From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Brian,

Doug Willmore Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:36 PM Brian Campbell (Gmail); daleshire@awattorneys.com cc RE: Document requests status

My response to your November Council member request for all of my emails is a matter of written record and it will not fit with what you describe below.

Regardless, the City Clark, the City Attorney, and our IT Department fulfill all of our PRA requests and I don't involve myself in any of the searches or reviews. Despite the false assertions you have made about my role in PRA's the past, it doesn't change the facts that I am not involved. You will never find any staff here, or anyone with the City Attorney's Office who will confirm what you believe and have falsely stated to others about my role with PRA's. And that includes the request you made in your last few weeks as a Council member.

Doug

From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bssi.campbell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of campbell.rpv@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:20 PM To: daleshire@awattorneys.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Document requests status

Dave,

I am in receipt of your January 25th letter regarding the CPRA's for Green Hills and Michael Huang. You again have mistakes and misrepresentations in your letter. However, as you pointed out, I do agree with you that the CPRA's are extensive and have taken an enormous amount ohime and is still ongoing.

Note: I am making a reasonable and diligent effort to provide any responsive emails and other requested documentation related to these two CPRA's. I do agree with the fact that one document request cannot be predicated or conditioned on another, and mine are not.

Separately, you and the city are in gross violation of my own document requests. The city has a legal obligation to comply with these requests just as I do, and I intend to comply with my obligations. It's your job to follow the law and ensure that the city and council do as well, not to assist anyone on the council or the city manager in avoiding it. You told me in November that the city manager had no intention of complying with these requests. That you apparently did nothing is disappointing and contrary to your duties as the city attorney.

Happy to discuss if you'd like,

Brian

1

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CITY CLERK

FEBRUARY 6, 2018

ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA

Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting.

Item No.

2

5

6

Description of Material

Emails from: Tom Frew; Jane Gualeni; Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Glenn Cornell

Email from Brian Campbell

Emails from: Mickey Radich; CJ Ruona; William Patton; David Koch

**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, February 5, 2018**.

Respectfully submitted,

W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180206 additions revisions to agenda.doc

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Late corr

Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:35 AM Nathan Zweizig Emily Colborn FW: Green Hills Memorial Park - Community Members Letter of Support Green Hills Memorial Park- 2018 CUP Review - Community Support.pdf

From: Thomas W. Frew [mailto:TFrew@ghmp.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 7:58 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>

Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park - Community Members Letter of Support

Dear Mayor Brooks and Honorable Councilmembers,

Please see the attached letter I am submitting on behalf of our supporters in advance of tonight's Council meeting and Green Hills Memorial Park's annual CUP review.

Thank you, Tom Frew

Thomas W. Frew CFO - General Manager

Direct Line (310) 521-4412 I Fax Line (310) 519-8236 Main Line (310) 831-0311 I www.greenhillsmemorial.com

:J. 1

February 5, 2018

Mayor Susan Brooks Mayor Pro Tern Jerry Duhovic Councilman Eric Alegria Councilman John Cruikshank Councilman Ken Dyda City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Re: Green Hills Memorial Park Conditional Use Permit

Mayor Brooks and Honorable Councilmembers:

On behalf of the undersigned individuals, we write to express our support for Green Hills Memorial Park (Green Hills) as you conduct your annual review of their Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and to urge you to approve the CUP and the changes that have been requested by the applicant.

As residents and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes and South Bay communities, we have seen firsthand Green Hills' commitment to being a dedicated partner and resource for our entire community. Celebrating their 70th anniversary this year, Green Hills has supported and comforted generations of Peninsula families during their most difficult times. The park is a welcoming place where community members from all walks of life can go to celebrate life in respectful remembrance, and to remain close to the loved ones who they have lost.

In addition to serving as a pillar of the Rancho Palos Verdes community, Green Hills has also shown a commitment to being a good neighbor. They have consistently demonstrated a willingness to listen to and work with nearby residents. Whenever concerns have arisen, Green Hills has acted responsibly, quickly and professionally to resolve those issues.

Green Hills has made a number of changes that reflect community feedback in the year since the last CUP review. This has included hiring additional security personnel; improving response time to any security-related complaints; posting clearly marked park rules throughout their property and cracking down on rule violations, including alcohol use and amplified music; working with neighbors to identify landscape and other options aimed to help decrease the impact of park activities on nearby residents; implementing new hours of operation; installing a new gate to prevent people from entering the park after closing; and meeting regularly with members of the surrounding communities to hear concerns and to foster a more productive and frequent dialogue with nearby residents.

As community members, we view these changes as indicative of Green Hills' commitment to being a good neighbor and dedicated community partner and resource. Green Hills has supported this community for 70 years - and we are confidem that they will continue to work collaboratively in the best interests of the community for years to come, well past this CUP. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the Council approve Green Hills' CUP, along with the changes that have been requested by the applicant.

Sincerely,

Aurelio Mattucci

Carina Sokolich

Charlene Nishimura

Chris Nishimura

Claudia Storm Grzywacz

Colleen Daniel LaFave

Dave Albert, Former Mayor, City of Lomita

David C. Cook, MD

David Kuroda, LCSW, Division Chief, Mediation and Conciliation Service (ret.); Superior Court of Los Angeles, Family Court Services

Donna Duperron, President & CEO, Torrance

Area Chamber of Commerce

Howard Mayeda, Pastor, Bethany Christian Fellowship

James D. Mccampbell

Jim Matsuo

John M. Moody

John W. Anderson, The Anderson Company CPA

Inc.

Jonathan Beutler

Laurie Love, Ed.D

Lisa Chieppa

Marianne Brooks

Martin Chao

Matthew S. Cook, PhD

Michael A. Kander

Leslie R. Dilbert

Patrick Brian Wren

Phillip Cook

Pilar Marin

Sharon L. Cook, PhD

Steve MacAller

Todd Trinneer, Member, Board of Directors,

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

Tony Molino

Vince Giuliano

From: Sent: To: Cc:

So Kim Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:32 AM CityClerk Ara Mihranian

Subject: Fwd: Letter of Acknowledgement from Green Hills

Please add the email below as late correspondence for the Green Hills item.

Thank you, So

S.:nt from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------From: Jane Gualeni <jgualeni@sbcglobal.net> Date: 2/3/18 10:46 PM (GMT-08:00) To: "Thomas W. Frew" <TFrew@ghmp.com> Cc: Nick Resich <nresich@ghmp.com>, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Letter of Acknowledgement from Green Hills

Hi Tom,

Jock and Robin McMorran (2073 Avenida Feliciano) have listed their concerns below. I am forwarding to you since we are trying to figure out how to move forward with the proposal. Not sure if you've spoken with them already, but please see their concerns listed in the email below. As far as we know, they are the only outliers at the moment. We have neighbors coming to view the podocarpus tomorrow or Monday and should have a better idea tomorrow of how everyone feels about all items on the proposal.

Thank you, Jane

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jane Gualeni <jgualeni@sbcglobal.net> Date: February 3, 2018 at 3:54:52 PM PST To: Lisa Scotto <lisascotto@pacbell.net> Cc: Robin MacMorran <robinmacm@gmail.com>, Chris Martin <chris martin@ahm.honda.com>, Jerry Becker <jerry.becker@cox.net>, Janice Perez <perez99@aol.com>, divna@cox.net, MacMorran Jock <jockmacm@gmail.com>, Vickie Mancusi <tjjr45@sbcglobal.net>, Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Letter of Acknowledgement from Green Hills

Yes Lisa. I believe you're correct. They may like to take it on a case by case house since every single neighbor wants their own version of "privacy" and "proper maintenance." Virtually impossible to get everyone to be "happy" when change is involved. We've been lucky for this long not to have much activity in Area 6, but that is soon to change as it will be the storage area and dumping grounds with any new development.

1

As for the "rush," I don't know that it must be completely done before the 2/6 meeting, however it really has been a long overdue decision that only now (after 3 years of attending numerous CC and PC meetings, as well as quarterly meetings with City Staff, former Mayor Dyda, Green Hills, the list goes on) has finally come to the point where some c1.ecisions need to be made. Plus, all of this was under the direction of the CC back last year at the annual CUP review to help protect our privacy and security being that we spoke up in time and ahead of the construction of the wall. Again, the perimeter security was I believe suggested by the City Council and the Planning Commission on more than one occasion over the past year.

Yesterday, Green Hills placed a couple of large, potted podocarpus on their side of the property line, behind our wall to get an idea of the size and type of what is proposed. Joe and I think they look great. They look clean and will provide a nice privacy hedge in future years. Please let me know if you'd like to see them and I can arrange that.

Jane

On Feb 3, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Lisa Scotto <lisascotto@pacbell.net> wrote:

Robin I believe they have agreed to removal of the chain link-at least verbally to Joe and I. We can and should verify that. The maintenance of the trees is just on our side of the wall-whatever grows over. They will not come into your yard to trim them but will maintain them on their own side. Some of us may want them trimmed like a hedge while others will want them bushing over the wall. That is up to each homeowner. Maybe this needs to be clarified in the letter. Lisa

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 3, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Robin MacMorran <robinmacm@gmail.com> wrote:

We thank Eric Alergia for his interest in our neighborhood. He listened to us and took pictures. Although Jane, Lisa Chris, Joe and others have worked very hard of this proposal, Jock and I have the following reservations about the Letter of Acknowledgement from Green Hills:

1. We all observed the fencing as it relates to area 5 and its results. In one area the chain link fence was removed and the homeowners had extended their property to the Green Hills Wall. A 4 foot gate connected each of these properties. The homeowners maintained these areas, with the exception of one home where unsightly weeds are growing between the chain link fence that was left in place and the wall. Green Hills was not maintaining this area.

At another home there were 3 fences. The homeowners, then 2 feet of chain link , and then the wall. Morning glory was growing on the chain link fence, The chain link was visible.

Our conclusion is that the chain link must be removed so that ivy, weeds, animals, etc. cannot be allowed to flourish in that area.

2

2. #2 Condition .F. - Landscape Screening and #4 .. The Letter states, "The property owner shall be responsible for the continuous maintenance of this landscaping, "

Who will maintain the area between our fences/walls and the new wall? #4 clearly states that they are not responsible.

We recently had a new fence installed. Neither the fence installer or our landscaper could physically deal with the vegetation growing on and around the chain link fence. We will continue to fight the ivy and animals which have found a home in the new set back.

3. #5 and #6 The chain link fence will not be removed without Green Hills approval. Given the 3 fence situation faced by some homeowners, the resident is at the mercy of Green Hills wishes. We want the chain link fence removed before the new wall is constructed for the reasons stated above.

If nothing will be developed in Area 6 for "20 to 30" years, why are the residents in Area 6 being asked to make a decision on the wall before the City Council meets on February 6th? Jock and I will not sign the Letter of Acknowledgement based on our observations yesterday, unless the chain link fence is removed.

Robin MacMorran 424224 7500

3

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

For late corr

From: Doug Willmore

Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:31 AM Nathan Zweizig Emily Colborn FW: Staff's Report on Green Hills' CUP

Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:03 AM To: gcornell6@gmail.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>; Elena Gerli (egerli@awattorneys.com) <egerli@awattorneys.com> Subject: FW: Staff's Report on Green Hills' CUP

Glenn,

Thank you for sending in your thoughts on this issue. I think it might be important to add a couple of important pieces of information.

First, the issues you present below are not just "subject to staff's wishes" as you assert. In fact, the City Attorney has also given his opinion to the City Council that the Master Plan DOES NOT contain specific caps for internments or burials.

Second, the City Council has agreed with the interpretation that there are no specific interment caps in the Master Plan. Rather, the numbers are for guideline purposes.

Third, all the data and research and studies that we have been able to ascertain regarding cemeteries and regarding Green Hills specifically clearly demonstrates that the rate of annual burials is not determined in any way by the density of the burials allowed. Meaning, attempting to place some kind of cap on burials/internments at Green Hills would not benefit RPV residents in any way by reducing the amount of annual burials. It would only shorten the life of the cemetery (i.e., for example, reducing the life from 75 years to 50 years to choose two numbers Jut of the sky). But, the annual rate of burials would stay the same because that rate is primarily determined by the population and demographics of Southern California.

Fourth, there are also numbers related to rooftop burials on the Inspiration Slope mausoleum in the Master Plan. If one is going to take the position that the numbers in certain areas are specific caps on internments, then one would also have to take the position that the numbers on the rooftop burials on Inspiration Slope would mean that Green Hills has the right for rooftop burials in the Master Plan. And yet, we have taken the position that rooftop burials on Inspiration Slope is not a vested right and they must apply for approval to do so. In other words, one cannot have it both ways -we can't say some numbers are enforceable and some aren't. We have taken the interpretation that the numbers in the master plan are guidelines and are not hard and fast limits. The City Attorney has concurred with that interpretation. And the City Council has adopted it.

I hope these explanations help inform your thinking.

Doug

Begin forwarded message:

1 ().

From: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com> Date: February 5, 2018 at 4:31 :25 PM PST To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: ken.dyda@rpvca.gov, Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>, John Cruikshank <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>, Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>, Eric Alegria <ericdalegria@gmail.com>, eric.allegria@rpvca.gov Subject: Staff's Report on Green Hills' CUP

Ms. Kim: I've had a chance to look over your Agenda Report for tomorrow's meeting regarding Green Hills' CUP (hereinafter "your report"). Though there are several items in it about which we seem to disagree, there is one matter in particular that I would ask you to re-examine. It concerns your position regarding the meaning of the numbers which appear in the Master Plan"s "Area Descriptions" for Area 5. (p. 14 of your report.)

Those numbers are 3440, 58, 8 and 12. You contend variously that they are mere guides to the number of interments allowed in Area 5 and that the plan imposes "no maximum limit ... " (p. 14 of your report). In your report, you now disclose the bases for those twin contentions. However, examination of those bases reveals they don't support what you claim.

For example, your quotation at p. 14 of your report about the numbers being for "reference only" is incomplete. The full sentence which appears at the end of the plan's 2nd paragraph reads:

"The Master Plan will be implemented in multiple phases over many years and 'area numbers' indicated on the plan are for reference only and do not denote a hierarchy or priority of development."

It is hard to read that sentence, the way you seem to advocate, as offering nothing more than a rough guide about the number of interments. It's far more reasonable to see the term "area numbers" as referring to the designations "Area 1," "Area 2," etc. which appear throughout the plan. Accordingly, the above-quoted sentence simply clarifies that the plan not be viewed as mandating that Area 1 be developed first, Area 2, second and so on.

What's more, 3440, 58, 8 and 12 are quite specific. The plan's author did not insert the words "roughly" or "approximately" in front of them. Nothing about their use suggests that they are "general in nature." (p. 14 of your report.) And certainly nothing about them supports the notion that the number of interments, planned for Area 5, is indeterminate and subject only to staffs wishes.

Your citing the phrase "Inumment numbers ... are difficult to predict ... " (p. 14 of your report) similarly misses the mark and fails to buttress the proposition that city staff has discretion to determine the maximum number of interments. Indeed, your reference suggests a mis-appreciation of what the Master Plan is addressing

I acknowledge that the word "inumment" is net one that often finds its way into everyday conversation. Fortunately, the plan's author tells us what he had in mind: "cremations that are memorialized within the memorial park." Clearly, that's an event which is much different from an interment. The Master Plan is describing an activity which seems to be increasingly popular and akin to what I was asked to do by my parents -- after cremation, scatter their ashes and record their names on the headstone in our family plot. As the plan notes, such events should be relatively unobtrusive and take little space. Interestingly, despite this observation and the fact that the Master Plan distinguishes inumments from interments, the plan does not grant city staff authority to sanction an indeterminate number of inumments either.

2

The contention that city staff is free to permit whatever interment numbers it wants simply lacks any reasonable basis in the Master Plan's language. Fashions can change. Cremation or entombment in a mausoleum or something altogether different may come to enjoy greater demand than the plan's author foresaw in 2007. But if the need to accommodate such changes becomes pressing, the solution lies in appropriate officials taking appropriate steps to update the Master Plan -- not for city staff to assume authority to do whatever they wish.

Thank you, Glenn Cornell

3

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dave,

Brian Campbell <bssi.campbell@gmail.com> on behalf of campbell.rpv@gmail.com Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:20 PM daleshire@awattorneys.com cc Document requests status

I am in receipt of your January 25th letter regarding the CPRA's for Green Hills and Michael Huang. You again have mistakes and misrepresentations in your letter. However, as you pointed out, I do agree with you that the CPRA's are extensive and have taken an enormous amount of time and is still ongoing.

Note: I am making a reasonable and diligent effort to provide any responsive emails and other requested documentation related to these two CPRA's. I do agree with the fact that one document request cannot be predicated or conditioned on another, and mine are not.

Separately, you and the city are in gross violation of my own document requests. The city has a legal obligation to comply with these requests just as I do, and I intend to comply with my obligations. It's your job to follow the law and ensure that the city and council do as well, not to assist anyone on the council or the city manager in avoiding it. You told me in November that the city manager had no intention of complying with these requests. That you apparently did nothing is disappointing and contrary to your duties as the city attorney.

Happy to discuss if you'd like,

Brian

1 5.

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Late corr

Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:19 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: Salary Increase for City Manager

From: Mickey Radich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:30 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Salary Increase for City Manager

I am completely against the salary and benefit package increase proposed for our City Manager. Increasing his salary by 10% to $225,750 is unconscionable. Our City Manager already makes a higher salary than US Senators, US House of Representatives, all California Legislative Representatives, all military Generals, all state Governors, all Federal judges, and all Local Judges. For a City of 41,000 residents, this is excessive and does not make sense.

1

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:27 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: Fwd: Salary Increase for City Manager

From: cjruona@cox.net [mailto:cjruona@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:17 PM To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Fwd: Salary Increase for City Manager

When is this voted on? A salary of that size, in a city of our size needs to be thoroughly discussed & justified. Why would we want to compensate anyone with this kind of money? Once again if must be justified! cjr

From: Mickey Radich Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:29 AM To: CC Subject: Fwd: Salary Increase for City Manager

I am completely against the salary and benefit package increase proposed for our City Manager. Increasing his salary by 10% to $225, 750 is unconscionable. Our City Manager already makes a higher salary than US Senators, US House of Representatives, all California Legislative Representatives, all military Generals, all state Governors, all Federal judges, and all Local Judges. For a City of 41,000 residents, this is excessive and does not make sense.

(o. 1

From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To:

Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:30 PM Nathan Zweizig

Subject: FW: Inordinate Salary Increase for City Manager

From: William Patton [mailto:billpatton21@icloud.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:26 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Dave Koch <davidkoch89@gmail.com> Subject: Inordinate Salary Increase for City Manager

I was giving some thought to sending a note of concern to all council persons about the City Manager compensation proposal to be reviewed at tonight's council meeting.

Then I saw a copy of an earlier email sent by another resident to council persons expressing serious concern. As it was very articulate I will use most of that email to also express my concern.

1 am completely against the salary and benefit package increase proposed for the City Manager. Increasing his salary by 10% to $225,750 is unconscionable for a number of reasons. Our City Manager already makes a higher salary than US Senators, US House of Representatives, all California Legislative Representatives, all military Generals, all state Governors, all Federal judges, and all Local Judges.

For a City of 41,000 residents, this proposal is beyond excessive and does not make any fiscal sense. Further we should not care what other City managers make as that should not be our standard - only performance and cost of living!

This process is all too familiar, the City Manager starts by increasing and changing other City employees job titles to higher grade levels so they automatically receive substantial pay raises and then follows that with additional annual salary increases to bring them to unjustified levels not based on performance. Just Sad!

Then the next step is to look for an increase for a personal raise solely because the other City employees received substantial increases. More Sad!

What ever happened to the annual review process that was to set a series of realistic goals for the City Manager to achieve and base his salary increases on the achievement of those goals? The residents ofRPV have never seen a formal performance evaluation of our city manager and I must also note a closed session discussion is not a formal performance evaluation.

1

As the report states, the City Manager did not receive salary increases since his hiring. That seems likely because he did not merit an increase but we have never seen an evaluation so who knows but it is NOT a justification for a raise.

So why now does he deserve a 10% increase when the Cost of Living increase is around 3%. If this was voted on by the residents it would not pass.

2

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:32 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: Inordinate Salary Increase for City Manager

From: William Patton [mailto:billpatton21@icloud.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:31 PM To: David Koch <davidkoch89@gmail.com> Cc: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>; Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Inordinate Salary Increase for City Manager

Dave,

Do send a note of protest to all council persons!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Koch <davidkoch89@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com> wrote:

I was giving some thought to sending a note of concern to all council persons about the City Manager compensation proposal to be reviewed at tonight's council meeting.

Then I saw a copy of an earlier email sent by another resident to council persons expressing serious concern. As it was very articulate I will use most of that email to also express my concern.

r am completely against the salary and benefit package increase proposed for the City Manager. Increasing his salary by 10% to $225,750 is unconscionable for a number of reasons. Our City Manager already makes a higher salary than US Senators, US House of Representatives, all California Legislative Representatives, all military Generals, all state Governors, all Federal judges, and all Local Judges.

For a City of 41,000 residents, this proposal is beyond excessive and does not make any fiscal sense. Further we should not care what other City managers make as that should not be our standard - only performance and cost of living!

1 0.

This process is all too familiar, the City Manager starts by increasing and changing other City employees job titles to higher grade levels so they automatically receive substantial pay raises and then follows that with additional annual salary increases to bring them to unjustified levels not based on performance. Just Sad!

Then the next step is to look for an increase for a personal raise solely because the other City employees received substantial increases. More Sad!

What ever happened to the annual review process that was to set a series of realistic goals for the City Manager to achieve and base his salary increases on the achievement of those goals? The residents of RPV have never seen a formal performance evaluation of our city manager and I must also note a closed session discussion is not a formal performance evaluation.

As the report states, the City Manager did not receive salary increases since his hiring. That seems likely because he did not merit an increase but we have never seen an rvaluation so who knows but it is NOT a justification for a raise.

So why now does he deserve a 10% increase when the Cost of Living increase is around 3%. If this was voted on by the residents it would not pass.

2

From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To:

Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:29 PM Nathan Zweizig

Cc: Emily Colborn Subject: FW: Inordinate Salary Increase for City Manager

Late corr From: David Koch [mailto:davidkoch89@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:28 PM To: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com> Cc: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>; Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Inordinate Salary Increase for City Manager

I agree with you.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com> wrote:

I was giving some thought to sending a note of concern to all council persons about the City Manager compensation proposal to be reviewed at tonight's council meeting.

Then I saw a copy of an earlier email sent by another resident to council persons expressing serious concern. As it was very articulate I will use most of that email to also express my concern.

1 am completely against the salary and benefit package increase proposed for the City Manager. Increasing his salary by 10% to $225,750 is unconscionable for a number of reasons. Our City Manager already makes a higher salary than US Senators, US House of Representatives, all California Legislative Representatives, all military Generals, all state Governors, all Federal judges, and all Local Judges.

For a City of 41,000 residents, this proposal is beyond excessive and does not make any fiscal sense. Further we should not care what other City managers make as that should not be our standard - only performance and cost of living!

This process is all too familiar, the City Manager starts by increasing and changing other City employees job titles to higher grade levels so they automatically receive substantial pay raises and then follows that with additional annual salary increases to bring them to unjustified levels not based on performance. Just Sad!

Then the next step is to look for an increase for a personal raise solely because the other City employees received substantial increases. More Sad!

What ever happened to the annual review process that was to set a series of realistic goals for the City Manager to achieve and base his salary increases on the achievement of those goals? The residents of RPV have never seen a

1

formal performance evaluation of our city manager and I must also note a closed session discussion is not a formal performance evaluation.

As the report states, the City Manager did not receive salary increases since his hiring. That seems likely because he did not merit an increase but we have never seen an evaluation so who knows but it is NOT a justification for a raise.

So why now does he deserve a 10% increase when the Cost of Living increase is around 3%. If this was voted on by the residents it would not pass.

2

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CITY CLERK

FEBRUARY 5, 2018

ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA

Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, February 6, 2018 City Council meeting:

Item No.

G

2

5

Description of Material

Email from April Sandell

Letter from Bernadette Sabath and Vincent Reher; Email from Bernadette Sabath; Emails exchange between staff and Ellen Berkowitz

Letter from Brian Campbell

Respectfully submitted,

W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180206 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Hi Emily,

April Sandell < hvybags@cox.net> Thursday, February 01, 2018 6:08 PM Emily Colborn Teresa Takaoka; CC; Olina.wibroe@sen.ca.gov

Feb. 6, 2018 CC meeting I Consent calendar/ Item G

I wish to speak on item G consent calendar. ( SB 827 Transit Rich Housing)

Thank you for your attention.

April Sandell RPV

1

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Bernadette,

Ara Mihranian Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:39 AM 'Bernadette Sabath'; CC; Doug Willmore; So Kim frank pat; Mandy Haas; Jamie Ahern; Mario Marchisio; Dick Brunner; Vince Reher; Dave Turner; Irene Turner; Kim Reher RE: Letter to City Council

Let me know if So and I can meet with you and Vince in advance of Tuesday's City Council meeting to explain the proposed amendments. ! think a meeting will be beneficial.

Ara

From: Bernadette Sabath [mailto:miminotchew@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:06 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <So K@rpvca.gov> Cc: frank pat <pfakins@yahoo.com>; Mandy Haas <mandychaas@yahoo.com>; Jamie Ahern <jamie.ahern18@gmail.com>; Mario Marchisio <mariojakel@sbcglobal.net>; Dick Brunner <CarBoat65@sbcglobal.net>; Vince Reher <vreher@cox.net>; Dave Turner <DaveWTurn@aol.com>; Irene Turner <imtathome@aol.com>; Kim Reher <reher.kim@gmail.com> Subject: Letter to City Council

Please see attached letter. Thank you for your time, bernadette sabath

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject: Attachments:

Please see attached letter. Thank you for your time, bernadette sabath

Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmail.com> Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:06 PM CC; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian; So Kim frank pat; Mandy Haas; Jamie Ahern; Mario Marchisio; Dick Brunner; Vince Reher; Dave Turner; Irene Turner; Kim Reher Letter to City Council letter to RPV City Council.pdf

1

February l ''\ 2018

To: Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City C:ouneil

CC: Doug \Villmore Ara Mihranian So Kim

Board of Directors

City Manager, RPV Director, RPV Community J)cvelopment I)epartment Deputy Director, RPV Cmmmmity Development Department

Peninsula Verde llomeowncrs .Association

\A/e request a postponement of the public hearing scheduled fr>r the February 61h City

Council meeting as agenda item number 2: the annual review of Green lJills Conditions of <,.._, ........

Approval. \Ve only received the staff report yesterday morning and believe that more time is required f()r our I lOA to properly evaluate, discuss, and potentially respond to the stafl' report.

Respectfully,

Bernadette Sabath Board Member, Peninsula Verde ll()A

Vincent Reher President, Peninsula Verde I

~.

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Teresa Takaoka Monday, February 05, 2018 4:18 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: Peninsula Verde and tomorrow nights meeting

From: Bernadette Sabath [mailto:miminotchew@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February OS, 2018 3:41 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Peninsula Verde and tomorrow nights meeting

To All Council Members,

Thank you for your consideration to postpone the GH Agenda scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 6th, 2018.

After two meetings between myself and Tom Frew, Ara and So today we have no objection for the meeting to go ahead as planned.

I want to thank you all for your consideration of the proposal to delay.

Respectfully, bernadette sabath for Peninsula Verde HOA

"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."

°'· 1

From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:08 PM To: Cc:

So Kim; berkowitze@gtlaw.com TFrew@ghmp.com; nresich@ghmp.com; CityClerk

Subject: RE: Response to Suggestion to Use Area 7 for Storage

Thank you for the explanation ... very helpful. Ara

Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director

30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) a ra m@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov

111 Do you really need to print this e-mail?

This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

-----Original Message----­From: So Kim Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:21 PM To: berkowitze@gtlaw.com Cc: TFrew@ghmp.com; nresich@ghmp.com; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Response to Suggestion to Use Area 7 for Storage

Thank you Ellen. I will forward your response to the City Council as late correspondence.

Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222

1

-----Original Message-----From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:52 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: TFrew@ghmp.com; nresich@ghmp.com Subject: Response to Suggestion to Use Area 7 for Storage

Dear So -

I wanted to respond to a statement in a letter submitted by Glenn Cornell, dated January 24, 2018, suggesting that Green Hills move its storage/stockpile area from Area 6 to Area 7. Please be advised that this suggestion is not feasible for the following reasons:

- The area currently being used for storage/stockpiling in Area 6 measures 104,250 square feet. - The area available in Area 7 for such use totals only about 20,000 square feet. - Thus, Area 7 lacks sufficient space for Green Hills' needs. - Further, given the contours of Area 7 as depicted in the attached map and photographs, Area 7 would not be usable for storage/stockpiling unless significant amounts of grading work were performed.

Green Hills has made considerable headway working with the homeowners on the Park's southern borders to address the concerns expressed in Mr. Cornell's letter. Such solutions, we believe, are preferable than endeavoring to relocate the storage/stockpiling for the Park, particularly given the space and topographic constraints.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you. Ellen

Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP I 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 I Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Tel +1 310 586 7763 I Mobile + 1310 592 3479 berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gtlaw.com

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.

2

RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA Brian Campbell Mayor (Ret.)

January 30, 2018

City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and City Attorney Aleshire:

I am in receipt of a deposition subpoena directed to me in connection with the litigation between Green Hills and the Lomita residents. I am formally requesting that the City advise and if necessary defend and indemnify me in this matter.

I received the City Attorney's e-mail of January 26, 2018 suggesting that I have not cooperated with the City. That e-mail is inaccurate and misleading as are many others he has sent. I have always attempted to cooperate with the City and the City Attorney and the city attorney's records will prove that.

Should the City not provide me with legal advice and if necessary indemnity and defense in this matter, based on an alleged violation of a newly enacted rule of procedure, I will take the steps necessary to retain counsel of my own and seek reimbursement from the City.

Please be advised that the City Attorney is in a better position to protect City communications involving privileges and deliberations in the documentation requested and likely testimony for this deposition. My own privately retained attorney may not be able to adequately protect the City and I will not be responsible in that regard nor for the additional legal expenses incurred if the City refuses to cooperate in this matter.

I look forward to hearing back from you within 48 hours in order to ensure that my rights and the City's rights are not prejudiced by any delay in my obtaining counsel.

Best regards,

904 Silver Spur Road #282 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274

5