's Document Productions in Response to City Council
Legislative Subpoena; Material Misstatement(s) ofFact Under Oath; Your
Letter ofDecember 21 2018
Your letter of December 21, 2018 was received electronicalty after our office closed for
the Christmas Holiday break. However, once curious observation in your letter merits a brief
response. No letter of "deemed compliance" can be construed as an acceptance of the truth of
the matters set forth in your client's declarations. In fact, your letter does not dispute, because
you cannot, that your client has made material false statements, under oath, in his declaration (as
demonstrated by the very documents he produced in response to the same).
As a former public official, your client owed the highest duty of honesty to the residents
of Rancho Palos Verdes. It is now clear that he has breached that duty and either made material
misstatements to his City Council colleagues or made material misstatements, under oath, in
response to the City's legislative subpoena. Simply ignoring these demonstrated inconsistencies
on the grounds of a "deemed compliance" letter will be unavailing. 1
We reiterate, your client cannot have it both ways -he cannot state to the then City
Attorney and his former Council colleagues that his Huang e-mails were within his authority as
Mayor (in order to assure himself legal representation in the event Mr. Huang might sue him for
defamation), only to later claim that these same e-mails are not public records (and need not be
produced) because he sent them out in his "personal capacity." His contradictory positions are
mutually exclusive from one another!
Ill
Ill
Your October 4, 2018 letter is utterly irrelevant to your client's material misstatements.
01203.0001/526411.1 2
Jeffrey Lewis
December 22, 20 18
Page 2
Your client indeed has public records in his possession, custody, or under his control
which, for the second time now, through your office, he is refusing to produce. We shall take
such action(s) as the City Council deems appropriate consistent with the requirements of law.
Copies:
01203.0001/526411.1
(v/official city e-mail only)
City Council Ad Hoc Committee
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
Very truly yours,
1/)dl~ U)~.~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES; RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
February 12, 2019
William W. Wynder
wwyn<;Jer@awattomeys.com
(310) 527-6667
SENT VIA E-MAIL jcff@),jcfflewislaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (310) 527·6660
F (31 0) 532· 7395
AWATTOI'<NEY~3.G0fvl
Subject: Mr. Campbell's Second Supplemental Declaration; February 5, 2019
Counsel:
We have completed our initial review of your client's Second Supplemental Declaration,
dated February 5, 2019, and deem the same non responsive to the City's legislative subpoena
approved by the City Council at its December 18, 2018 meeting. 1 For the reasons that will
follow, the same must be withdrawn and a new, responsive, declaration issued or we shall
recommend that the City Council treat the same as a contempt of the subpoena.
First, you seem to think that the City Council can only issue one legislative subpoena and
that somehow my letter to you of July 11, 2018 waived the right of the legislative body to issue
any new subpoena(s). Your client is, of course, wrong as a matter of law. Moreover, the
subpoena was issued to obtained his yet-again tardy compliance with a public records act request
propounded to the City after July 11, 2018; on August 4, 2018 to be precise.
Second, your client's declaration is largely a repetition of an earlier declaration and
attaching, yet again, your contrived political dialectic on conflicts of interest. Paragraph Nos.
3(a) -(g), and 3(h)-(i) are non-responsive to the legislative subpoena and must be stricken.
Paragraph No. 6 is non-responsive to the legislative subpoena and also must be stricken. Lastly,
Paragraph No. 7 is non-responsive to the subpoena and must also be stricken. These paragraphs
having utterly nothing to do with the documents requested in the legislative subpoena.
Nowhere is this more evident than his Paragraph No. 7. The City's legislative subpoena
which was served on your client sought "all emails on Mr. Campbell's personal electronic
devises responsive to Ms. Tracy Burn's October 4, 2018" Public Records Act request. Your
Your client's declaration stating the Council "issued" the legislative declaration on
December 18, 2018 is, of course, incorrect. The Council authorized the issuance of the
subpoena on December 18, 2018 and directed the Mayor and Clerk to issue the same. We
waited to serve the same on your client until the necessary signatures were obtained over the
busy Holiday season.
01203.0032/534564.1
Jeffrey Lewis
February 12, 2019
Page2
client's Paragraph No.7 purports to incorporate your letter of October 4, 2018, which alludes to
"the investigation of unauthorized disclosures from closed door meetings of the council." There
is nothing in that subpoena that even hints at any investigation referenced in your October, 2018
letter, incorporated by reference into Paragraph No. 7 of your clients declaration and the same
must be stricken.2
Finally, we reiterate for the third time, your client cannot have it both ways -he cannot
state to the then City Attorney and his former Council colleagues that his Huang e-mails were
sent within his authority as Mayor (in order to assure himself legal representation in the event
Mr. Huang might sue him for defamation), only to later claim (in two declarations now) that
these same e-mails are not public records (and need not be produced) because he sent them out in
his "personal capacity." His contradictory positions are mutually exclusive from one another!
Accordingly, your client is afforded fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this
letter to formally withdraw his Second Supplemental Declaration, dated February 5, 2019, and
issue a declaration responsive to the City's legislative subpoena or we will recommend that the
City Council consider referring the same to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for initiation
of contempt proceedings.
Your client's immediate attention to this matter is now required.
Copies:
Very truly yours,
IV illtt0M 1£)~~,
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
(v/official city e-mail w/ enclosure of Supplemental Declaration)
City Council Ad Hoc Committee
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
2 We note, with amusement, your client's belated admission that he filed a complaint with the
California State Bar in Paragraph No. 7 of his declaration. We ferreted out your client's
clandestine efforts to "smear" our firm and Mr. Aleshire long ago thanks to a sloppy job of
redaction in his web site postings and staffs' identification of your client's company's domain
registrant status. Nothing quite like a confession after one has already been caught.
01203.0032/534564.1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 5, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Tuesday afternoon for the Wednesday, November 6, 2019 City Council
meeting:
Item No.
E
G
K
2
Description of Material
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Barnes and
Sunshine; Email from Sunshine
Correction to Agenda Report
Agenda Report and Attachments
Letter from Jeff Lewis; Response to Jeff Lewis Letter from City
Attorney Wynder; Emails from: Bob Nelson; David Potter
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191106 additions revisions to agenda thru Tuesday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good Afternoon Sunshine,
Megan Barnes
Monday, November 4, 2019 12:04 PM
SUNSHINE; CityCierk; Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig
CC; Ara Mihranian; momofyago@gmail.com; troy@eworld-media.com; Elias Sassoon; Deborah
Cullen
RE: Fixed? Re: November 6, 2019 Council Consent Calandar Item E. A poor Recommendation
lives on.
The trail is presumably unauthorized because there is no trail easement on the property. Thank you for your comments, they
will be included in late correspondence for Wednesday's meeting.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 1:57 PM
To: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Nathan
Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; momofyago@gmail.com; troy@eworld-media.com; Elias Sassoon
<esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fixed? Re: November 6, 2019 Council Consent Calandar Item E. A poor Recommendation lives on.
Hello Megan,
You wrote ... We are in receipt of your emails regarding the Crownview Drive property. Staff is
aware of the existing trail that crosses the parcel, however, it is presumably unauthorized as
there is no trail easement.
Define what you mean by "unauthorized". That is a term which is usually used to designate "social trails"
which the "Preserve Managers" want to have made illegal for the public to continue using. Are you not
aware that when RPV incorporated and the original General Plan was adopted, there were no trail
easements dedicated to the City? That is why preserving and enhancing a network of roadways, trails and
pathways on the Peninsula is a GOAL. Staff simply has not gotten around to arranging for this particular
emergency and maintenance access road to be recorded for public trail use. "Unauthorized trails" are the
ones which Staff has not yet bothered to recommend as deletions from the Trails Network Plan (TNP).
1 £.
Even if the RPV General Plan is "unenforceable" as some people claim, are you not aware that submitting
a false reason for spending public funds, is? That is fraud.
The "narrative" in the Conceptual Trails Section of the TNP states that Trail A20, the Crownview Section of
the Palos Verdes Loop Trail, is a dirt road on a utility easement. Are you not aware that the easiest way for
the City to acquire a trail easement/preserve public use, is to negotiate adding "trail use" on the same legal
description of an existing easement? No need to purchase the whole property. And, no need to wait for a
property to be on the tax default list. Or, be the subject of a development application. Or, Public Works
Project.
Given the City's pitiful effort to maintain the TNP as a "living document", you had no way of knowing that
trail segment A20 does not cross this particular Crownview lot until I submitted the "late correspondence" of
August 29, 2019. Senior Staff also is not very good at sharing the policy that whenever a potential action
that could impact/enhance a trail connection is initiated, trails advocates are to be consulted. That means
me, as a former member of the RPV Trails Committee, and several others. You should have called me
before you Recommended purchasing this lot. Now, you know.
We now have a new problem. The information in my MEMO to the City was not included, nor addressed in
your Agenda Report for November 6, 2019. Ordinarily, when Staff learns of an error after the Agenda
Report is published, the Item is "withdrawn" from the Agenda. That is not so in this case. If Item E is
withdrawn, the City Council and the public will be deprived of the opportunity to hear an apology from the
City Manager and ... consider the other reasons why the City should purchase this lot. (PVPLC wants us
to.)
I look forward to hearing a Council discussion based on a true and complete oral report. I always welcome
questions.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
Subject: RE: November 6, 2019 Council Consent Calandar Item E. A poor Recommendation lives on.
Date: 11/1/2019 2:20:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: mbarnes@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com, CityCierk@rpvca.gov, TeriT@rpvca.gov, NathanZ@rpvca.gov
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, AraM@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good Afternoon Sunshine,
2
We are in receipt of your emails regarding the Crownview Drive property. Staff is aware of the existing trail that
crosses the parcel, however, it is presumably unauthorized as there is no trail easement.
Thank you,
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5226
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 11:35 AM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Nathan Zweizig
<NathanZ@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: November 6, 2019 Council Consent Calandar Item E. A poor Recommendation lives on.
Hello Teri,
You confirmed that the following MEMO and attachment was provided to Council as late correspondence
last time this potential lot purchase was on the Council's Consent Calendar. Have you any clue as to why it is
not addressed in the Staff Report this time around? Do the people who make such Recommendations not
have access to emails they are copied on? Council acted as though none of them had read it and now, so has
Megan Barnes.
I have not received any acknowledgement of my notification that an existing trail should be added to the
Trails Network Plan, either.
3
Please do what you can to stop the "black hole" syndrome at City Hall. There is no "local control" if the
public's voices are not heard by the appropriate parties. TNX .... S
Subject: RPV City Council Meeting, September 3, 2019 Regular Business Item 6
Date: 8/29/2019 6:20:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Cc: pc@rpvca.gov, imac@rpvca.gov, MrsRPV@aol.com, ken.delong@verizon.net, epc@rpvca.gov, mbarnes@mvca.gov, aram@rpvca.gov,
esassoon@rpvca.gov, coryl({ll,rpvca.gov, gyap(iil,rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
MEMO
DATE: August 29,2019
FROM: SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: Statement of purpose for City acquisition of property
If the City's purpose for spending tax payer dollars to purchase this Crownview parcel is to develop a new
trail then, Staffs Recommendation is in error.
The Agenda Report for this (and another) parcel does not disclose that there is an existing trail on a recorded
utility easement which is maintained by SoCal Water, the Edison Co and private parties. The trail on the
easement across this parcel is not on the Palos Verdes Loop Trail "ideal route" however, there is a trail which
goes off of the easement to the east which is a functional link between the PV Loop Trail and the trailhead
amenities at Miraleste Plaza.
If the Staff wants to acquire this now designated HILLSIDE parcel as a potential addition to the PV Preserve,
they should say so. And, they should complete modifying the Development Code and updating the Trails
Network Plan so that the existing trail will be preserved as a TYPE 3 fire road in perpetuity.
4
Here is a perfect example of why not maintaining the RPV Trails Network Plan as a "living document" has
caused the residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to lose miles of recreational trail connections, other public
amenities and emergency preparedness infrastructure. The following excerpt from the Agenda Report is true
when taken out of context.
Chapter 8 Agreement No. __ Statement of Public Purpose and/or Intended Use of the
Parcel September 3, 2019
The subject property (APN 7566-015-026) is a .63-acre vacant lot in the 3100 block of
Crown view Drive in the Miraleste Canyon Area abutting the City of Rolling Hills to the
north, vacant land to the east and west, and jutting south into a residential neighborhood.
Acquiring this parcel could help the City work toward completing a trail segment in the
Conceptual Trails Plan. The purpose of the Conceptual Trails Plan is to identify trail
opportunities within the community, so that the acquisition and development of new public
trails, through new development proposals, public works projects, and voluntary efforts, can
be integrated into the City's existing public trails network.
Whatever happened to the RPV General Plan Goal of preserving and enhancing the network of roadways,
trails and pathways? Staff has no access to when a trail's Status: is changed from whatever to Category
I. Staff isn't aware that something like 90 percent of the trails with "narratives" in the Conceptual Trails Plan
are existing trails in use. This means that there is nothing in the Budget for Public Works to use to maintain
them nor to design enhancements.
Against my advice, the City acquired the lot which is shown on the same map. All the City has done with it
is pay to pick up the trash. So sad.
5
Subject: Another action which may be hiding in the Public Records
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 10:16:18 AM
To: CityCierk; Nathan Zweizig
Subject: Another action which may be hiding in the Public Records
Hi Nathan,
I'm looking for any written agreement between Kurt Loheit and the City and, any written Design Program
which the City provided to Mr. Loheit regarding the design/grading plan to establish the "ideal route" for the
point-to-point trail described in the Conceptual Trails Plan as Section 5, trail F2, the Bronco trail.
This to narrow the date of action. On December 5, 2018, I pointed out to the City Council that this work
needs to be done, urgently. On September 2, 2019, I wrote a draft RFP about the same work and sent it to
Elias Sassoon. I have just been told that this work has been done but, the Planners on specific projects
which are involved haven't produced the City's directions to the ConsultanWolunteer nor the work product.
This is just like all my other requests for Design Programs. What has some City Authority directed an
outside ConsultanWolunteer to design/engineer in support of a goal in the updated General Plan? What
are the specific parameters?
The Responses to the Comments submitted on the latest draft of the NCCP state that... The properties and
trails referenced in this comment are not within the City's Preserve or implemented by the NCCP/HCP. They go on
to say that progress is being made on two applications, 10 Chaparral and 14 Bronco which I mentioned in
my Memo of 12/5/2018. In lieu of any public review, I'm looking for potential errors and omissions that can
be rectified before the City negotiates any more useless easements.
Please include this as late correspondence on the November 6, 2019 Council Agenda Item E.
TNX. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/06/2019
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Completion for the ADA Access Improvements -Crosswalks in Area 1 Project
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Accept the project as complete;
(2) Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project with the Los
Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's Office; and if no claims are filed within 35
days after recordation, send a notice to the surety company to exonerate the
Performance Bond; and,
(3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 5% construction retention
payment to EBS General Engineering , Inc ., a California corporation Hardy &
Harper, Inc., 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the L.A.
County Registrar-Recorder's Office, contingent on no claims being filed on the
project, and the contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond with the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: The final cost of the work was $197,511.65 and was completed
within budget.
Amount Budgeted:
Additional Appropriation:
Account Number(s):
$210,866.12
N/A
31 0-400-8829-8802 (;J-
(CDBG-ADA Improvements Area 1 I Improvements)
ORIGINATED BY: Charles Eder, PE, Senior Engineer ty
REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works~
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager .Jba ,..._
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Notice of Completion (page A-1)
B. Project pictures (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City has completed construction of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Access Improvements -Crosswalks in Area 1 Project. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes has routinely participated in the Los Angeles Urban County's Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program since 1986. The program funds local
community development projects that meet national objectives. This project consisted of
~.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/06/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to receive and file a status report on agreements
releasing and adding deed restrictions over the Civic Center property
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a status report on agreements releasing and adding deed
restrictions over the Civic Center property.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager.·0J
Same as above
Doug Willmore, City Manager (/1tvJ
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Recorded Deed of Partial Release and Declaration of Restrictions (page A-1)
B. October 29, 2019 staff report (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
This report is to provide a status update regarding the City's agreements to transfer
oversight of the Civic Center property on Hawthorne Boulevard from the National Park
Service (NPS) to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
The documents that were approved at the October 29, 2019 City Council meeting were
recorded on October 30, 2019 (Attachment A). With the recordation, the City is no
longer held to the passive recreation easements that existed under NPS and has the
ability to use the property for public safety and emergency management purposes.
Background information on the release and addition of deed restrictions is outlined in
the October 29 staff report (Attachment B).
After a more than 25-year effort on behalf of previous councils and staffs of the City, the
matter has finally come to a successful conclusion. The City can now include the
1 l.
subject 9.5 acres along with the rest of the Civic Center property for needed
development of vital public safety facilities.
For their tireless assistance and strong commitment in helping the City reach this
successful conclusion, staff wishes to extend a sincere and heartfelt thank you to these
people who gave there all to help make it happen:
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and staff
U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu and staff
L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn and staff
L.A. County Fire Chief Daryl Osby
State Senator Ben Allen and staff
Assemblymember AI Muratsuchi and staff
National Park Service Director Dan Smith
Ralph Conner, Director, Office of Real Property, GSA
Anita Lee, Realty Specialist, Office of Real Property, GSA
Councilwoman Susan Brooks
Tim Stewart of the American Capitol Group
2
Recording requested by:
:J:i ty Clerk Dept
Rancho Palos Verdes
c
When recorded mail to:
*20191169278*
City Hall Rancho Palos Verd s
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
90275
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1088-AF
~-; -J:.
! i :'
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
DEED OF PARTIAL RELEASE
This Deed of Release (this "Release") is from THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and
through the undersigned Regional Director, Interior Regions 8, 9, 10 and 12, National Park Service, under
and pursuant to the power and authority contained in the provisions of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended (the "Act"), and regulations and orders
promulgated thereunder (hereinafter designated "Grantor"), to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal
corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("Grantee"), and its assigns.
Recitals:
A. On October 30, 1979, Grantor conveyed to Grantee, pursuant to authority delegated by the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and as authorized by the Act and regulations and orders
promulgated thereunder, 75.53 acres of real property, more or less, located in Rancho Palos Verdes,
California (the "Park Property"), as more fully described in the Quitclaim Deed dated October 30, 1979,
and recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California on December 6, 1979 as Instrument
No.79-lJ70945 (the "Quitclaim Deed"). The Quitclaim Deed corrected en-ors in the legal deseription and
acreage figures contained in the original quitclaim deed for the Park Property which was executed on
August 25, 1978 and recorded in the Official Records ofLos Angeles County, California on September 27,
1978 as Instrument No. 78-1074154.
B. The Park Property was conveyed to Grantee upon the express condition that the Park Property was
to be used exclusively for public park and recreational purposes and certain restrictions were expressly set
forth as paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Quitclaim Deed (collectively, the "Restrictions").
C. Subsequent to the said conveyance of Park Property, Grantee determined it no longer needs all of
the Park Property for park and recreation area purposes, and sought to utilize a portion of the Park Property,
consisting of a tract of approximately 9.549 acres, as more fully described on Exhibits A and B attached
hereto and made a part hereof (the "Released Property"), for law enforcement and emergency services
purposes.
D. The Grantee has requested that the Released Property be released from public park and recreation
area covenants, and that it be made subject to the covenants of the Law Enforcement public benefit
conveyance program administered by the Department of Justice, and the Emergency Management Response
public benefit conveyance program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City ofRancho Palos Verdes, California
Page I of21
A-1
E. The Grantee has applied to the Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for transfer of the Released Property to their public benefit conveyance programs, and both agencies
have accepted Grantee's applications.
F. The General Services Administration has advised the National Park Service by letter dated
September 20, 2019, that it concurs with releasing all Restrictions set forth in the Quitclaim Deed placed
upon the Released Property for public park and recreational purposes and for the replacement of those
restrictive covenants on the Released Property with those of the law enforcement and emergency
management program restrictive covenants.
G. This Deed of Release has no effect on the remainder of the Park Property not included with the
Released Property (the "Unaffected Park Property").
NOW, THEREFORE, the said Regional Director, acting on behalf of the United States of America,
does hereby release the Released Property from Restrictions 1-8 placed upon it in the Quitclaim Deed,
including, without limitation, the requirement that the Released Property be used exclusively for public park
and recreational purposes. This Release does not affect, and the Released Property remains subject to, all
legal easements, leases, agreements, rights-of-way, and other restrictions.
In consideration of the release of the Released Property from the Restrictions, Grantee has on this
same day entered into a Declaration of Restrictions with the United States of America, acting by and
through the General Services Administration, whereby Grantee will pledge certain rights and interests in the
Released Property to the United States of America, acting by and through the General Services
Administration. The fonn of the Declaration of Restrictions is attached as EXHIBIT C to this Release.
This Release does not affect the Unaffected Park Property, and the covenants and restrictions of the
Quitclaim Deed remain unmodified and in full force and effect with respect to the Unaffected Park Property.
----------------------------------------Remainder of page intentionally left blank--------------------------------------
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 2 of21
A-2
IN WITNESS WI-IEREOf,. the Grantor h~cau~e~ this Deed or Release to be executed in its name
and on its behalf on this the /15' J.-day of U~/ , 2019.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Regional Director
National Park Service, Interior Regions 8, 9, 10 and 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accurac , or validit • of that document.
State of California )
) ss.
County of San Francisco )
before me, Af,J~,,/ 111. Je>f/11 rm, .Al~
personally appeared -s. <fl-an A;g-//h , who proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose name('SJ is~ subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he/s~/d:iey executed the same his/fi'tu'/t~ir authorized capacity~s), and that by
his/h'&(tlroi.r signature(~on the instrument the person("S{ or the entity upon behalf of which the person~)
acted, executed the instrument.
I certifY under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of CalifOrnia that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
SEAL:
~-"",&'b* ,e & e e e flee & J
APRIL M. JOHNSON ~· Notary Public-California :
~ San Francisco County >
Commission# 2218664 -
My Comm. Expires Nov 13, 2021
WITNESS, my hand and official seal.
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 3 of21
A-3
The foregoing conveyance is hereby accepted and the undersigned agrees, by this acceptance, to assume
and be bound by all the obligations, conditions, covenants and agreements therein contained.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, _t\ A't o &.,
.:It.(' ( \.1 \1 . 1>u.. Vt 0 \1~ c:_
I
Date LD {a ot I d €) l'4
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accurac , or validit of that document.
State of California )
) ss.
County of L,-. Provek-s )
On lO I ;lA I ~o~C\ before me,"'~t'~ :P.ri'Ma.\/~=Ta¥-a..o\<.c....1 .,~fJb\ic.
perso~ally apperu:ed ;::J.e_ cr 'i \1 · l::>u.n ov ~c:.. . . , who pro~ed. to. me on the basis
of satlsfaclory evulence lo be lhe ptl'SOll(;i}whose name(S1 IS/~ subscnbcd to the W!thm mstrument, and
acknowledged to me that he/sheftl;l.ey executed the same his/her/t~r authorized capacity(i_esJ-, and that by
his/heWtheVsignature,kBJon the instrument the personfs) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS, my hand and official seal.
6.-~A-~ SEAL
(Signature of Notary Pubh
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 4 of21
A-4
EXHIBIT A
Released Property
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
IN THE CITY OF HANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF
PARCEL II AS DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 79-1370945
AND ALL OF THE LAND DESCHIBED IN THE TAX DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER
20101442666, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS·
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD (50-FOOT HALF WIDTH).
SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID TAX DEED, AS SHOWN ON THE
RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 255 PAGES 75-79 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
RECORDER;
THENCE SOUTH 11'15'55" EAST 6.6-1 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID TAX DEED TO
THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL II; THENCE SOUTH 11 "15'55" EAST 347.05 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL II;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL II, SOUTH 83'23'30" WEST 342.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
43'34'47" WEST 387.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55"06'13" WEST 208.35 FEET; TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY, SAID ANGLE POINT BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY
TERMINUS OF THE COURSE BEARING NORTH 42'55'00" EAST WITH A DISTANCE OF 232.01 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE
BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 4 THE FOLLOWING 9 COURSES:
THENCE NORTH 47'05'00" WEST 201.42 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 42"55'00" EAST 215.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 47"05'00" WEST 160.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42'55'00" WEST 215.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 47"05'00" WEST 130.19 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 43'41'26" EAST 73.72 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05"17'23"WEST 110.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 84'42'37" EAST 195.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 62'30'25" EAST 110.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID HAWTHORNE
BOULEVARD. BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.20 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 31'10'03" WEST;
I H~N<,;I: b(!U'I'HEASTERLY 329.55 FEET ALONG 3AID CURVC AND SAID f11GIIT OF WilY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
34"19'07" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2480.22
FEET; THENCE NORTHFA.~TFRIY 426.94 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'51'46" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 415,944 SQUARE FEET (9.549 ACRES). MORE OR LESS.
ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
SHEET 1 OF 1
THIS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE PROFESSIOr,AL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT.
4/10/2019
PATRICK D. EARL, P.L.S. 8773 (CA) DATE
THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.-22541 ASP AN ST., STE. C-LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630-PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 5 of21
A-5
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 1 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
_UillJild
@QJ PLOTABLE EASEMENT
XXX NON-PLOTTED EASEMENT
P.O.B f'OINT OF BEGINNING
BOUNDARY OF LAND DESCRIBED
··---·--·--CEI,JTERLINE
----RIGHT-OF-WAY
EASEMENT
LOT LINE
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION
PARCEL
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL I Of" RSB 255/75-79
PARCEL .1 OF RSB 255/75--79
PARCEL 4 OF RSB 255/75-79
PARCEL 5 Of RSB 255/75-79
PARCEL II OF INST. NO. 79-1370945
PORTION OF PARCEL B OF INST. NO. 79-13 7094 5
PARCEL C OF IN ST. 1'10. 79 ·-137094 5
LAND DESCRIBED lbl INST. NO. 201014426G6
EASEMENTS LISTED HEREON PER FII<ST AMERICAN TITU: COMPI;NY PRELIMINARY REPORT #OSA--2913952.
DATED DECEMBER 28. 2017 AT 7:30AM
NON-EASElviENT ENCUMBFIAI~CES (TAXES, LEASES, LAND RESTRICTIONS, ETC.) AS OUTLINED II'! THE
EXCEPTIONS AblD EXCLUSIONS SECTION OF SAID PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ARE NOT SHOWN OR INCLUDED
IN THIS DOCUiv\EI~T
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARII<GS SHOWI-1 HEREOI~ ARC BASED 01~ THE REC.OHO OF SURVEY RECORDED II' BOOK 25!:J c'/\GLS
75·· 79 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER
411012019
PATRICK D. EARL, P.l.S. 8773 (Gil) DATE
THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
KDM MERIDIAN, INC. -22541 ASPAN ST, STE. C -LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630 -PH. (949)768-0731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City ofRancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 6 of21
A-6
EXHIBIT "8'' SHEET 2 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXISTING EASEMENTS
104
m
AN EASEMCNT rOR f'IPE LINE PURPOSES AND 11-ICIDENTA_ PURPOSlS IN fAVOR OF PALOS VEROCS WMf:R
COMPANY, f•. CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 25, 19.)4 IN flOOK 12886, f'AGE 27'• OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
VAfdOUS EASE ME I~TS THROUGHOUT Cil Y, NOT PLOTTED.
AN EASE!.1LNT FOR ROADS OR STRCET /1ND I~ICIOENT.I\L PURPOSES ;i~ ff,VOR OF' THf COUNTY Of cOS
Af'.iGELCS, RECORDED NOVEMBER 4. 19fi4 AS INSTI'IUMCNT NO. 5377 OF OFfiCIAL RECORDS.
EASEMEt,TS FOR PUflUC ROAD P.I•ID HIGHWAY PURPOSES, STORM DRAINS, SLOPES, M~D INCIDENTAL PURPOSCS
11'1 FAVOR Of THE COUNTY Or LOS ANGELES, RECORDED SEPTEk1Rr:R 19, 1963 A.S INSTRUMENT NO. 5516 Of
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
f,N [ASCMENT l 0 CONSTRUCT. USE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE. AL'IER ADO TO, REP!'.IR, REPLACE, RCCONSTRUCT,
INSPECT M"D RE.MOVl AT ANY TiME AND FROfA liME TO Tl~i[ UNDERGROUND ElECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS
AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (Ht:RUNAFTER REFERRFD TO AS "SYSTEMS"j, CONSSTING oF WIRES,
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLES, VAULTS, MANHOLES, lii\NOHOLCS, AND INCLUDING ABOVE-CROUI"D
ENCLOSURES, i•'ARI<ERS ANfl CONCRETE PADS ANO INCIDENTAL PUIWOS[S IN FAVOR OF SOUIH£RN U.LIFORNi1\
EDISON COMPANY, ,; CORPORATION, RECOI<DED APRIL 8, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO, 80-353760 OF OfFICIJIL
RCCOROS.
AN £ASOAEN1 TO CONS'IRIJCl, USE, MAINTA:N, OPfRATf:, ALTER, ADD TO, REPAIR, REPLACE, R(CONSTRUCT,
INSPECT AND RCMOVC Ai ANY iiME AN\J FROM TIM[ TO TIME UND£RGROUND t:LECIRICAL SUPPlY SYSTCMS
AND COI·,\MUNiCA.TION SYSTEMS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "SYSTEMS"), CONSISliNG OF WIRES.
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLES, VAULTS, MAMiOLES, HANDHOLES, AND INCLUDING APPURTENANT FIXTURE
AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSCS IN FAVOR OF SOU1H£RN CAUFORNIA EOiSNJ COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
RECORDED FEBRUARY H, I 95-:. AS INSTRLJMEN I NO. 84 .. i 91 64 4 OF OFFII-W RfCORDS.
KN' MERIDIAN, INC. -22541 ASPAN SL, STE. C -LAKE FOREST, CA. 926.30 -PH. (949)768-0731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City ofRancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 7 of21
A-7
\
\
I
S~E SHEET 4
EXHIBIT "B"
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
!
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
,/
--~--------
.,;.,. ,,.
---... ~--
/
I
I
I
I
--N00'10'0H'"F
SHEET 3 OF 4
SEESHEE:T 4
KDM MERIDIAN. INC.· 22541 ASP AN ST .. STE. C ·LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 ·PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 8 of21
A-8
0'
I
:;,o· 100' ---:=1
SEE SHEET 3
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
fi
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT "B"
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
;r.
SHEET 4 OF 4
SEE SHEET 3
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.· 22541 ASPAN ST.. STE. C-LAKE f'OREST. CA. 92630 ·PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 9 of21
A-9
EXHIBITC
Form of the Declaration of Restrictions
Recording requested by and
when recorded mail to:
City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Address 3o'i4-P l-l-a.w\1r'lo>"il\·~ e\veL
City, Zip '?>ll-"'c~o Pa.~0c; ()erolt-\ CA
lfo 2. iS
No Fee Recording Pursuant to
Government Code Section ;). -, -og .3
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made this _a day of 0c..\-o~~019 by the
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation existing under the laws
of State of California acting by and through the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes ("Declarant") and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA acting by and through the
General Services of Administration ("GSA") under and pursuant to the powers and
authority contained in Title 40, U.S. Code§ 553 (b).
Recitals:
A. On October 30th, 1979 the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior
("DOl"), and as authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder, conveyed to Declarant 75.53
acres of real property, more or less, located in Rancho Palos Verdes, California (the
"Property"), as more fully described in a quitclaim deed recorded in the Official Records
of Los Angeles County, California on December 6, 1979 as Instrument No.79-1370945
(the "Quitclaim Deed"). The Quitclaim Deed corrected errors in the legal description
and acreage figures contained in the original quitclaim deed for the Property recorded in
the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California on September 27, 1978 as
Instrument No. 78-1074154.
B. The Property was conveyed and accepted by Declarant upon the express
condition that the Property was to be used exclusively for public park and recreational
purposes pursuant to certain restrictions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the
Quitclaim Deed (collectively, the "Park Restrictions").
C. Declarant has determined it no longer needs all of the Property for park and
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City ofRancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 10 of21
A-10
recreation area purposes, and desires to utilize a portion of the Property, consisting of
approximately 9.549 acres, as more fully described on Exhibits A and B attached hereto
and made a part hereof (the "Released Property"), for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes.
D. On April 1Oth, 2019, Declarant submitted an application including Program of
Utilization and plan ("April 2019 Application") to the Department of Justice and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for transfer of the Released Property to their
public benefit conveyance programs, and both agencies have accepted and approved
Declarant's April 2019 Application.
E. GSA has advised DOl by letter dated September 20th, 2019, that it concurs with
releasing all Park Restrictions placed upon the Released Property in exchange for
subjecting the Released Property to restrictions for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes.
F. Declarant has agreed to impose on the Property, in exchange for the release of
the Park Restrictions from the Released Property, restrictive covenants to ensure that
the Released Property will be used solely for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes in perpetuity.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Declarant does hereby declare, covenant, and agree, for itself and its
successors and assigns, that the Released Property shall hereafter and perpetually be
held and conveyed subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
1. Subject to the requirement to provide public parking and trailhead access as rnore
particularly set forth in Paragraph 2 below, the Released Property shall be used and
maintained exclusively for law enforcement and emergency management response
purposes in perpetuity as set forth in the April 2019 Application, as may be amended
from time to time at the written request of either Declarant or GSA, with the written
conqmence of the other party, and such amendments will be added to and become
a part of the original application.
2. Declarant shall continue to provide public parking and trailhead access from the
Released Property to the adjoining Upper Point Vicente Park in perpetuity as stated
in the Program of Utilization for the Upper Point Vicente Park dated March 1st, 1976,
as amended by the proposal concurred with by NPS on September 14, 2014, and as
amended by the amendment as stated by NPS in its approval dated August 9, 2019.
3. The Released Property shall not be sold, leased, assigned or otherwise disposed of
except to another eligible governmental agency that GSA approves in writing. Any
such disposition shall assure the continued use and maintenance of the Released
Property for law enforcement and emergency management response purposes
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 11 of21
A-11
subject to the same terms and conditions in this Declaration of Restrictions. Any
mortgage, lien, bond, or any other encumbrance not wholly subordinate to the
interest of the United States of America in this Declaration of Restrictions shall
constitute an impermissible disposal.
4. Declarant acknowledges that it was placed on notice that the Released Property is
located within an area of known, listed threatened and/or endangered species and/or
critical habitat, including the endangered "Coastal California Gnatcatcher" (Polioptila
californica), protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.
1531, et seq.). Declarant acknowledges that it has the legal obligation to satisfy the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
5. Declarant further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that:
(1) any use, operation, program or activity on or related to the Released Property will
be conducted in compliance with all Federal laws and regulations relating to
nondiscrimination, including but not limited to the following laws and regulations as
such may be amended from time to time: (a) the regulations of GSA at 41 CFR 101-
4 et. seq; 41 CFR 101-6.2 et. seq; 41 CFR 101-8.3 et. seq; and 41 CFR 101-8.7 et.
seq.: (b) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (c) Title Ill of the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975, (d) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and (e) the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; (2) this covenant shall be subject in all respects
to the provisions of said laws and regulations; (3) GSA, its successors and assigns,
will promptly take and continue to take such action as may be necessary to
effectuate this covenant; (4) the United States shall have the right to seek judicial
enforcement of this covenant; (5) GSA, its successors and assigns, will (a) obtain
from each other person (any legal entity) who, through contractual or other
arrangements with GSA, its successors or assigns, is authorized to provide services
or benefits on or in connection with the Released Property, a written agreement
pursuant to which such other person shall, with respect to the services or benefits
which he is authorized to provide, undertake for himself the same obligations as
those imposed upon GSA, its successors and assigns, by this covenant, and (b)
furnish a copy of such agreement to GSA or his successor or assign; and (6) this
covenant shall run with the land , and shall in any event, without regard to technical
classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent
permitted by law and equity for the benefit of, and in favor of the Declarant and
enforceable by the Declarant against GSA, its successors and assigns.
6. Declarant, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend, protect, save and
hold harmless United States, its employees, officers, attorneys, agents, and
representatives from and against any and all debts, duties, obligations, liabilities, law
suits, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, costs, and expenses
(including without limitation attorneys' fees and expenses, consultant fees and
expenses, expert fees and expenses, and court costs) arising out of any claim for
personal injury or property damage (including death, illness, or loss of or damage to
real or personal property or economic loss) that relates to Declarant's failure to
comply with the terms of this Declaration of Restrictions or from the use or
occupancy of the Released Property by Declarant, its successors, assigns,
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 12 of21
A-12
transferees, invitees, or agents.
7. GSA has the right of entry upon the Released Property for the purposes of
evaluating Declarant's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Declaration
of Restrictions.
8. In the event that there is a breach by Declarant, its successors and assigns, of any
of the covenants, conditions or restrictions set forth herein, whether caused by the
legal or other inability of Declarant, its successors and assigns, to perform said
covenants, conditions or restrictions, GSA will give written notice, with a reasonable
time stated therein, for the elimination, rectification or cure of said breach. Upon
failure to eliminate, rectify or cure said breach within the time set forth in the notice,
all right, title, and interest in and to the Released Property shall, at GSA's option,
revert to and become the property of GSA. In addition to all other remedies for such
breach, Declarant, its successors and assigns, at GSA's option, shall forfeit all right,
title, and interest in any and all of the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances
thereunto belonging.
9. The failure of the GSA to require in any one or more instances complete
performance of any of the conditions or covenants shall not be construed as a
waiver or relinquishment of such future performance, but obligation of the Declarant,
its successors and assigns, with respect to such future performance shall continue in
full force and effect.
1 O.ln the event GSA exercises its option to revert all right, title, and interest in the
Released Property to GSA, or Declarant voluntarily returns title to the Released
Property in lieu of a reverter, then Declarant shall provide protection to and
maintenance of the Released Property at all times until such time as the title is actually
reverted or returned to and accepted by GSA, including the period of any notice of
intent to revert. Such protection and maintenance shall, at a minimum, conform to the
standards prescribed by GSA in its regulations 41 CFR 102-75.815 as such may be
amended.
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 13 of21
A-13
GSA:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Acting by and through the
Administrator of General Services
By:
David Haase, Contracting Officer
Director, Real Property Utilization and Disposal Division,
U.S. General Services Administration \) ·C,}.~) '<''"" •.•. (?_( ... :; ..
DECLARANT:
BY:
JERRY DUHOVIC, Mayor
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City ofRancho Palos Verdes, Califomia
. l'~ :...\ \.-"' .........
)·'
'\~: ..... ~~ ()~
Page 14 of21
A-14
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate 1s attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of )
On _________ , before me,-------------------'
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared --------------~~~---7-----.---------'
Name(s) ofSigne.r--(sz).c;)'-/,. 0 .c~\
·~ \ ,.,-,, '<:-../
who pro~ed to me o? the basis of ,,~tJs~@bry.'" e(\d@l~ ),to be the person(s) whose
name(s) 1s/are subscnbed to the ·?j~itli'Jn .ms-~ti.i'e~tJ.-and ac~owledged. t~ me that
he/she/they executed the . sam~),,... m _ ),h~s/her/the1r authonzed capacity(Ies), and
tha~ by his/her/:4~i~ \, .. )\signature(~'), Cbi( the instrum~nt the person(s), or the
ent1ty upon beha!Lof "'(hiG-h the perstlp(s) acted, executed the mstrument.
. 'l \ /<' ·" ~,r}·_ '"' /' ''1 \. •<( '·-'
I certify und'&r:'PENA"bl.~~)Of' PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoi~,g;fa(~~'a6n is true and correct.
c.;>·· ...
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature cifNotary Public
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
(Notary Public Seal)
Page 15 of21
A-15
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate IS attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of )
.... '). c\ e ;\ On _________ , before me, _______ "\¥. ''-. """u,__· -,-"c-:' ---;:rir.::,>,..::··::::._.~-:-:c-_____ ,
li;~me ~ftd Ti_tle$£,t!1e Officer Date
personally appeared -------l"",..,""s'""""':\'-·\\ __ ::z_~?--;-:-_·-~_,~~)"'"--~-~·_C_)::_ .... _}·_~ ________ ,,
>( ,Narn)e(~~~f-~gner (s)
' •'\ :"'"'') \....~ \'"··\ ... __ ,.~
who proved to me;'fl~\tfle b~t1i~.:>;, 6:1? satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are -~Q;~ci'ibeq,... -t?)-~:,the·· within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed ,JI-g! .. \/ same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies ), and
that by ~i~zr~th~ir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon bel;~lfOfwhich the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ofNotary Public
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City ofRancho Palos Verdes, California
(Notary Public Seal)
Page 16 of21
A-16
EXHIBIT ''A" SHEET 1 OF 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF·
PARCEL II AS DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 6. 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 79-1370945
AND ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE TAX DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 2010AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER
20101442666, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT·OF-WAY OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD (50-FOOT HALF WIDTH).
SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID TAX DEED. AS SHOWN ON THE
. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 255 PAGES 75-79 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY. RECORDS OF Si<ID COUNTY
RECORDER:
THENCE SOUTH 11'15'55" EAST 6.67 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID TAX DEED TO
THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PI<RCEL II; THENCE SOUTH 11''15'55" EAST 347.05 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL II:
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL II, SOUTH 83"23'30' WEST 342.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
43"34'47" WEST 387.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55"06'13" WEST 208.35 FEET: TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY, SAID ANGLE POINT BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY
TERMINUS OF THE COURSE BEARING NORTH 42"55'00" EAST WITH A DISTANCE OF 232.01 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE
BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 4 THE FOLLOWING 9 COURSES:
THENCE NORTH 47"05'00" WEST 201.42 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 42"55'00" EAST 215.01 FEET;
lHENCE NORTH 47"05'00" WEST 160.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42"55'00" WEST 215.01 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 47"05'00" WEST 130.19 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 43"41'26" EAST 73.72 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05"17'23'. WEST 110.Q1 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 64"42'37" EAST 195.01 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 62"30'25'. EAST 110.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT .OF-WAY OF SAID HAWTHORNE
BOULEVARD, BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.20 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 31"10'03"WEST;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 329.55 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID RIGHT-OF·WAY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
34"19'07" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2480.22
FEET: THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 426.94 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09"51'46" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
THF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 415,944 SQUARE FEET (9.549 ACRES). MORE OR LESS.
ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
THIS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT.
4/10/2019
PATRICK D. EARL. P.L.S. 8773 (CA) DATE
THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
KDM MERIDIAN, INC .• 22541 ASP AN ST., STE. C ·LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630 ·PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Attachment G-1
Page 17of21
A-17
EXHIBIT "8" SHEET 1 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
[i~j] PLOTABLE EASEMENT
XXX NON-PLOTTED EASEMENT
P.O.B POINT OF BEGINNING
GOUNDAflY OF LAND DESCRIBED
·····-···-······-~ ----··· CENTERLINE
--------F~IGHl··OF-WAY
--·· ··---------EASEMENT
PA~CEL IDENTIFICATION
PARCEL i PARCEL OF RSB 255/75-79 PI>.RCEL II OF INST. NO. 79-I 370945
PARCEl. 3 PARCEL
PAFlCEL 4 •• PARCEL
PARCEL 5 I'·'ARCEL
OF RSG 255/75--79 ~ f'OilliON OF PARCEL 8 OF INST. NO. 79-'13709''5
OF RSB 255/75-79 -PAf<CEL C or· INST. NO. 79--1.370945
OF RSB 255/75-79 LAND DESCRIBED IN INST. NO. 20101442656
EASEMENTS LISlE:O HEREON PER FII\ST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY f'REUI,W"-!ARY REPORT #OSA--2913952.
DArED DECEMBER 28, 2017 i<T "7:30AM
NON--EASEMENT EI~CUMBRANCES (TAXES, l.E/'.SES, Lii!'ID RESTRICTIONS, [TC.) AS OUlUNED IN THE
EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS SfCTION OF SAID Pf,ELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ARE NOT SHOWN OR INC! UDED
IN THIS DOCUMENT
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE llfARINGS SHOWN HmEQI~ ARE BASCO 01~ THE RECOI~D OF SUfNEY Rt:CORDFD IN BOOK 7o!\ f'AGFS
75-79 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, F'ECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER
4/10/2019
PATRICK D. EARL, P.L.S. 8773 (CII) Di<TE
THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
KOM MERIDIAN, INC. -225'•1 ASPAN Sl., STE. C LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630 •· PH. (949)768-07.\1
Attachment G-2
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 18 of21
A-18
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 2 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXISTING EASEMENTS
104 A~ CASEMENT FOR PIPE UN[ PURPOSfS AND INCIDENIAL PURPOSlS IN FAVOR OJ PALOS VF.RDCS WAT[R
COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1934 IN BOOK 1 ?886, PAGE 274 OF OFFICiAL RECORDS.
VARIOUS EASE,~ENTS THROUGHOUT CITY, NOT PLOTTED.
AN f:ASEMENT FOR ROADS OR STREET AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF IHE COUNTY Of LOS
ANGELES, RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO. :0377 OF OrriCIAL RECORDS.
EASEI,jENTS fOR PUBLIC ROAD AND I·IIGHWAY PURPOSES, STORM DRAINS, SLOPES, AND INCI8CNTAL PURPOSES
IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF LOS Ai,GEI.FS, RECORDED SI:PTEMBER 19, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 5516 Of
OFFICIAL RfCORDS.
N< EASEMENT TO CONSTRUCT, USE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, ALTER, ADD TO, REPAIR, REPLACE, RECONSTRUCT,
INSPECT ft.ND REMOVI: AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUrPLY SYSTEMS
AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "SYSTEMS"), CONSISTING OF WIRES.
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLE.S, VAULTS, MANHOLES, HANDHOLES, AND INCLUDING ABOVE-GROUND
ENCLOSURES, MARI<E':RS AND CONCRETE PADS AI<D INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECOfWED APRIL 8, 1980 AS INSTRUMEI~T NO. 80-.353760 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
AN EASEMENT TO CONSTRUCT, USC, MAINTAIN, OPERATE. ALllR, ADD TO, RlPAIR, REPLACE, RECONSTRUCT.
INSPECT AND REMOVE Al ANY TIME AI") FROM TiM[ lO TIME UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTf.MS
AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "SYSTEMS"), CONSISTI"G OF WIRES,
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLt:S. VAULTS, MANHOLES, HANDHOLES, AN[) INCLUDING APPURTENANT FIXTURE
AI"[) INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTI-iERfi CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1984 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 84-191644 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
KDM MERIDIAN, INC. -22541 ASPAN ST., STE. C -LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630 -PH. (949)768-0731
Attachment G-3
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed ofPartial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 19of21
A-19
o· so· 1 no' . _===:J
SCALE: 1"~ 100'
\
\
I
SEE SHEET 4
EXHIBIT "8" SHEET 3 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
/srso(4f~-/ -cR;o)
/ P.O.B.
DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
N00'10'08"F 515.12' -... _
/\(_)~
~ ',/'\<~)/
~-. <-, \ .
(\<..')'"'
v
SEE SHEET 4
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.· 22541 AS PAN ST .. STE. C ·LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 ·PH. (949)768-0731 Fp;)( (949) 768-3731
Attachment G-4
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 20 of21
A-20
0' 50' 100' . -··:::::::J
SCALE: I"= I a·o·
SEE SHEET3
II
I
110.01'
N0:,'17'23"W
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 4 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEE SHEET 3
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.-22541 ASP AN ST., STE C-LAKE FOREST. CA. 92630 ·PH. (949)768-{)731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Upper Point Vicente Park-Deed of Partial Release
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Attachment G-5
Page 21 of21
A-21
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1088-AF
Recording requested by and
when recorded mail to:
City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
AddresS30940 Hawthorne Blvd
City, Zip Rancho Palos Verdes CA
90275
No Fee Recording Pursuant to
Government Code Section 2 7 3 8 3
*20191169279*
\ ·,.
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made this 22nd day of October, 2019 by
the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of State of California acting by and through the City Council of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes ("Declarant") and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA acting by and
through the General Services of Administration ("GSA") under and pursuant to the
powers and authority contained in Title 40, U.S. Code§ 553 (b).
Recitals:
A. On October 30th, 1979 the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior
("DOl"), and as authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder, conveyed to Declarant 75.53
acres of real property, more or less, located in Rancho Palos Verdes, California (the
"Property"), as more fully described in a quitclaim deed recorded in the Official Records
of Los Angeles County, California on December 6, 1979 as Instrument No. 79-1370945
(the "Quitclaim Deed"). The Quitclaim Deed corrected errors in the legal description
and acreage figures contained in the original quitclaim deed for the Property recorded in
the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California on September 27, 1978 as
Instrument No. 78-1074154.
B. The 'Property was conveyed and accepted by Declarant upon the express
condition that the Property was to be used exclusively for public park and recreational
purposes pursuant to certain restrictions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the
Quitclaim Deed (collectively, the "Park Restrictions").
Page 1 of 12
A-22
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
C. Declarant has determined it no longer needs all of the Property for park and
recreation area purposes, and desires to utilize a portion of the Property, consisting of
approximately 9.549 acres, as more fully described on Exhibits A and B attached hereto
and made a part hereof (the "Released Property"), for law enforcement and emergency .
management response purposes.
D. On April 10th, 2019, Declarant submitted an application including Program of
Utilization and plan ("April 2019 Application") to the Department of Justice and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for transfer of the Released Property to their
public benefit conveyance programs, and both agencies have accepted and approved
Declarant's April 2019 Application.
E. GSA has advised DOl by letter dated September 20th, 2019, that it concurs with
releasing all Park Restrictions placed upon the Released Property in exchangefor
subjecting the Released Property to restrictions for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes.
F. DeClarant has agreed to impose on the Property, in exchange for the release of
the Park Restrictions from the Released Property, restrictive covenants to ensure that
the Released Property will be used solely for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes in perpetuity.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Declarant does hereby declare, covenant, and agree, for itself and its
successors and assigns, that the Released Property shall hereafter and perpetually be
held and conveyed subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
1. Subject to the requirement to provide public parking and trailhead access as more
particularly set forth in Paragraph 2 below, the Released Property shall be used and
maintained exclusively for law enforcement and emergency management response
purposes in perpetuity as set forth in the April 2019 Application, as may be amended
from time to time at the written request of either Declarant or GSA, with the written
concurrence of the other party, and such amendments will be added to and become
a part of the original application.
2. Declarant shall continue to provide public parking and trailhead access from the
Released Property to the adjoining Upper Point Vicente Park in perpetuity as stated
in the Program of Utilization for the Upper Point Vicente Park dated March 1st, 1976,
as amended by the proposal concurred with by NPS on September 14th, 2014, and
as amended by the amendment as stated by NPS in its approval dated August 9th,
2019.
Page 2 of 12
A-23
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
3. The Released Property shall not be sold, leased, assigned or otherwise disposed of
except to another eligible governmental agency that GSA approves in writing. Any
such disposition shall assure the continued use and maintenance of the Released
Property for law enforcement and emergency management response purposes
subject to the same terms and conditions in this Declaration of Restrictions. Any
mortgage, lien, bond, or any other encumbrance not wholly subordinate to the
interest of the United States of America in this Declaration of Restrictions shall
constitute an impermissible disposal.
4. Declarant acknowledges that it was placed on notice that the Released Property is
located within an area of known, listed threatened and/or endangered species and/or
critical habitat, including the endangered "Coastal California Gnatcatcher" (Polioptila
californica), protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.
1531, et seq.). Declarant acknowledges that it has the legal obligation to satisfy the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
5. Declarant further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that:
(1) any use, operation, program or activity on or related to the Released Property will
be conducted in compliance with all Federal laws and regulations relating to
nondiscrimination, including but not limited to the following laws and regulations as
such may be amended from time to time: (a) the regulations of GSA at 41 CFR 101-
4 et. seq; 41 CFR 101-6.2 et. seq; 41 CFR 101-8.3 et. seq; and 41 CFR 101-8.7 et.
seq.: (b) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (c) Title Ill of the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975, (d) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and (e) the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; (2) this covenant shall be subject in all respects
to the provisions of said laws and regulations; (3) GSA, its successors and assigns,
will promptly take and continue to take such action as may be necessary to
effectuate this covenant; (4) the United States shall have the right to seek judicial
enforcement of this covenant; (5) GSA, its successors and assigns, will (a) obtain
from each other person (any legal entity) who, through contractual or other
arrangements with GSA, its successors or assigns, is authorized to provide services
or benefits on or in connection with the Released Property, a written agreement
pursuant to which such other person shall, with respect to the services or benefits
which he is authorized to provide, undertake for himself the same obligations as
those imposed upon GSA, its successors and assigns, by this covenant, and (b)
furnish a copy of such agreement to GSA or his successor or assign; and (6) this
covenant shall run with the land , and shall in any event, without regard to technical
classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent
permitted by law and equity for the benefit of, and in favor of the Declarant and
enforceable by the Declarant against GSA, its successors and assigns.
6. Declarant, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend, protect, save and
hold harmless United States, its employees, officers, attorneys, agents, and
Page 3 of 12
A-24
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1088-AF
representatives from and against any and all debts, duties, obligations, liabilities, law
suits, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, costs, and expenses
(including without limitation attorneys' fees and expenses, consultant fees and
expenses, expert fees and expenses, and court costs) arising out of any claim for
personal injury or property damage (including death, illness, or loss of or damage to
real or personal property or economic loss) that relates to Declarant's failure to
comply with the terms of this Declaration of Restrictions or from the use or
occupancy of the Released Property by Declarant, its successors, assigns,
transferees, invitees, or agents.
7. GSA has the right of entry upon the Released Property for the purposes of
evaluating Declarant's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Declaration
of Restrictions.
8. In the event that there is a breach by Declarant, its successors and assigns, of any
of the covenants, conditions or restrictions set forth herein, whether caused by the
legal or other inability of Declarant, its successors and assigns, to perform said
covenants, conditions or restrictions, GSA will give written notice, with a reasonable
time stated therein, for the elimination, rectification or cure of said breach. Upon
failure to eliminate, rectify or cure said breach within the time set forth in the notice,
all right, title, and interest in and to the Released Property shall, at GSA's option,
revert to and become the property of GSA. In addition to all other remedies for such
breach, Declarant, its successors and assigns, at GSA's option, shall forfeit all right,
title, and interest in any and all of the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances
thereunto belonging.
9. The failure of the GSA to require in any one or more instances complete
performance of any of the conditions or covenants shall not be construed as a
waiver or relinquishment of such future performance, but obligation of the Declarant,
its successors and assigns, with respect to such future performance shall continue in
full force and effect.
1 O.ln the event GSA exercises its option to revert all right, title, and interest in the
Released Property to GSA, or Declarant voluntarily returns title to the Released
Property in lieu of a reverter, then Declarant shall provide protection to and
maintenance of the Released Property at all times until such time as the title is
actually reverted or returned to and accepted by GSA, including the period of any
notice of intent to revert. Such protection and maintenance shall, at a minimum,
conform to the standards prescribed by GSA in its regulations 41 CFR 102-75.815
as such may be amended.
Page 4 of 12
A-25
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
GSA:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Acting by and through the
Administrator of General Services
By:
"Cl Haas ntracting Officer
Director, Real Property Utilization and Disposal Division
U.S. General Services Administration
DECLARANT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BY:
UH VIC, Mayor
'I..Jft..ll_U. ... , ancho Palos Verdes, California
Page 5 of 12
A-26
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of )
On DJo\u "2-2 1 J.v {q, before me,\¥v '( ~~"t-{ \; \Jot-~ ~VV/U(:,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personallyappeared ~ ~
N arne ofSigner {,5ff
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose
name0 is/tlfe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/~/t;he;r executed the same in his~/tfteito authorized capacity(~, and
that by his/lter/#teff signature0 on the instrument the · person~, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person~ acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~ ~ • o o • ~H;Y;A;H: • • f
; ]i • Notary Pubhc • Cilifornia :
I ~ • S;tn Francisco County f
' • . ..,. Commission II 22~5563 ~
"'• My Comm. Expires Jul 4, 2022
Signature of Notary Public (Notary Public Seal)
Page 6 of 12
A-27
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
On \ o la.'\ ~.;lo\ '1.
ate
)
)
, before me, '"\"ef-e.s.Cl.5·vo,:-IY)o.\Lero....:-ta.¥,a 0 \o:a .1 l"D~"'f pJ0h~
Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared ____ :Tt=-..ce~-r'---'01'---'~------'\)"---. _V_' ""'\.l'--~-=o=-v"'-'\'--"C........__ ________ ,
Name(s) of Signer (s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(:s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same m his/4eflthfu authorized capacity(jp5}, and
that by his/her/thcif signature~ on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
1gnature of Notary Pu 1c
l TERES• PRIMAVERA-TAKAOKA • ! ~ Notary Public -California ~
j: ~ Los Angeles County ~ l ~~.!)' commission# 2290614 J
~ ~My (Ofll'TI. Ex.oires Jun 16. 2023
(Notary Public Seal)
Page 7 of 12
A-28
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1088-AF
EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF
PARCEL II AS DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 79·1370945
AND ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE TAX DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER
20101442666, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT·.OF-WAY OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD (50-FOOT HALF WIDTH).
SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THe LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID TAX DEED, AS SHOWN ON THE
RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 255 PAGES 75·79 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
RECORDER;
THENCE SOUTH 11'15'55" EAST 6.67 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID TAX DEED TO
THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL il; THENCE SOUTH 11 '15'55" EAST 347.05 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL II;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL II, SOUTH 83"23'30" WEST 342.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
43"34'47'' WEST 387.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55"06'13" WEST 208.35 FEET; TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 4 AS SHOWIN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY, SAID ANGLE POINT BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY
TERMINUS OF THE COURSE BEArliNG NORTH 42"55'00" EAST WITH A DISTANCE OF 232.Q1 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE
BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 4 THE FOLLOWING 9 COURSES:
THENCE NORTH 4 7"05'00" WEST 201.42 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 42"55'CIO" EAST 215.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 47'05'00" WEST 160.42 FEET;
THENCF. SOUTH 42'55'00" WEST 215.01 FEET;
THE'NCE NORTH 47"05'00" WEST 130.19 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 43"41'26" EAST 73.72 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 05"17'23" WEST 110,01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 84'42'37" EAST 195 01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 62'30'25" EAST 110.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID HAWTHORNE
BOULEVARD, BEING A CURVE CONCAVE 10 THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.20 FEET. A RADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 3·f"10'03"WEST;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 329.55 FEET ALONG SAID GUF1VE AND SAID RIGH'I -0~-WAY I HRCJUGH A (;£0NTRAL ANCiLE OF
34"19'07' TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND !·lAVING A RADIUS OF 2480.22
FEET, THI.:NCE NORTIICABTCRL Y 420.9•1 FCET ALONG SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING AlONG SAif1RIGHT-OF-WAY
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'51'46' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 415.944 SQUARE FEET (9.549 ACRES), MORE OR LESS.
ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
THIS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE PROFESSiONAL 'LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT.
k 4110/2019
Po-A-:-:T::-::R:-IC""K.,-D"'."'E:-:Ac=R,-L,-=P:-:.L--:.S::-.-,:8=:77:::3-;(C=A) --· .. ---·-··-----'-:::DA:-;T:,E,_;c.-
TI·IIS DOCUMENT IS PREI.IMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
KDM MERIDIAN, INC. -22541 ASP AN ST., STE. C-LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630 ·PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Attachment G-1
Page 8 of 12
A-29
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
EXHIBIT "Bu SHEET 1 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
[ill PLO'IABL[ CAS[M[Nl
XXX NON-PLOTIUJ [ASEMlNl
P.0.8 POINT OF BEGINNING
BOUNDARY OF LMW DESCRIBED
-------------· ----------CFNTERLJNE
--------RIGHT--OF-WAY
------·---LOT Lli'IE
PARCEL IDEI\IllFIC6_liON
P/,RCEL PARCEL 1 Of RSB 255/75-· 79 PARCEL. II or JNST, NO. 79-1370945
PARCEL .3 PARCEL 3 OF RSB 2~)~)/75-79 PORTION or PARCEL 8 OF INSl. NO. 79 -'1370945
PARCEL 4 I·'ARCE.L OF RSB 255/7~-79 i>ARCEL. c OF INST. NO. 79--137094 5
PARCEL 5 PARCEL OF RSB 255/75---79 LAND DlSCRJI3ED iN INST. NO. 20101442666
EASEMENTS L!STEO Hf.Rf.OJ< P£11 FIRST AMERICAN TITI.f COMPAI'IY PRELIMINARY REPORT #OSA-2913952,
DATED DECEMBCR 28, 2017 AT 7:30AM
NON-EASEMENT ENCUMBRANCES (1AXES, LEASES, LAND RESTRIC'IIONS, ETC.) AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXCI'YTIONS Al\0 fXCI.U~iiOI"S SCCTION OF SAID PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ARE I~OT SHOWN OR INCLUDED
IN llllS DOCUMENT
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE RECORD OF SURVF.Y RECORDED IN BOOK 255 f'AG[S
7:0--19 OF" RECORDS OF SURVEY. RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDeR
/""? ?-----~ --------------PATRICK D EARL, P.L.S. 8773 (CA)
THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
4/1012019
DATE
J<DM MERIDIAN, INC. • 22541 ASPAN ST, STE. C -LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 -PH. (949)768-0731
Attachment G-2
Page 9 of 12
A-30
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
EXHIBIT 11 8"
SHEET 2 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXISTING EASEMENTS
104 AN EASEMENT FOR PIPE LINE PURPOSES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF PALOS VERDES WATER
COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1934 IN BOOK 12886, PAGE 274 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
VARIOUS EASEMENTS THROUGHOUT CITY, NOT PLOTTED.
AN EASEMENT FOR ROADS OR STREET AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1964 AS INSTRUMEI'JT NO. 5377 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES, STORM DRAINS, SLOPES, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES
IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECORDED SEPTEMBE.R 19, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 55'16 Of
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AN EASEMENT TO CONSTRUCT, USE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, ALTER, ADD TO, REPAIR, REPLACE, RECONSTRUCT,
INSPECT AND REMOVE AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS
AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "SYSTEMS"), CONSISTING OF WIRES.
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLES, VAULTS, MANHOLES, HANDHOLES, AND INCLUDING ABOVE-GROUND
ENCLOSURES, MARKERS AND CONCRETE PADS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED APRIL 8, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-353760 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
AN EASEMENT TO CONSTRUCT, USE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, ALTER, ADD TO, REPAIR, REPLACE, RECONSTRUCT,
INSPECT AND REMOVE AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS
AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "SYSTEMS"), CONSISTING OF WIRES,
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLES, VAULTS, MANHOLES, HANDHOLES, AND INCLUDING APPURTENANT FIXTURE
AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1984 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 84-191644 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
KDM MERIDIAN, INC. -22541 ASPAN ST., STE. C LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630 PH. (949)768-0731
Attachment G-3
Page 10 of 12
A-31
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
o· 50' 100' EXHIBIT "8"
SCALE: 1 "= 1 00'
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
\
I
SEE SHEET 4
..
0'> I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------
DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 3 OF 4
N00'10'08"E 515.12'-
.,
SEE SHEET 4
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.-22541 ASPAN ST., STE. C-LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630-PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Attachment G-4
Page 11 of 12
A-32
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1 088-AF
0' 50' EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 4 OF 4
/1
I
SEE SHEET 3
110.01'
N05'17'23"W
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEE SHEET3
BEARING
N62'30'25"E
S31'10'03"W (RAD)
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.-22541 AS PAN ST., STE. C-LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630-PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Attachment G-5
Page 12 of 12
A-33
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/29/2019
AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign and execute
agreements with the United States government releasing and adding deed restrictions
over the Civic Center property.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign and execute the agreements.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst /f1'1f7
REVIEWED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager\f\1\/'J
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. September 3, 2019 staff report (page A-1)
B. Deed of Partial Release and Declaration of Restrictions (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Earlier this year, the City received formal approval from the federal government to
transfer oversight of the Civic Center property on Hawthorne Boulevard from the
National Park Service (NPS) to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) on
behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
The transfer culminates a 25-year effort to lift longstanding restrictions that limit uses of
the property, a former Nike missile post that has been home to Rancho Palos Verdes
City Hall since the 1970s.
In September 2019, NPS notified the GSA that NPS had agreed to release passive
recreational covenants from 9.5 acres of the Civic Center property. GSA, acting on behalf
of the federal government and DOJ and FEMA, will replace those passive recreational
covenants with law enforcement and emergency management covenants. This change
will enable the City to add public safety uses to the Civic Center site, such as a fire
8-1
station, Sheriff's Department substation, an upgraded helipad and a state-of-the-art
emergency operations center.
A map showing the property area can be found in the September 3, 2019 staff report
that accompanied an update to the City Council (Attachment A).
The agreement before the council tonight (Attachment B) will release and replace these
restrictions. By entering the agreement, the City agrees to ensure the 9.5-acre portion of
the Civic Center site will be used solely for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes in perpetuity.
Staff therefore recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the partial deed
release and declaration of restrictions.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council's consideration:
1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements.
8-2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/03/2019
AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Receive and file a land use update regarding the Civic Center property
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a land use update regarding the Civic Center property
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager Vt}
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City ManagerL/1-v--J
ATTACHMENTS:
A) Map of area under the Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Since the Civic Center property was acquired from the federal government as part of the
National Park Service's (NPS) Federal Lands to Parks Program, it has been under
oversight of the NPS and significant conservation easements have been in place on
part of the property, thus limiting the uses of the property. At the Council's direction,
Staff has been addressing these limitations with the federal government.
Attachment A shows the Civic Center property. The area in yellow is restricted to
"general government use." The area in red has been restricted to "passive recreational
use."
Over the past 25 years, the City reached out to the NPS numerous instances attempting
to lift the existing deed restrictions on the red outlined area, but to no avail. Due to the
public safety priorities of the City Council, the City requested the NPS allow the
placement of public safety facilities, such as a fire station, Sheriff's Department
substation, updated helipad, and emergency operations center, on the Civic Center
property. Though the City fully believes these were allowable as supporting amenities to
the open space area in the event of a fire or major disaster, and because the area is a
8-3
gravel parking lot and existing helipad -meaning no recreational value would be lost-
NPS refused to qualify these as such. Staff was directed by the City Council to
concurrently pursue legislative and administrative options.
Councilwoman Brooks and Mayor Pro Tern John Cruikshank served on the Civic Center
subcommittee, and Mayor Duhovic, Councilwoman Brooks and City Manager Willmore
attended a number of meetings with Congressional representatives, and members of
different agencies in Washington, D.C. to discuss the deed restrictions on the property
and potential uses in depth. City Manager Willmore made eight separate trips to
Washington, D.C. over the past two years to continue work on this issue. Based on the
recommended direction of Ralph Conner of the General Services Administration (GSA),
and Dan Smith, Acting Director of the NPS, staff filed paperwork with the GSA to
convey the oversight of the property to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for public safety uses.
Rancho Palos Verdes has now received formal approval from all agencies involved -
GSA, DOJ, FEMA and NPS-to transfer oversight of the subject property from NPS to
DOJ and FEMA (with GSA acting as their agent). Thus, the allowed use of the property
has changed from passive recreation to public safety uses. Again, attachment A shows
the area with general government use restrictions in yellow, and the area that is
reverting to DOJ, FEMA, and GSA oversight for public safety use outlined in red. This
additional 9.48 acres would allow for much needed public safety improvements and
facilities.
GSA has informed the City that it expects the new deeds to be recorded within the next
several weeks.
It is important to acknowledge the entire City Council, and especially Councilwoman
Brooks, for its commitment and tireless work on this initiative. Also, Tim Stewart of
American Capitol Group, Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn and her Chief of
Staff Nick Ippolito, Senator Dianne Feinstein and her staff, Rep. Ted Lieu and his staff,
Rep. Rob Bishop, the House Committee on Natural Resources staff, Ralph Conner of
the GSA, NPS Acting Director Dan Smith, Elena Gerli of Aleshire & Wynder, and all City
staff who worked tirelessly on this project, but especially Gabriella Yap and Kit Fox.
8-4
0
0 <(
<( c:o
0> "": I'-0> r...: II
II ~ ~ ro
ro "'0
"'0 c
c ::::s
::::s 0
0 m m .... .... (I) -(I) c -(I) c
(I) 0
0 u 0 u ·::; <( :~ 0 I'-
0 "'0 "!
Ol (I) I'-
c (/J
~ 0 II c. (/J 0 ")( .... w 0..
Recording requested by:
When recorded mail to:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
9.549 Acres in Nike 55, Point Vicente
GSA Control No. 9-D-CA-1088-AF
DEED OF PARTIAL RELEASE
This Deed of Release (this "Release") is from THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and
through the undersigned Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, under and pursuant
to the power and authority contained in the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended (the "Act"), and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder
(hereinafter designated "Grantor"), to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation existing
under the laws ofthe State of California ("Grantee"), and its assigns.
Recitals:
A. On October 30, 1979, Grantor conveyed to Grantee, pursuant to authority delegated by the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and as authorized by the Act and regulations and orders
promulgated thereunder, 75.53 acres of real property, more or less, located in Rancho Palos Verdes,
California (the "Park Property"), as more fully described in the Quitclaim Deed dated October 30, 1979,
and recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California on December 6, 1979 as Instrument
No.79-1370945 (the "Quitclaim Deed"). The Quitclaim Deed corrected errors in the legal description and
acreage figures contained in the original quitclaim deed for the Park Property which was executed on
August 25, 1978 and recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California on September 27,
1978 as Instrument No. 78-1074154.
B. The Park Property was conveyed to Grantee upon the express condition that the Park Property was
to be used exclusively for public park and recreational purposes and certain restrictions were expressly set
forth as paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Quitclaim Deed (collectively, the "Restrictions").
C. Subsequent to the said conveyance of Park Property, Grantee determined it no longer needs all of
the Park Property for park and recreation area purposes, and sought to utilize a portion of the Park Property,
consisting of a tract of approximately 9.549 acres, as more fully described on Exhibits A and B attached
hereto and made a part hereof (the "Released Property"), for law enforcement and emergency services
purposes.
D. The Grantee has requested that the Released Property be released from public park and recreation
area covenants, and that it be made subject to the covenants of the Law Enforcement public benefit
conveyance program administered by the Department of Justice, and the Emergency Management Response
public benefit conveyance program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
B-6
E. The Grantee has applied to the Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for transfer of the Released Property to their public benefit conveyance programs, and both agencies
have accepted Grantee's applications.
F. The General Services Administration has advised the National Park Service by letter dated
September 20, 2019, that it concurs with releasing all Restrictions set forth in the Quitclaim Deed placed
upon the Released Property for public park and recreational purposes and for the replacement of those
restrictive covenants on the Released Property with those of the law enforcement and emergency
management program restrictive covenants.
G. This Deed of Release has no effect on the remainder of the Park Property not included with the
Released Property (the "Unaffected Park Property").
NOW, THEREFORE, the said Regional Director, acting on behalf of the United States of America,
does hereby release the Released Property from Restrictions 1-8 placed upon it in the Quitclaim Deed,
including, without limitation, the requirement that the Released Property be used exclusively for public park
and recreational purposes. This Release does not affect, and the Released Property remains subject to, all
legal easements, leases, agreements, rights-of-way, and other restrictions.
In consideration of the release of the Released Property from the Restrictions, Grantee has on this
same day entered into a Declaration of Restrictions with the United States of America, acting by and
through the General Services Administration, whereby Grantee will pledge certain rights and interests in the
Released Property to the United States of America, acting by and through the General Services
Administration. The form of the Declaration of Restrictions is attached as EXHffiiT C to this Release.
This Release does not affect the Unaffected Park Property, and the covenants and restrictions of the
Quitclaim Deed remain unmodified and in full force and effect with respect to the Unaffected Park Property.
----------------------------------------Remainder of page intentionally left blank --------------------------------------
B-7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Deed or Release to be executed in its name
and on its behalf on this the day of , 2019.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior
By: ____________ _
Stan Austin
Regional Director, Pacific West Region
National Park Service
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accurac , or validit of that document.
State of California
County of San Francisco
)
) ss.
)
On ____________ before me,-----------------
personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS, my hand and official seal.
SEAL:
(Signature of Notary Public)
B-8
The foregoing conveyance is hereby accepted and the undersigned agrees, by this acceptance, to assume
and be bound by all the obligations, conditions, covenants and agreements therein contained.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, ___ _
BY-------------------
Date __________ __
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accurac , or validit of that document.
State of California
County of ______ _
)
) ss.
)
On ___________________ beforeme, __________________ __
personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS, my hand and official seal.
SEAL:
(Signature of Notary Public)
B-9
EXHIBIT A
Released Property
EXHIBIT '-'A" SHEET 'I OF 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO I'ALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BEING A PORTION OF
PAHGEL II AS DESCHIBED IN THE OUITClAIM DEED RECOROI:D DECEMBER 6, 10lU 1\S INSrHUMt:NT NUMBER 70-1370845
AND ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THC TAX DEED HE CORDED OCTOBEH 8, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBEH
20101442666, 80TH OF OFFICIAl liECOHDS, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY HECOHDER OF SAID COUNlY,
DESCRIBED AS FOI. LOWS:
BEGINNING AT A f'OINT IN THE SOUTHEASTEI<L Y RIGHT ·OF-WAY OF HAWlHORNE 80ULf:VAHD (5Q .. FOOT HALF WIDTH).
SAID POINT BEING THE' MOST NOfHHEHL Y COHNER OF THE: LAND OESGHIHED IN SAiD lAX DEED. AS SHOWN ON THE
HECORO OF SUHVEY HE CORDED iN !lOOK 255 PAGES 75-I(J OF HECORDS OF SUHVEY, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
HEGOHDER;
THENCE SOUTH 1 1'15'55" EAST 6.tl7 FEET ALONG TI·!E E'AST EHL Y LINE OF 1HF LAND DESGf~IBED IN SAID TAX DEED TO
THE NORTHEASTEHLY CORNER OF SAID Pt,HCEl. II: THENCE SOUTH 11"15'55" EAST :l47.05 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL II:
THENCC LEAVING SAID EASTEHl.Y LINE OF PAHCEL 11, SOUTH 8:l"23'30"WEST 342.65 FEET: THENCE SOUTH
43'34'47" WEST 387.84 FEET, THENCE NORTH 55"0H'1:l" WEST 208.:.15 FEET: TO AN r,NGl E POINT IN THE EASTEHLY
BOUNDARY OF f'AHCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON SAID HE CORD OF SUHVE Y, SAID ANGLE POINT BEING THE NOHTHEASTU1t.Y
TEHMINUS OF THF COUHSE BEAHING NOHTH 42''55'00" EAST WITH A OISTANGE OF 232.01 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE
BOUNDARY OF SAIO PARCEL 4 THE FOLLOWING 9 COUf~SFS:
THENCE NORTH 4'1'05'00' WEST 201.42 FEET;
!'HENCE NORTH 42'·55'00" EAST 215.o1 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 4'1'05'00" WESf 160.42 FEET:
THENCE SOUTH 42''55'00" WEST 215.01 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 47'05'00" WEST 130.19 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 4:l"41'2G" EAST 73.72 FEET:
THENCE NOfHH 06'1'1'23' WEST 110.01 FEET:
THENCE NORTH 134'42'37" EAST 195.01 FEEl';
THENCE NOHT H B2'30'25" f'I\ST 110.17 FEET TO A POINT IN ·1 HE. SOUTHWESTEHLY HKiHT·OF.WAY OF SAID HA\NTHOHNE
BOULEVARD BEING A CUHVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.20 FEET, A HADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEAI<S SOUTH 31"10'03"WEST:
THENCE SOUTHEASTE'HLY J29.55 FEET ALONG S/>,11) CUHVE liND SAID Ri(il-ff .. ()F.WAY THHOUGH A CI'NTf1AI. ANGLE OF
:!4"19'07" TO THF BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CUIWE, CONCAVE TO THE NOHTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2480.22
FEET; THENCE NOHTHEASTERI.. Y 42G.94 FEET ALONG SAID CuRVE ANO CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
THROUGH A CENTHAL ANGLE OF 09"51'46'' TO THE POINT OF lllzOiNNING.
THE AflOVI:' DESCRIBED PARCH OF LAND C:ONlAINS 415,944 SQUAHE FEET (9.54\J AC:I1t'S), MOHE OR LESS.
ALL AS $HOWN ON EXHIBIT "fl" ATTAGHEO HERETO AND MADE A f"AHT THEREOF.
THIS Hf'AL Pl'lOf'ERlY OESCHIPIION HAS BE'f:'N Pf~EPAHEO tlY ME, OH UNDER MY 011\ECTION. IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE PHOFFSSIONAL LAND SUHVEYOH'S ACT.
4/'1012019
PATf~ICK D EAf~L:r>i::iiii773 (CA)_,.. . .................. ..-·~------.. , b/\1'f''-
THIS DOGUMENl' IS PHEUMINI\HY UNLESS SIGNED
KDM MERIDIAN, INC.-22541 ASP AN ST.. STE' C • LAKE FOREST, CA. 92630-PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3/31
B-10
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 1 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FLOTAllLE C.ASEMFNT
r•.O.O POIHi Of HCGINNING
80UND/lJiY OF LAND DESC!UlLD
················· ····~·· C:ENTCf~LINE
LOT LIN£
PARCEL 1QE.h!II.E.tC8TLON
P AfXC:LL 1 .... PNICFL Of I~C)fl
P,f\t.\;CEL ~) ... f"AfXCf:L :.s or FSL~
PAFiCLl PARCEl 4 OF r6B
r'AFICLi. [) f'AHCLL " or I!SB
PA1~CEL II OF !NST. NO, 79····i37{.V14::~
i"'Of(li()N OF PAfXCLL Ei OF IN9. NO. ?9· 1 :1'1094 ~:,
PARCEL C Of !I~ST. NO. /9··· U/0\H~:'
LAND Df.':>CR18LD IN INST, NO. 21Yl0H4266G
FN\CMFNT5 LIO:i ![f) HE PEON P[R F li':~]T AMLF\ICAN TITLE COMPA!''' PHFUf~IHAr<Y REf"OIH #USA···· 79' 39b2,
OAILD m·CEMBCR /8, 20 i I AT 7::10AM
LAND RESTfiiC110NS, fTC.) AS OUTLINeD IN THE NON·· i'.N.\CMFNT C NCUMilFIAHCTS
E.XCEJ'fl IONS AND EXCLUSIONS TITU: PEPOiH AHI' NOT SHOWN Ole INCLUDU)
IN 1HIS DOCUMCNT
BA51S OF BEAR.LNQ~
TH[ BEARINGS ~)>IOWN HEREON i\1\F ElNiCD ON TH[ !<[CORD Of SURVEY RECOIWLO 11<1 BOOK 2~,5 F'AGFS
/b ·· 79 OF 1\CCOHJS OF SURVEY, PLCCJ'XD'i Of <.OS ANGU.FS COUNTY RECORDER
4!10/201!1 ....................... ___ _
DATE
KDM MEf~l!h\N. INC.
B-11
1C4
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 2 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PUPPCSfS IN FAVOR 01 PA•.OS VERDES WA'IEP
!N bO(A< 12886, PA(,f. 214 OF OFf i( IAL RfCOPOS.
PUFPOSLS iN FAvOR {)F i d[ COUNI\ Of' tO~.~
NO, b3JJ OF OfFlt)At fXF'Cor;:os.
fOF? f>UHUC ROJ\0 AN() hi(;HW/W PUi<POSES. ~;TORM DRAINS,
01· ThE COU0(!Y OF LOS 1\HGC.I.fS. FECOHUU) Si:PllMilf:F 19,
HECOHD~~-
U<C,C, MAIN1AIH, OPCHXIC:. ALTEk,
TIME AND fROM WJL 10 fiME "'"."""'""'"'
I'?Ci'LRRF(:> 10 AS
ANI) INC!D[Mft\L PURPOSES
iNSTRUU[Hl NO. SS' b ()f
8-12
0' t\0' i()()'
-.:=:=:=-!
SCALE: 1 ",,I 00'
\
\
:c \
\ ~ \
\\\
\1'1 \
I
I \ \ ~
\ \
J
SEE SHEET 4
EXHIBIT "B"
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
'··· :1
'v·'· \\
', /i\ \Fq$}:o/.. \1
<Jl
\\
\\
\\
~
~
l
t
I
\
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
" ~ ... "-' ··~ "'• ~
DETAIL
NOf"'ro SCALE.
' ,,
\
\
J
SHEET 3 OF 4
SEE SHELl 4
KDM MERIDIAN, INC ... 22541 ASPAN ST, STE. C-LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-PH. (949)768·0731 FAX (949) '768 .. 3731
B-13
EXHIBIT "8" SHEET 4 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEE SHCET :l SEE SHEFf 3
KOM MERIDIAN, INC · 22541 ASP AN ST,, STE. C-LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 ·PH_ (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768·3131
B-14
EXHIBITC
Form of the Declaration of Restrictions
Recording requested by and
when recorded mail to:
City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Address
City, Zip
No Fee Recording Pursuant to
Government Code Section __ _
SPACE ABOVE TillS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made this __ day of __ , 2019 by the
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation existing under the laws
of State of California acting by and through the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes ("Declarant") and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA acting by and through the
General Services of Administration ("GSA") under and pursuant to the powers and
authority contained in Title 40, U.S. Code§ 553 (b).
Recitals:
A On October 30th, 1979 the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior
("DOl"), and as authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder, conveyed to Declarant 75.53
acres of real property, more or less, located in Rancho Palos Verdes, California (the
"Property"), as more fully described in a quitclaim deed recorded in the Official Records
of Los Angeles County, California on December 6, 1979 as Instrument No.79-1370945
(the "Quitclaim Deed"). The Quitclaim Deed corrected errors in the legal description
and acreage figures contained in the original quitclaim deed for the Property recorded in
the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California on September 27, 1978 as
Instrument No. 78-1074154.
B. The Property was conveyed and accepted by Declarant upon the express
condition that the Property was to be used exclusively for public park and recreational
purposes pursuant to certain restrictions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the
Quitclaim Deed (collectively, the "Park Restrictions").
C. Declarant has determined it no longer needs all of the Property for park and
B-15
recreation area purposes, and desires to utilize a portion of the Property, consisting of
approximately 9.549 acres, as more fully described on Exhibits A and B attached hereto
and made a part hereof (the "Released Property"), for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes.
D. On April 1Oth, 2019, Declarant submitted an application including Program of
Utilization and plan ("April 2019 Application") to the Department of Justice and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for transfer of the Released Property to their
public benefit conveyance programs, and both agencies have accepted and approved
Declarant's April 2019 Application.
E. GSA has advised DOl by letter dated September 20th, 2019, that it concurs with
releasing all Park Restrictions placed upon the Released Property in exchange for
subjecting the Released Property to restrictions for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes.
F. Declarant has agreed to impose on the Property, in exchange for the release of
the Park Restrictions from the Released Property, restrictive covenants to ensure that
the Released Property will be used solely for law enforcement and emergency
management response purposes in perpetuity.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Declarant does hereby declare, covenant, and agree, for itself and its
successors and assigns, that the Released Property shall hereafter and perpetually be
held and conveyed subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
1. Subject to the requirement to provide public parking and trailhead access as more
particularly set forth in Paragraph 2 below, the Released Property shall be used and
maintained exclusively for law enforcement and emergency management response
purposes in perpetuity as set forth in the April 2019 Application, as may be amended
from time to time at the written request of either Declarant or GSA, with the written
concurrence of the other party, and such amendments will be added to and become
a part of the original application.
2. Declarant shall continue to provide public parking and trailhead access from the
Released Property to the adjoining Upper Point Vicente Park in perpetuity as stated
in the Program of Utilization for the Upper Point Vicente Park dated March 1st, 1976,
as amended by the proposal concurred with by NPS on September 14, 2014, and as
amended by the amendment as stated by NPS in its approval dated August 9, 2019.
3. The Released Property shall not be sold, leased, assigned or otherwise disposed of
except to another eligible governmental agency that GSA approves in writing. Any
such disposition shall assure the continued use and maintenance of the Released
Property for law enforcement and emergency management response purposes
B-16
subject to the same terms and conditions in this Declaration of Restrictions. Any
mortgage, lien, bond, or any other encumbrance not wholly subordinate to the
interest of the United States of America in this Declaration of Restrictions shall
constitute an impermissible disposal.
4. Declarant acknowledges that it was placed on notice that the Released Property is
located within an area of known, listed threatened and/or endangered species and/or
critical habitat, including the endangered "Coastal California Gnatcatcher" (Polioptila
californica), protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.
1531, et seq.). Declarant acknowledges that it has the legal obligation to satisfy the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
5. Declarant further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that:
(1) any use, operation, program or activity on or related to the Released Property will
be conducted in compliance with all Federal laws and regulations relating to
nondiscrimination, including but not limited to the following laws and regulations as
such may be amended from time to time: (a) the regulations of GSA at 41 CFR 101-
4 et. seq; 41 CFR 101-6.2 et. seq; 41 CFR 101-8.3 et. seq; and 41 CFR 101-8.7 et.
seq.: (b) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (c) Title Ill of the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975, (d) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and (e) the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; (2) this covenant shall be subject in all respects
to the provisions of said laws and regulations; (3) GSA, its successors and assigns,
will promptly take and continue to take such action as may be necessary to
effectuate this covenant; (4) the United States shall have the right to seek judicial
enforcement of this covenant; (5) GSA, its successors and assigns, will (a) obtain
from each other person (any legal entity) who, through contractual or other
arrangements with GSA, its successors or assigns, is authorized to provide services
or benefits on or in connection with the Released Property, a written agreement
pursuant to which such other person shall, with respect to the services or benefits
which he is authorized to provide, undertake for himself the same obligations as
those imposed upon GSA, its successors and assigns, by this covenant, and (b)
furnish a copy of such agreement to GSA or his successor or assign; and (6) this
covenant shall run with the land , and shall in any event, without regard to technical
classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent
permitted by law and equity for the benefit of, and in favor of the Declarant and
enforceable by the Declarant against GSA, its successors and assigns.
6. Declarant, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend, protect, save and
hold harmless United States, its employees, officers, attorneys, agents, and
representatives from and against any and all debts, duties, obligations, liabilities, law
suits, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, costs, and expenses
(including without limitation attorneys' fees and expenses, consultant fees and
expenses, expert fees and expenses, and court costs) arising out of any claim for
personal injury or property damage (including death, illness, or loss of or damage to
real or personal property or economic loss) that relates to Declarant's failure to
comply with the terms of this Declaration of Restrictions or from the use or
occupancy of the Released Property by Declarant, its successors, assigns,
B-17
transferees, invitees, or agents.
7. GSA has the right of entry upon the Released Property for the purposes of
evaluating Declarant's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Declaration
of Restrictions.
8. In the event that there is a breach by Declarant, its successors and assigns, of any
of the covenants, conditions or restrictions set forth herein, whether caused by the
legal or other inability of Declarant, its successors and assigns, to perform said
covenants, conditions or restrictions, GSA will give written notice, with a reasonable
time stated therein, for the elimination, rectification or cure of said breach. Upon
failure to eliminate, rectify or cure said breach within the time set forth in the notice,
all right, title, and interest in and to the Released Property shall, at GSA's option,
revert to and become the property of GSA In addition to all other remedies for such
breach, Declarant, its successors and assigns, at GSA's option, shall forfeit all right,
title, and interest in any and all of the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances
thereunto belonging.
9. The failure of the GSA to require in any one or more instances complete
performance of any of the conditions or covenants shall not be construed as a
waiver or relinquishment of such future performance, but obligation of the Declarant,
its successors and assigns, with respect to such future performance shall continue in
full force and effect.
1 O.ln the event GSA exercises its option to revert all right, title, and interest in the
Released Property to GSA, or Declarant voluntarily returns title to the Released
Property in lieu of a reverter, then Declarant shall provide protection to and
maintenance of the Released Property at all times until such time as the title is actually
reverted or returned to and accepted by GSA, including the period of any notice of
intent to revert. Such protection and maintenance shall, at a minimum, conform to the
standards prescribed by GSA in its regulations 41 CFR 102-75.815 as such may be
amended.
B-18
GSA:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Acting by and through the
Administrator of General Services
By:
David Haase, Contracting Officer
Director, Real Property Utilization and Disposal Division
U.S. General Services Administration
DECLARANT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BY:
JERRY DUHOVIC, Mayor
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
B-19
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of )
On ________ , before me,---------,----.,--,----.,-------'
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared ------------------------'
Name(s) of Signer (s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same m his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and
that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Slale of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary Public (Notary Public Seal)
B-20
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of )
On , before me, , ----------------------------------------------------Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared -------------------------------------------'
Name(s) of Signer (s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and
that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary Public (Notary Public Seal)
B-21
EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
IN 1HE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VF:HDES, COUNTY OF I. OS ANGELES, STArt: Of: CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF
PARCEl. II AS DESCRIBED IN lHf:': OUITCtAIM DEED RECOHOED DECEMBER G, 1079 A:; INSTRUMENT NUMBER 70-137()946
AND 1\LL OF Hllc LAND Df:'SCRIHE:D IN THE TAX DEED 11ECORDED OC1'0BER H, 2010 AS INSTilUMENl NUMBER
20101442fJM, BOTH OF OFFICIAL HECOI<DS, RECOHDED IN THE OfHCE OF THE COIJN'!Y HfCORDfiH OF SAID COUI'HY,
OCSCRIBED AS r()U.OWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN l'HE SOUTHEASTER!. Y HK1H1'·0F-WAY OF HAWl'HOHNE 80ULf:VAHD (51HOOT HALF V'JIDTH),
SAIOI'OINT BEING THE MOST NOHTHERLY CORNEl< OF lllf:': LAND DESCHillED IN SAil) TAX DEED. AS SHOWN ON THE
RE'COHD OF SUHVEY RECOHDFD IN BOOK 255 PAGI':':~> 15·79 OF HECOHDS OF Sl!RVf:Y, HECOHDS OF SAl{,) COUNTY
REGORDFR;
THENCE SOUTH 11"15'55. EASl6.07 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY UNf: OF THE Lfll,iD OESCHIBED IN SAID TAX DEED TO
THE NORfHf:ASTEHLY CORNER OF Sf1ID PM<CEL II: THENCE SOUTH 11'15'55" EAST 341 Q(i Fl'f'l ALONG THE EASTERLY
LINE Of SAID PAHCEL 1!:
THENCE LEAVING SAID fN>TERLY LINE OF PARCH II, SOUTH 83"23'30" WEST :142.65 FEET: THENCE SOU'lli
4:~~:H'41" WPST 387.84 FEET: THENCE NOHTH 55'00"1:!" WEST 208.35 FEET: lOAN ANGt.C POINT IN TH!" f.:I\Sl f':RLV
B()UNDIII<Y OF PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON ~>f1ID REGOI<D OF SUf<VEY, SAil) ANGLE POIN'r BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY
TERMINUS OF JHE COUJ<SE !lEAHING NDRiH 42"SiYOO" EAST WilH A DISTANCE OF 23201 FEET. THENCE AtoNG THf:
HOUNDAHY OF SAID PIIHCEL4 THE fOI.I .. OV'AN(J 9 GOUI<Sl'$:
THENCE NOI'TH 47'0&'1lil" WEST 201.42 FEET;
'!'HENCE NOI<TH 42'55'00" FAST 215 01 fEET:
THENCE NORTH 47''05'00" VV!'ST 100.42 FCET,
THENCE SOUTH 42'.55'()()·· WEST 215.01 FEF1:
THENCE NOHTH 47'·os·oo"WESI 1~lO.W fEET:
THENCE NOHTH 43"41'20" EAST ?;JJ? FEET:
THFNCF NOI{TH 05'17'23"WEST 1111.01 fEEl';
THENCE NOHTH 84"42'37" EAST 105.01 FEET.
THENCE NORTH 62' 30'25' EAST 110,17 FEET TO A PO!NT IN THE SOUTHWESH'.HtY RIGHT·OF.WAY OF SAl[) HAWTHOHNE
fiOUJ.eVI1HD. BEING A CUHVE CONCAVE TO HW: NOHTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550 20 Pf:'I:'T, A RADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEAHS SOUTH 3 I' 10'03' WEST:
lHFNCF SOUTHEASTERLY 329.o5 FEET ALONG SAIO CURVE AND SAID RIGHI-OF-WAY THROUGH II CENlHAL ANGLE OF
34"19'0'1" TO THE f:\EGINNIN(; OF A COMPOUND CUHVE, CONCAVE TO THE NOHIH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2480.22
FCf:T: THENCE NOHlllf:'ASTI:>I<LY 426 94 PEEr ALONG SAID CUHVE AND CONfiNIJING ALONG SAID HiGHl'·OHN.AY
THROUGH A CF.:NTHALANGLE OF OW!l1'4W TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCI'IBED PAHCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 415,\144 BOUARE FEET {9.549 ACHES), MORE 011 LESS_
AU. AS SHOWN ON EXHII11l "B" AHACHED HEHCTO AND MADE A PNH l HI"Hf::OF.
TillS HEAL PROPERTY DFSCWI'TION HA:> BEEN PllEPAFlED BY ME OR UNDEH MY DII<ECTION, iN CONFORMANCE WllH
THE PHOFESSIONAL lAND SUIWI':VOH'S ACT.
4!10i2019 ..................... , ..... .,-~-
OATE
KI)M MERIDIAN, INC. • :l2ii41 ASP AN ST., STE. C-LAKE FOI<EST, CA. H26:lO, PH. (9491768-0731 FAX (94(!) '16!ki731
Attachment G-1
B-22
EXHIBIT "B 11 SHEET 1 OF 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.!,f,;(;r.:tiJ2
[~~jj PLOTt\HLL LA:;LMLN1
CCNTEFIUNC
f"AFCU .. 1 Pt~RCf.L 1 ()!" ~-~ P/h.PCLL ll Of ;q~)'f. N(>. 79 .. ··13/0fH~)
PN!CU. 5 ... PAHC£L :\ or P{)?rl"i()N OF PARCCL Of' iNS!. NO, 79··· 1 .~ /094 ~>
et~ncu. 4 """' PAHCCL '-l Df !)1\1\(f.l C Of !NST. 79 .... J 5709<! ~~
PAECLl 5 F/\HCLL ~·} or LAh\.) U.:S!..~R!GfD lt~ 1N~>T. NO. 2:0i014426bb
CASU ... ~ ENE; USHJ) HEl~C:OP.J PEh FH:.-::~,T AM :·mCAH TflU: CCMF'/\t{Y FRi. UttA!Ni\HY HLPOf'(! !/0Sf~~<~9159~.?.
UAlCD Dc:n:.MbU~ 2H, )01 / 1\f 7:30AM
ON lHL
Of LOS
Of ~)Ui~VEY
COUNTY
.~110i?.O!g .... p{;TRI(ii<li""Eft:i'it:i;i::S iiiiii{Ci\)---~--··· ································-DATE
HilS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINAFY UNLESS SIGNED
AS (;Uli..!f'..JCO !H THC
Af~F NO'! ~-~HOWN {l?~ INCLUDED
22~~-4 1 ASPAN S1., SF:. C U\i<.E f'{)P[~Ji, CA. 92G3C
At!achment G-2
8-23
EXHIBIT "8" SHEETZ OF4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EX!STING EASEM£NTS
104 AN [AStMENI FOR F'if'l LIN[ PURPOSfS AND INCIDLNlAl. PVWOSI5 IN FAVOP or PAI .. O;> VFROLS WAIFR
COIA!'ANY, A CCI<i''ORHION. RECORDED AUGUST 2c•, 19.)4 IN l:lOOI< 1?886, PAG[ 2?4 Of OfFICIAL .'<ECORDS.
VARIOUS EASE>.>I(:NTS THROUGHOUT t;!TY, NOT Pt()Tf[l).
AN fASHKNl' FOR ROADS OR STREO AN() INCID[NTAI. i"URPOSES IN FAVOR OF Hf COUNTY Of i.OS
ANCEL.ES, >'<[CORDFD NOVlMBlR 4, 1964 AS iNS'lRUMfNT NO. SJ 7/ OF OiTICIAL RFCOHDS.
FASEM£NTS FOR "UBi.IC: fi(JAD AWJ liiGPWAY PUIXPOSES. STORM DfiAINS, SLOPfS, AND INCIOtNTAL PURPOSES
IN FAVOR Of THE CQUHIY OF LOS ANGfl.fS, HECORD[I) Sti·'TCMBLi' 19. 1953 AS INSTRUMeNT NO. 5c,16 Of
OfT!ClAL FCCOI,DS,
N~ lASEMEN! TO CONSHUCT, USC. MAINTAIN, OPtRA!l. Al.TF.R, 1\[1!) TO, R[PAIR, REPLACE. fiECOHSTHU.:.T,
IHSPECT AI'ID IXEMOVI:: 1\T .~NY TIME AN!) FP()M T;ME TC liM£ VNDmGROU'iD E'l.ECTRICAt :;Uf'PLY SY>; lEMS
AND C0~/MiJN!CAliCIN S'(ST[MS (HEf\UNAfff.R RtfL.W·n:D TO AS ··~.::.YSTEMS"), CC!NSiS'f!Nr:; UF W!RlS.
\JNDiYGROUNO CCWluiTS, Ct.8LES, VAULTS, MANHUL[';, i'IANDI-i0L£c;, AHD INCLUDING ABOVE-(;f<OUND
I"NCLO:;URCS, MARI<IYS AND CONCf~ET[ PADS AND INCIDeNTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CAL!f'OflHIP.
fll!SON CQMf'ANY, A CORPORAl ION, REC(H<llW N'R!L 8. 1980 A.S >NSmuMENT NO. 80-353760 OF OFfiCIAL
f<ECORDS.
AN EASfMfNf lO CONSIRUCT, USC. MAINTAIN, OFCI<AT(, .4LlcR, ADD TO, Rli'AIR, Rf.Pl.l\CE. R£CGNSTRU('T,
!NSPEC .AND r<t:MOVE Al A''Y liM£ AND F'ROM TIM[ ·10 TIME UNOCI<Gf~OUN[) FLCCTRICi\L Sl'PPI.:r SYSTE:MS
fiND C<.'>MMUN>CNION SfSTFMS (HEREINAflfl< REFeRReD !0 AS "SY51fMS"). CONSISTING OF WIRES.
UNI:>ERGROU"'D CONDUITS, CABLES, VAUUS, MANHOLES, HAND HOI. ES, AN(i INCLUDIN(~ APPURTENANT f!XldR£
AND INCI;)ENTAL PURPI)S[S IN FI\V()R OF SOUTH[RN CAUFORNIA EDJ:;ON COMPAHY, A CORPOf<AliON,
RECOi<Dl.T> ITBRUARY 14, 1984 I>S iNSTRUMENT NO. 84-1916·11 OF orttCJA.L RECCH<DS.
KDM MEH!DiAN. iNC -22:>41 1\SP.AH ST, SlE. C -I.A><f. FOREST, CA.. t<ltl:lO -f'i'l, (949)768-·0/.li
Attachment G-3
B-24
0' 50' 100' -=-::::::::::1 SCALE: 1", 100'
\
\
\
\
I SEE Llt JAIL
\ :>0'
so· \ ·
SEE SHEET 4
EXHIBIT "B"
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
J
I
;
I
/
/
!. , soo' 4G'S-,':ll· ..--""'"
/ ,... ;\~M!) I
I
'
1.
!
l
l
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r'.o.s . ..J
DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
/ /,./
/
I
I
'
SHEET 3 OF 4
515.12'
SEE SHEET 4
KDM MERIDIAN, INC ·· 22541 ASP AN ST, STE. C ·LAKE FOREST. CA 92630. PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Attachment G-4
B-25
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 4 Of 4
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET :l
/
KDM MERIDIAN, INC. • 22541 ASP AN ST., STE. C -LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-PH. (949)768-0731 FAX (949) 768-3731
Attachment G-5
B-26
October 17, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND CONFIRMED BY U.S. MAIL
Mayor Jerry Duhovic
jerry. duhovic@rpvca. gov
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Green Hills I Brian Campbell
I applaud your decision to delay the discussion regarding Green Hills I
Brian Campbell until after the election. Might I further suggest:
1. I don't understand why these two items --the Green Hills
closed session leak investigation and the Brian Campbell issue --are
going to be heard together. The investigation has not implicated Brian
Campbell in the leak. Given that result, shouldn't these two items be
heard as separate discussion items?
2. I don't understand why the deliberations over whether to
sue Brian Campbell should be heard in open session at all. I think the
appropriate procedure is to properly agendize it --giving the city
residents notice that in closed session a potential lawsuit against Brian will
be discussed. By doing so, you give the public an opportunity to speak to
the council before the closed session and then the council can report out
the results. It is important for the council to receive candid advice in
closed session from the City Attorney.
3. I've been privy to some recent email communications
regarding you and Brian, that were cc'd to the head of Brian's church,
Monsignor Sork. To me, bringing religious leaders into a political
disagreement is distasteful. I hope I never anger anyone enough that
someone decides to cc my Rabbi with political discourse about City events
and elections. I have also seen how you and Susan Brooks discuss Brian in
open session on the dais. Let me suggest that the animus you two
demonstrate towards Brian is palpable. It is apparent to all who watch the
meetings. Perhaps it would be best for you to seek City Attorney
guidance as to whether your personal feelings towards Brian has reached
such an intensity that it requires recusal of you and Susan. Perhaps the
next city council that is voted in can dispassionately vote on this matter in
a way that you and Susan cannot?
~.
2o!'3
Octcbor , 2D "!9
4. If you have another closed session with the City Attorney to discuss Brian
Campbell, consider asking these questions and getting answers in closed session:
A. On July 11, 2018, the City Attorney and I negotiated and came to an
agreement regarding the language in a supplemental declaration that Brian Campbell was
going to sign (and eventually signed) regarding documents responsive to a legislative
subpoena. The City attorney said in writing to me: "The City appreciates your client's
willingness to supplement his declaration as noted at page 5 of your July 5, 2018letter
with the following clarifying statements ... Accordingly, upon compliance with the
forgoing, the City will deem your client to have complied with the legislative subpoena."
The City Attorney and I reached an agreement, Mr. Campell complied with that
agreement. The City Attorney has not. Why did the City Attorney changes its position
from July 11, 2018 to today as to whether Brian Campbell complied with the subpoena?
Put differently, how can the City argue in a court (or to a Grand Jury or to the Public
Integrity Unit of the DA) that Brian did anything other than comply with the subpoena
in light of that July 11, 2018 letter?
B. Can Brian Campbell invoke the doctrine of estoppel to preclude the City
from changing its position?
C. What possible cross-claims for indemnity might the Mayor have arising
from the City Attorney's July 11, 2018 statement? and against whom?
D. How much will the lawsuit cost the City?
E. Will the attorney's fees paid by the City to the City Attorney exceed any
recovery obtained from Brian Campbell?
F. Does the City Attorney have personal animus towards Brian Campbell
such that the City Attorney should recuse itself from advising the council on this matter
or prosecuting any lawsuit?
3 of 3
October , 2019
Let me close by saying that I am Brian's litigation attorney. The City will have to come through
me to get to Brian. I will use every tool at my disposal to defend him against what I believe to be
an unmeritorious and politically fueled attack. You might consider asking your colleagues who
serve on the City ofPalos Verdes Estates City Council how that City fared after five years of
litigation with me over sold parkland, or how the PVPUSD fared after two years oflitigation
over the Brown Act or how our own City fared after litigation over the ballot description for the
Marymount project. Each of those lawsuits were preceded by an opportunity to settle and each of
those lawsuits resulted in an unequivocal loss for the respective governing bodies. I'd invite you
to take the course suggested by Bob Nelson: receive and file the report about Brian and take no
further action.
Jeffrey Lewis
cc: Via Email Only
John Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tern Qohn.cruikshank@rpvca.gov)
Eric Alegria, Councilman (eric. alegria@rpvca. gov)
Susam M. Brooks, Councilwoman (susan.brooks@rpvca.gov)
Ken Dyda, Councilman (ken.dyda@rpvca.gov)
William W. Wynder, City Attorney (wwynder@awattorneys.com)
'ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES ! RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
November 5, 2019
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(310) 527-6667
SENT VIA E-MAIL icffcil1jcfflewislaw.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
Subject: Your Letter of October 17, 2019; Resubmitted November 1, 2019
Counsel:
Your letter, dated October 17, 2019, and submitted twice to Mayor Duhovic, has been
forwarded to us for, where appropriate, a response. As an initial observation, much of your letter
reflects your personal opinions, innuendo, and surmise which you are free to share with the City
Council and which may be given such "weight" as the City Council, in its sound discretion,
deems appropriate.
However, your client is hardly in a position to characterize communications by any
individual member of the Council (or by the City Attorney) responding to Mr. Campbell as
reflecting "animus." By way of example, the Mayor will oft use the predicate, "for the record,"
in his responses to communications from or dialogue with respect to Mr. Campbell. The same is
not evidence of "animus," but is instead a preface to his statements setting the record straight.
Nothing in those communications warrant recusal as a matter oflaw or fair play.
To borrow from the Mayor, "for the record," the only evidence of "animus" is that
displayed by Mr. Campbell who has systematically engaged in the attempted character
assassination of the former City Attorney and the soon to retire City Manager (among others).
You will certainly recall that Mr. Campbell, while attempting to hide behind the anonymity of
the domain "rpvcrg.org," shared with the world the fact that a "complaint" had been filed against
the former City Attorney with the State Bar.
He did so knowing that sharing a redacted version of this complaint would suggest to the
novice reader some "wrongdoing" on the part of the attorney. His rpvcrg.org posting of the
complaint even went so far as to suggest that an entire law firm was under investigation. You
reinforced that innuendo with a letter requesting recusal on the part of our Firm (appropriately
and summarily rejected as being without merit -later confirmed by the State Bar).
Ill
01203.0032/613181.2
Jeffrey Lewis
November 5, 2019
Page2
When your client was subsequently "outed" by City Staff, he was forced to admit that he
was the author of the "complaint." Even more offensive, when the State Bar took the
extraordinary step of issuing a letter concluding that "the evidence [did] not demonstrate that Mr.
Aleshire committed any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Business and
professions Code in the performance of his duties," and formally "closed" the matter, your client
simply ignored two (2) requests I sent to him (through you) demanding that Mr. Campbell
circulate the letter from the State Bar exonerating Mr. Aleshire at least as widely as he had
circulated the "complaint" he had lodged against him. Animus, for sure!
Turning now to the "questions" posed in the various sub-paragraphs of paragraph no. 4 of
your letter, your latest reference to a July 11, 2108 letter from our office conveniently fails to
place the quoted language in context. You failed to even mention the City's stated position
contained in that letter required that "if [Mr. Campbell] persists in his unfounded position that e-
mails responsive to the Huang public records requests (and incorporated into the City legislative
subpoena) are not public records, [Mr. Campbell] will need to supplement his declaration to state
that all e-mail(s) sent about Mr. Huang (and incorporated into the legislative subpoena) were sent in
his personal capacity outside the course and scope of his duties as Mayor of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes." (Emphasis added.)
When Mr. Campbell later supplemented his declaration in response to the City's legislative
subpoena he asserted, for the first time, that all e-mails sent regarding Mr. Huang were sent in his
personal capacity. We then correctly noted in our December 21, 2018 letter to you that:
"fnfo [July 11, 2018] letter of 'deemed compliance' can be construed as an
acceptance of the truth of the matters set forth in [Mr. Campbell's] declarations. In
fact, your letter does not dispute, because you cannot, that [Mr. Campbell] has
made material false statements, under oath, in his declaration (as demonstrated by
the very documents he produced in response to the same) .... It is now clear that [Mr.
Campbell] has ... either made material misstatements to his City Council colleagues
or made material misstatements, under oath, in response to the City's legislative
subpoena. Simply ignoring these demonstrated inconsistencies on the grounds of a
[July 11, 2018] 'deemed compliance' letter will be unavailing." (Emphasis added.)
As I am sure you are aware, our office cannot provide legal advice to you in response to your
various questions to the Mayor. We can, however, offer one courtesy opinion; "good luck with your
estoppel defense!" The remaining sub-sections of questions in your paragraph no. 4 may, if
requested by a member of the City Council, be discussed in the closed session currently scheduled
for November 19,2019.
Ill
Ill
01203.0032/613181.2
Jeffrey Lewis
November 5, 2019
Page 3
Finally, your October 17, 2019 letter to the Mayor will be included as correspondence to the
City Council regarding Agenda Item No.2 on the November 6, 2019 City Council agenda, and will
be companioned with this response "for the record."
Copies:
01203.0032/613181.2
Very truly yours,
Will~ tJ~~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers,
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Elena Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:16 PM
CityCierk
FW: CC Mtng 11/6: Brown Act: Brian Campbell item
191106 cc mtng Brian item.pdf
Late corr for 11/6/19 meeting only not 10/29.
Thank you
Teri
From: Robert Nelson <robert.nelson@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:14PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: CC Mtng 11/6: Brown Act: Brian Campbell item
Teri,
Would appreciate this letter being added to this item for Council info as a 'pubic comment.' I understand the
potential lawsuit against past Mayor Campbell will be on the agenda and these are my comments on that item. I
have added a couple of comments from my prior submission that was Late Correspondence.
Thank you! Have a great pre-election week!
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
1
/},
Bob Nelson
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
RESUBMITED FOR
COUNCIL MEETING 11/06/2019 6612 Channelview Comi
RPV, CA 90275 BROWN ACT: SUING EX-MAYOR BRIAN CAMPBELL
Council, DCM Gabi, Interim CM Ara
The view(s}, opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s}, opinion(s}, official
positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council-the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or anyofitsemployees, agents,
contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City'). It should be interpreted solely as the view(s}, opinion(s) and/or work product
of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.
As one who received one of your legislative subpoenas and met with Atty Wynder, CM Willmore, et al,
I have first-hand knowledge and experience with this item.
And, my careful, measured suggestion is we quietly close the books on this. 'Receive and
file' staff report. Close the door. Say your attorney did what was requested and, in your opinion,
has completed his statement of work. Add a "thank you, Dave Aleshire and William Wynder. Next
item." To do otherwise will impact future past mayors as a precedent for them to go through!
Your investigation where I was interrogated was whether I or Brian had leaked closed session Council
information on Green Hills negotiations. I brought with me and submitted documents our Planning
Commission received on a Thursday as part of a Green Hills appeal to us for our Tuesday PC meeting.
These contained a negotiating number. We obviously could and did address the negotiation number the
following Tuesday. My interrogation basically ended as soon as I produced the appellant's letter with
that data received Thursday for our Tuesday meeting. Since there was no court reporter present, I
brought a witness re any future city quotes about my testimony. FYI one subpoenaed Commissioner
lawyered up with our past SeaBluff HOA RPV neighbor and past Los Angeles County District
Attorney Steve Cooley -of course, that Commissioner was never called in!
Your investigation lht!n switched to one about emails. As you know, Planning Commissioners have been
advised to delete all emails after 30 days, jic. This Council established a rule that any Committee
member, any Commissioner must use their citv email for any city related communications 'so
these can quickly be accessed.' That has become the mostly usual case. As of this date, my city email
shows I have deleted 957 emails, 563 of which were junk emails. And this email will be part of my city
email record, though I will also send it out via normal channels.
Below, in the interest of civility and fairness, is past RPV Planning Commissioner and attorney
Jeff Lewis's thoughts on tonight's item. Every item usually has two sides and his is the other side
of your staff report. And, FYI, when I introduced Brian at the Long Point Debate Sept. 18 (the debate
where I was too 'biased' to be moderator and which DCM Gabi said you'd film and re-broadcast and
you filmed but then refused to re-broadcast to our community and refused a public records request for the
films (both RPV firsts-well publicized now), it was my pleasure to describe to our RPV audience in
attendance Brian's achievements on their behalf:
"I'd like to now introduce our moderator for tonight. Its someone who has been both a candidate and
the moderator at this event multiple times in recent years.
* Our moderator has quite a history of national and community service, both elected, appointed and
as a volunteer:
Page 1 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19/tem #3
* Has served as both the president of his own HOA association, the city-wide Council of
Homeowners Associations (CHOA) and for two years on the RPV General Plan Update
Committee.
* Has served over 20 years both domestically and overseas in both the US Army and Cal State
Guard where he is currently the Deputy Commander of the State Guard Special Operations
forces.
* He is a former RPV mayor and served eight years on the city council.
*Currently serves as an elected Trustee for the Palos Verdes Library District and has recently
won a second term as Trustee.
*And, most interestingly, just about this time a year ago he was in Kabul, Afghanistan, with his
troops. I'm sure he'll be willing to share some travel tips for any of you who are planning on going
there in the near future!
I'd like to welcome our distinguished moderator, the honorable Brian Campbell."
I'm not sure any lawsuit against Brian will be worth RPV citizen money, our atty time, risk of Council
embarrassment at the end or to even be part of this Council's legacy. Think compromise: do you really
want to go out with this as some of your baggage for our next Council's consideration? You
might remember, when some of you first came on board, your early meetings cancelled many of the prior
Council's last-minute motions.
The decision is up to you-again-you might consider 'receive and file' and close the door. Of
course, you can sound the alarm and leave future legal maneuvering to the incoming Council
and let their thought processes judge the value of suing a past Mayor using this precedent.
signed: Bob Nelson
For readers, here is the other side of this item:
From: Jeff Lewis <jeff@jefflewislaw.com>
To: those copied
Sent: Fri, Oct 11, 2019 12:06 pm
Subject: Tuesday Evening's RPV City Council Meeting, Item 3
Friends,
I am alerting you to a matter coming up for discussion at the Tuesday October 15 7:00 meeting of the
RPV City Council. Items 1 and 2 of the agenda concern the construction of a new civic center for which
I have no strong opinion. Item 3 ofthe agenda ... pertains to: 1) the outcome of the City's use of
legislative subpoenas, depositions and other tactics to investigate an alleged leak of closed session
materials; and 2) whether the city should file a lawsuit against former Mayor Brian Campbell.
As to the closed session matter, the City spent in excess of $45,000 dollars to investigate the public and
found absolutely nothing. They have nothing to show for that shameful waste of money and residents,
who now feel mistrustful of government.
As for the latter issue, the gist of the City's complaint against Brian is they feel he should have
turned over an email list he used because, per the City Attorney, his email list is a public
record. However, my office has taken the position that the email list is private and not a public record.
To test this matter, a citizen of our community made a public records act request for the then-mayor's
Page 2 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19 Item #3
email list that was used to communicate with the public. The City Attorney took the position that the
then mayor's email list is not a public record and refused to produce it. Therefore, Brian
Campbell is being singled out for personal reasons. The City proposes to spend taxpayer money to
go after Brian Campbell in a new lawsuit as part of a personal vendetta by sitting council
members that do not like Brian Campbell. Some background materials regarding the dispute
between the City and Brian Campbell are attached. If you have strong feelings on this matter about
whether the City should send legislative subpoenas to its residents and file lawsuits against former
officials, I would encourage you to to go to the October 15 meeting and make your voice heard.
Alternatively, you can send an email to the city council regarding this matter at: ~oc,::::,:,,~,,~,~,,;,,;,,"',''"''''t;;"',L"
Legislative subpoenas and lawsuits should not be used a political tools or to further personal
vendettas. If you agree, below are some points that the public could raise in emails or in person if
they felt agreement with these points:
1. The City accepted the City Attorney's recommendation to spend in excess of $45,000 on an
investigation into closed door leaks and found nothing other than the City Attorney is inept at
investigations. Isn't this lawsuit against Brian Campbell a similar waste of taxpayer funds? Hasn't
the City Attorney demonstrated its incompetence as to the closed session leak investigation?
2. For the first time in its history, this City Council authorized the use of legislative subpoenas
--directed at the political opponents of the council. The subpoenas were also used to target a
lawyer who represented a party that sued the City, Noel Weiss. Should the City study this issue
and enact guidelines about whether and when to use legislative subpoenas in the future to ensure
this abuse is not repeated
3. The City typically hears matters in closed session before authorizing a lawsuit and then "reports
out" the result of that closed session in open session. For the matter of Brian Campbell, the City
Council is discussing the matter in open session. Do members of the City Council have a
personal reason for airing these allegations against Brian Campbell in public? When is the last
time the City Council held an open session discussion item on whether to file a lawsuit? Who
made the decision as to whether this topic would be discussed in closed session or open session?
4. The City was originally scheduled to hear the report on this matter in June 2019 based on the
tentative agendas published earlier this year. The matter was delayed and the City has timed the
disclosure of its investigation into the closed session leaks to fall within 30 days of a city
council election. Is the current City Council or Attorney seeking to influence the outcome
of the election with the timing of this disclosure of its failed investigation? Should the timing of
future reports regarding former public officials be avoided this close to an election?
5. The City has previously insinuated that Brian Campbell leaked information from a closed
session meeting. Has the time come for the City to issue a retraction and apologize to Brian
Campbell?
6. As a matter of policy, do we want our council members authorizing lawsuits against former
officials under these conditions? Isn't this a slippery slope that can be abused to target
political opponents?
7. If the City Council chooses to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell, what City policy is
served by that objective?
8. Should the decision of whether to sue Brian Campbell be made by a council majority with only a
few weeks of service left and no voter accountability or should the next council majority make
that decision?
Page 3 of 4
Nelson Late Correspondence: 10/15/19/tem #3
9. The City's basis for filing a lawsuit is a claim that Brian Campbell did not comply with public
records act requests by third parties. Yet none of those third parties have sued the city and there
is no real harm to the city for the claimed misconduct.
10. The City wants Brian Campbell's email list. Is this really a legitimate basis for a lawsuit?
Do future council members wish to disclose their list? What is the chilling effect on public
communications if such lists are disclosable?
11. What is the City Attorney's budget for filing such a lawsuit and are there any grounds for the
City to recover attorney's fees spent on this project?
12. If the City spends $200,000 to file a lawsuit against Brian Campbell yet only recovers $100,000
is that in the City's best interests?
13. What are the prospects of Brian Campbell filing a counterclaim against the City and City
Attorney?
14. The City Attorney claims that it has $130,000 in damages against Brian Campbell. Has Jeff
Lewis presented any contrary evidence that suggests that number is not accurate? For
example, does that $130,000 include the cost of the City Attorney attending the deposition
of Brian Campbell in the Green Hills litigation when the City was not a party to that
litigation?
15. Brian Campbell filed a State Bar complaint against the City Attorney. Shouldn't the City
Attorney have recused itself in light of that complaint?
16. On July 11, 2018, the City Attorney and Jeff Lewis negotiated the contents of a
supplemental declaration by Brian Campbell and noon July 11, 2018 the City Attorney
advised Jeff Lewis in writing that "upon compliance with the foregoing, the City will deem
your client to have complied with the legislative subpoena." Brian Campbell signed the
negotiated declaration and thereafter the City Attorney inexplicably claimed that Brian Campbell
failed to comply with the subpoena. Why did the City Attorney say in writing on July 11,
2018 that it would deem the subpoena complied with and thereafter change its position? Is
there a personal animus between the City Attorney and Brian Campbell that requires the City
Attorney to recuse itself?
17. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis made a demand on the City Attorney that the City
Attorney recuse itself from the closed session investigation. The City Attorney did not.
Why?
18. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis demanded that the City Subcommittee investigate
the City Attorney regarding closed session leaks. Why was this not done?
19. On October 4, 2018, Attorney Jeff Lewis presented documents to the City outlining a
conspiracy between the City Attorney and Green Hills to deceive Sharon Loveys. Why was
this allegation not investigated?
p.s. full disclosure, I am litigation counsel for and friends with Brian Campbell. I do have a bias toward
Brian. Please read the attached and make your own decision. (Not attached: Contact Jeff for copies.)
Thank you.
Jeff Lewis
Jeff Lewis Law
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA • 90274
Tel. (310) 935-4001 ·E-mail: Jeff@Jefflewislaw.com
Web. JeffLewisLaw.com • Schedule a Call • Sign up for Newsletter
Certified Appellate Specialist
Certified by The State Bar of California
Page 4 of 4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 4, 2019 7:49AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Wednesday Agenda Item
CityCouncilletter.docx
From: David Potter <davidparadigm@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 1:42 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Wednesday Agenda Item
Hello RPV City Council-
I understand there well be a City Council Meeting this coming Wednesday and on the agenda the Council will be
discussing the possibility of continuing to pursue legal action against Rancho Palos Verdes resident/former Mayor
and City Council member Brian Campbell. This item needs to be closed out. As a taxpayer I am opposed to and not
comfortable with wasting anymore taxpayers monies than that has already been wasted.
Unfortunately I will not be able to be present at the meeting Wednesday as a result I have attached my input for you
all to consider.
Thank you in advance,
David Potter
I am David Potter and I have resided in Rancho Palos Verdes for more than 50 years.
I want to address the City Attorney's recommendation to file a lawsuit against former
mayor Brian Campbell for what appears to be simply political reasons and a complete
waste of taxpayer's monies.
I do not appreciate the city wasting my money on the personal vendetta of 1 or 2
individuals on the council, an outgoing city manager and an outside city attorney who
also represents troubled cities such as Bell and Carson. RPV can do better.
According to an article in the Daily Breeze from 15 months ago the City had already
wasted over $130,000 on this issue. I could only imagine how much that has ballooned
up to as of today.
According to the article the attorney handling the case for the City was charging the
city by the hour when individuals would not show up for appointments/depositions. {I
1 J
want that job getting paid for doing nothing) However, I do not want to continue
footing the bill for that nonsense as a taxpayer.
I have known Brian for some years now and like many in the community have
admiration and respect for this hardworking community leader. He volunteers time,
for example, with the Boy Scouts of America and sets an amazing example for the
youth in the Scout troop. He teaches the Scouts about outdoor activities, respecting
the wilderness, how to be a solid citizen and the importance of volunteering and being
a contributor to society.
Mr. Campbell has not been on the City Council for two years now .... isn't enough,
enough?
If the City Council chooses to file a lawsuit, what City policy is served by that
objective? Other than personal vendettas!
In the past I have heard council members make disparaging statements regarding Mr.
Campbell. When I hear these statements and see the current proposal on the agenda
Nov 6th regarding Mr. Campbell that tells me that this issue is not objective and
questions the credibility of the agenda item.
In closing I know we have a local election coming up around the corner where some
Council seats will change which will most likely result in changes to the priorities and
goals of the Council. Let us move forward in a positive and productive way.
Given that the election is very soon, any major decision should be made by a new
council majority, not with outgoing member with only a few weeks of service left and
no voter accountability.
Do the right thing! Vote no on this agenda item and close this issue out for good.
2
I am David Potter and I have resided in Rancho Palos Verdes for more
than 50 years.
I want to address the City Attorney's recommendation to file a lawsuit
against former mayor Brian Campbell for what appears to be simply
political reasons and a complete waste of taxpayer's monies .
I do not appreciate the city wasting my money on the personal
vendetta of 1 or 2 individuals on the council, an outgoing city manager
and an outside city attorney who also represents troubled cities such as
Bell and Carson. RPV can do better.
According to an article in the Daily Breeze from 15 months ago the City
had already wasted over $130,000 on this issue. I could only imagine
how much that has ballooned up to as of today.
According to the article the attorney handling the case for the City was
charging the city by the hour when individuals would not show up for
appointments/depositions. (I want that job getting paid for doing
nothing) However, I do not want to continue footing the bill for that
nonsense as a taxpayer.
I have known Brian for some years now and like many in the
community have admiration and respect for this hardworking
community leader. He volunteers time, for example, with the Boy
Scouts of America and sets an amazing example for the youth in the
Scout troop. He teaches the Scouts about outdoor activities, respecting
the wilderness, how to be a solid citizen and the importance of
volunteering and being a contributor to society.
While you may not appreciate Brian's straight forward approach and
high standards he sets for both himself and those he 'Narks with, this
professional style is clearly no reason for the unfair treatment he has
received by the City. It appears he is being specifically singled out by a
few disgruntled outgoing council people and city manager with an axe
to grind. There is absolutely no excuse for publically elected officials to
take advantage of their positions to behave and target individuals like
tfH.s.:.
Mr. Campbell has not been on the City Council for two years now ....
isn't enough, enough?
If the City Council chooses to file a lawsuit, what City policy is served by
that objective? Other than personal vendettas!
In the past I have heard council some of membersyou publicly make
disparaging statements regarding Mr. Campbell. You should be
embarrassed. When I hear these statements and see the current
proposal on the agenda Nov 6th regarding Mr. Campbell that tells me
that this issue you are notis not objective and questions the credibility
of the agenda itemyour credibility .
In closing I know we have a local election coming up around the corner
where some Council seats will change which will most likely result in
changes to the priorities and goals of the Council. Let us move forward
in a positive and productive way.
Given that the election is very soon, any major decision should be made
by a new council majority, not with outgoing member a lame duck
council with only a few weeks of service left and no voter
accountability.
Do the right thing! Vote no on this agenda item and close this issue out
for good.-;