Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2019-10-15 CC Agenda - Public Communication related to Top Golf - 2019Shillinq, Mona
From:
Boyles,Drew (Mayor)
Sent:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:10 PM
To:
Courtney, Thomas
Cc:
ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Subject:
Re: Topgolf Comments
Thank you Mr. Courtney,
Drew Boyles
Mayor I City of EI Segundo
See My Linkedln Profile
On Oct 15, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Courtney, Thomas <tcourtnevt?a coastalinsurancefinancial.com> wrote:
Please include the attached comments in tonight's meeting materials.
Thanks very much, if any questions please let me know
Tom Courtney
<image001.jpg>
"Please note, as of 6/24 our offices has moved. Find our new address listed below"
Thomas J Courtney
2121 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3375
EI Segundo, CA 90245
Tel 310-322-6900
<Oct 15 2019 Topgolf Project Comments.pdf>
1
Shillinq, Mona
From: Courtney, Thomas <tourtney@coastalinsurancefinancial.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:56 PM
To: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Subject: Topgolf Comments
Attachments: Oct 15 2019 Topgolf Project Comments.pdf
Please include the attached comments in tonight's meeting materials.
Thanks very much, if any questions please let me know
Tom Courtney
COASTAL INSt_!RAM i
FINANCIAL SERVICES
"Please note, as of 6/24 our offices has moved
Thomas 1 Courtney
2121 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3375
EI Segundo, CA 90245
Tel 310-322-6900
Find our new address listed below"
I have been an opponent of the Top Golf project since first introduced in August, 2012 under an
agenda description as "enhancing the driving range and dining facilities". The items listed below
are some of the many issues that have arisen during this process and I believe when taken
together clearly show that this project should be turned down.
1. The Beginning
This item came to the council as "new business" in August, 2012, under the above
description; a review of the council video shows no one spoke and no one showed up at the
meeting. After the particulars of the project came to light, 60 people came to a Parks & Rec
meeting and voiced their disapproval. Though introduced in August staff indicated that they
had been meeting with a local developer since January on the project and agenda items
indicate that the council had met in closed session several times before the item had
actually been presented to the public! Staff indicated that the project came out of EDAC but
no mention of it can be found in any agenda or minutes of that organization. Staff had
indicated that an RFP was not required because of the EDAC origination —this was in error,
the then current golf course operating manual and basic city rules dictated that a project of
this size should be put out to bid- it was not and the sole source project continued.
2. Golf Course History
The golf course and driving range date back to at least the late 1950's making it one of
the oldest golf practice facilities in LA County. In 1988, Chevron deeded the 23 acres to the
City with a deed restriction that it only be used for "recreation" and "open space". The City
zoned the property open space and is the largest such parcel in the City. The Lakes has been
recognized as one of the best short courses in the County and has had exemplary youth
programs teaching thousands of children the game of golf.
3. The First Deal
In November, 2013 the public first learned of the particulars- transfer of control of the
10 acre range to a private developer who would sublease to TopGolf for 20 years with six,
five year options —a transfer of control of 50 years. The city would receive $425,000 a year
with small annual increases every ten years with no percentage increases. Council members
who supported the project called it the best deal that could have been negotiated and was
a huge win for the city. Many of the provisions of that lease remain in the current version
before the Council tonight.
4. Lakes Financials Misstated
Staff presented financial numbers of the Lakes that were inaccurate; the net income
from the range alone at that time equaled or exceeded the rent to be paid by TopGolf. One
council member stated that she based her vote on the financial analysis prepared by staff.
The project was approved 3-2. In a subsequent meeting it was admitted that the finance
director had not approved or seen the analysis prepared by the staff member, that staff
member shortly thereafter left the city.
1
5. The First Big Lie - The Lakes is Losing Money
The Lakes has basically five income sources- course, range, restaurant, lessons, and the
proshop. The range is and always has been highly profitable, while the course struggles to
break even and the restaurant and proshop lose money - why has the city owned and
operated these two over the years, why not lease them out? The City charges the Lakes
noncash overhead expenses, which causes the project to be a "loser" on the books.
6. The Second Big Lie -TopGolf is a Family Oriented Recreation Facility and not an
Entertainment Venue.
In 2012 there were a handful of TopGolf facilities and it was presented with an emphasis
on family recreation. The basic fact that actually practicing golf is prohibitively expensive
was just glossed over as it is today. There are now 40+ TopGolf locations. In Texas which
tracks alcohol sales TopGolf in Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio routinely end up in
the top 5 of alcohol sales each month, TopGolf proudly proclaimed when San Antonio was
opened it would be largest sport bar in town — it is. The target market is male, aged 21-35,
and 65+ make up just 2% of their customers. A recent Inside Edition expose ran last month
shows how dangerous it can be when one mixes alcohol and swinging a golf club at TopGolf.
7. The Third Big Lie — TopGolf is a Driving Range First
It is not, pricing back in 2013 and today makes the practice of golf too expensive. Hitting
bays cost between $25-50 an hour, who is going to pay that cost? Discounts for EI Segundo
residents have been touted throughout this process, and now we know- residents will pay
$10 for a small bucket of 45 balls during limited morning hours, however during these
limited hours residents will be paying more than double what they pay now! Nonresidents
don't get any breaks, they will pay the full cost of a hitting bay and thus the critical aspect of
"practice" is removed.
8. An RFP At Last
After a defeat of the TopGolf project in October, 2017, the City put out an RFP, including
section 4 D, which proposed its use must adhere to the Chevron deed restrictions. The
TopGolf project clearly does not meet this simple condition, the current council has glossed
over this critical condition and more importantly and amazingly the Centercal/TopGolf
proposal was physically received after the deadline for submissions. When has the City ever
accepted a proposal under an RFP of this size after the clearly published deadline? Council
has erred in accepting and proceeding under the proposal.
9. Critical Zoning Errors
The City attempts to rezone the driving range acres from open space/recreation to a
"Lakes Specific Plan" that renames the use "Commercial Recreation/Open Space". The
Specific Plan concept used by the City makes the general plan a sham. What is the
recreation aspect of a TopGolf facility when in every venue it comes to it is advertised as
being the biggest sports bar in town? Where else is there a "commercial recreation"
classification?
Amendments to the general plan are required to be voted upon under the City rules and
should be done here; the entire project represents the largest open space parcel in the City.
10. Public Trust Doctrine
It is well established that "A public trust is created when property is held by a public
entity for the benefit of the general public" Welwood v City Council 215 Cal App3rd 1004,
Big Sur Properties v Mott 62 Cal App 3rd 99, see Citizens for Enforcement of Parkland
Covenants v Palos Verdes Estates. Simply when a City acquires property for the benefit of
the public it holds it in trust, a transfer to a private developer for up to a 50 year period
violates that trust especially when the City holds this property subject to a specific deed
restriction. Courts have held that deed restrictions are to be strictly adhered to, see again
the Welwood case and the most recent Citizens case in Palos Verdes. The approval of the
TopGolf project violates these basic common law concepts.
11. Chevron's Deed Restriction Change Or Contractual Acquiescence Is Made Under
Economic Duress
Generally two parties can agree to change a deed restriction in any way they desire.
Here the facts are unique: the property has been used for a golf course and driving range
for 70 years, the property was gifted to the City in conjunction with a 68 acre development
with a specific deed restriction that it continues to be used for recreation and open space.
The City accepted the property with the restriction and is the largest such parcel in the City.
The City desires to change the zoning and use for monetary purposes and asks Chevron who
operates one of the largest refineries in the country to approve- what else can they do?
Chevron is one of the largest employers in the City and physically occupies a very large
portion of the City, day to day interaction of permits; building and safety issues are
numerous. Chevron's agreement should be invalidated.
12. EIR Parking Problems
The EIR is flawed and a new CEQA analysis is needed- The original EIR had the parking
spaces in the project at about 525, testimony was given at the Planning Commission
meeting that the number was inadequate and the traffic flow in and off of Sepulveda was
dangerous. The latest version reduces those spaces even further to 464, allowing for only 27
on the adjacent West Basin property. Valet parking is being proposed and will make the
actual parking experience a nightmare, traffic will be grid locked in and out of the lot. Golf
course spaces are reduced to 23 with the rest subject to first come first serve - golfers trying
to arrive for tee times especially from 4 or so on during the weekends will find it difficult to
do so and golf course play will be affected. Simple common sense says the project is
woefully under -parked.
13. TopGolf Financial Risk
TopGolf has been expanding rapidly across the country and one financing technique
they employ is the sale/leaseback- after a property is built it is sold and leased back from
the entity, (EPR Properties for the most part) TopGolf gets cash to use in another project
and pays the buyer a lease payment, the question of course is how much equity remains in
3
the property. Such a transaction is allowed under the documents here and if done could
well create the situation where in an economic downturn TopGolf could not pay their
obligations to the City.
14. What Does Recreation Look Like In 20, 30, 40 Years?
The City agrees to transfer control of one of the largest parcels of open space in the city
for 2 generations to a private developer. The City is denying future generations the use of
that land for whatever recreation looks like in the future.
15. What Can The Lakes Look Like
Improve the driving range and charge top dollar, discounts for residents, juniors and
seniors- lease out the restaurant and proshop to third parties on a triple net basis with
strong percentage rents, expand and increase fees for instructors and lease out the golf
course. You won't get to the TopGolf revenues which are now about 4 times the "best deal
ever" in 2013 but the City will retain critical recreation space and will have the flexibility to
meet ever-changing recreation needs over the next five decades.
Tom Courtney
Shillinq, Mona
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good Afternoon Ms. Weaver,
Whitney Hodges <WHodges@sheppardmullin.com>
Monday, October 14, 2019 5:16 PM
Weaver, Tracy (City Clerk); ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Jessica Sanberg; Tanner Micheli; Rupesh Bhakta
EI Segundo City Council Hearing - October 15, 2019 - Agenda Item 1: The Lakes Specific
Plan, Recreation Ground Lease Agreement and Golf Course Management Agreement
Topgolf - EI Segundao - Anti-CRAPPOS Response Letter.pdf
Please find attached a copy of the applicant Topgolf, Inc.'s response to the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence related to the
entitlements for the Specific Plan project listed as Agenda Item I for tomorrow's City Council Hearing. The analysis
should be familiar as it merely elaborates on the analysis already provided in the Staff Report recommending approval of
the project. The technical and legal experts for the project will be available at the hearing to answer any questions the
Mayor and Councilmembers may have.
Best,
Whitney Hodges
Whitney Hodges
+1 619-338-6542 1 direct
WHoduesC�shenoardmullin.com I Bio
SheppardMullin
501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego; CA 92101-3598
+1 619-338-6500 1 main
www.shepAardmullin,cam I Linkedln I Twitter
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments.
SheppardMullin
October 14, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Tracy Sherrill Weaver
City Clerk
City of EI Segundo
350 Main Street
EI Segundo, California 90245
E -Mail: tweaver@elsegundo.org
allcouncilandclerks@elsegundo.org
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway 19"' Floor
San Diego California 92101-3598
619 338 6500 main
619 234 3815 fax
www sheppardmullin com
619.338.6542 direct
whodges@sheppardmullin.com
File Number: 53TR-271095
Re: Citv Council October 15, 2019 Hearing — Agenda Item 1: The Lakes Specific Plan,,
Recreation Ground Lease Agreement and Golf Course Manaqement Agreement
Dear Ms. Weaver:
On behalf of our client Topgolf, Inc. ("Topgolf'), we appreciate the opportunity to respond to
comments submitted by local group Anti -Commercial Recreational at Areas Protected Open
Spaces ("Anti-CRAPPOS") on September 6th and September 8, 2018 regarding the above -
referenced agenda item.
As it relates to Topgolf, The Lakes Specific Plan and land use changes proposed in the matter
currently before the City Council will facilitate construction of a Topgolf driving range, building
and surface parking in the CR/OS sub -area (the "Project"). The Topgolf recreation facility will
be approximately 67,500 square -feet ("SF), with approximately 35,000 SF — or 102 — golf hitting
bays with private seating areas immediately behind each bay, approximately 10,000 SF of
restaurant and bar space, 2,085 SF of meeting and event area, 1,638 SF of office, 522 SF of
lounge, 1,130 SF of lobby, approximately 17,000 SF of storage and circulation, 1,400 SF of
outdoor terrace and 5,400 SF of patio. The history of the Project, including the Request for
Proposals process, is well documented in the Staff Report for Agenda Item 1, which is
incorporated by reference herein.
It appears Anti-CRAPPOS is a grassroots organization taking specific umbrage with Topgolfs
proposed Project, but has no additional presence or activity within the City of EI Segundo
("City"). After reviewing the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence, we find that the allegations
included therein are largely based on vague or incorrect factual and legal assumptions or
represent mere policy differences with City decision -makers. We find the claims to be without
merit and, therefore, we respectfully request City Council support the staff recommendation for
Project approval. We would also note for the record that a number of the comments contained
in the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence are vague, conclusory or miscite the law.
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 2
This responsive correspondence is consistent with the City's Staff Report but provides
additional detail in the form of a statement-by-statement response to the Anti-CRAPPOS
correspondence.
I. Response to Comments
Comment 1'
We anti.CRAAPOS are members of a continuing coalition focused on stopping the development
of any C-R ( Commercial Recreation ) Facility in an Open Space Zoning designation of The
Lakes All 26. 42 acreages of which are included in the State of California's Inventory Data Base
(CPAD) and deemed Protected by California's Department of Conservation.
And as such we will continue our fight against such establishments for the sake of the
Community.
Response 1
Lands in the Department of Conservation ("DoC") California Protected Areas Database
("CPAD"), including the Project site, are to be protected for open space purposes through fee
title ownership. CPAD "protected" status does not mean a specific level of conservation for
biodiversity values. Instead, "protection" refers to a general commitment to maintain the
property for any of a wide range of open space uses, including:
• Habitat conservation;
• Recreation;
■ General open space serving a broad range of purposes;
■ Historical/cultural;
• Forestry;
■ Agricultural;
Ranching;
• Water supply;
• Scenic area; and
• Flood control.
As detailed in the Staff Report for the above-referenced agenda item, the proposed land use
changes will be minor and will retain the same general open space uses — golf course, driving
range and ancillary uses — that will be open to the public.
Therefore, much like the existing golf course, Project's will not violate the CPAD "protected"
designation.
Comment 2
The Department of Conservation was not one of the State's Agencies asked to review the DEIR.
We most certainly intend to approach them in Sacramento to inquire about continuing pressing
Please note, "comments" were copied directly from materials received. All typos, misspellings, other grammatical
issues or inherent confusion in the comments contained in this responsive correspondence are direct reflections of
the correspondence Topgolf received from Anti-CRAPPOS.
SheppardMuilin
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 3
subjects, all associated with Open Space Zoning & restrictions dealing but not limited to : new
building approval processes, building height, maximum allotment for parking spaces, mixed-use
zoning compatibility, parcel -count, permitted noise levels & hours of operation, etc, etc, etc. And
one more thing, expected consumption of spirits - basis experiences in existing establishments
including videos ); supported by revenue figures derived from such consumption.
Response 2
Typically, once a draft environmental impact report ("EIR") has been completed, the lead
agency must file a "notice of completion" with the state Office of Planning and Research. (Pub.
Res. Code § 21161; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15085(a), 15372.) However, the lead agency is not
required to file a separate notice of completion when the draft EIR is submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for state agency review, because the notice and transmittal form required by the
Clearinghouse serves as the notice of completion. (CEQA Guidelines § 15085(d).)
Under Public Resources Code sections 21104 and 21153 and CEQA Guidelines
section 15086(a), comments on a draft EIR must be requested from:
• Responsible agencies;
• Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project;
■ Other state. federal, and local agencies that exercise authority over resources that
may be affected by the oroiect;
■ Any city or county that borders on a city or county within which the project is located;
and
• Transportation planning agencies, if the project is a project of statewide, regional, or
areawide significance and the project could affect transportation facilities within the
transportation planning agency's jurisdiction.
(Emphasis added.) Lead agencies may, and usually do, request comments from state
agencies, like the DoC, through the State Clearinghouse process outlined int CEQA
Guidelines section 15085.
The City filed the draft EIR (SCH 2016091003) with the State Clearinghouse on January 26,
2017. (See httos:llceaanet.or)r.ca.aov/2016091003/2.) Therefore, the City has complied with
its noticing and review request requirements related to the state agencies, including the DoC,
despite the fact no copy was sent directly to any particular state agency outside of the State
Clearinghouse.
Moreover, Anti-CRAPPOS's ability to challenge any perceived procedural deficiencies related
to the EIR terminated upon the expiration of the statute of limitations related to the September
5, 2017 certification of the EIR, which would have occurred no later than March 5, 2018.
(Pub. Res. Code § 21167; CEQA Guidelines § 15112; Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of
Irvine (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1110, 112 1)
SheppardMullin
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 4
Comment 3
It would be prudent for you to review California Code Sections 65560 - 65570 and also
Sections 65910 - 65912. As well as EI Segundo General Plan- Title 6.
Response 3
This comment cites the Open -Space Lands portion of California's Planning and Zoning Law
(Government Code §§ 65000 et seq.), which is the primary means for counties and cities to
accomplish local agency planning. These sections define open space as "any parcel or area
of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open -space use as defined
in this section, and that is designated on a local, regional, or state open -space plan." (Govt.
Code § 65560(b) [emphasis added].) Open space is further defined in the Open -Space Land
provisions as land:
• Required for the preservation of wildlife;
■ Required for ecologic and scientific study;
■ Used for the managed production of natural resources such as timber, minerals, and
agricultural products;
• Needed for the recharge of groundwater basins;
• Used for outdoor recreation with scenic, historic, and cultural value;
• Needing to remain open for public safety to manage hazardous conditions like flood
zones, earthquake faults, fire risk, and water and air quality;
• In the proximity of military installations; and
■ Involving Native American sites.
(Govt. Code § 65560(b)(1)-(6).)
As an initial matter, the Project site was previously developed, and is not required for any of
the above -enumerated reasons. Therefore, the Project site does not satisfy the definition of
"open space" in Government Code section 65560(b).
Moreover, the Project site will remain open space accessible to the public, as identified in the
Staff Report. The Topgolf structures are merely ancillary uses to the open space uses (much
like the clubhouse and pro shop at the existing public golf course), with the bulk of the Project
remaining recreational golf links.
As outlined in the EIR, the Project is consistent with the City's open -space zoning ordinance
adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65190 and the Open Space and Recreation
Element of the City's General Plan, including Goal OS 1, Objective OS1-1, Objective OS1-2,
Objective OS1-3, Objective OS1-3.4 and Objective OS1-4. The Project is not inconsistent
with the City's Zoning Ordinance a mandatory policy or objective of the City's Open Space
and Recreation Element.
2 Zone Change No. ZC 16-01 is necessary to maintain consistency with the General Plan, but does not remove the
requirement that Project site used as open space and uses compatible with the existing golf course facility and
operations
SheppardMullin
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 5
Therefore, the Project does not violate the Open Space Land provisions of the Planning and
Zoning Law or the Open Space and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan.
Comment 4
There are also closely related restrictions spelled out in Chevron's Grant- Deed. Speaking of
which, Chevron's local management should not be too hasty in relaxing any such restricted
language going forward as upcoming challenges as noted plus possibly some legal in nature
could very well unfortunately implicate them as well. Best of course to await resulting outcomes.
Response 4
We are aware the Project site was part of a 24 -acre parcel deeded to the City by Chevron USA,
Inc. ("Chevron"). In exchange for the deed, Chevron retained the rights to approve any future
development on said real property. Topgolf is aware of this, and, in conjunction with the City,
has worked with Chevron to ensure compliance with any and all encumbrances recorded
against the Project site. To this end, the Due Diligence and Recreation Ground Lease ("Lease")
associated with the Project requires Chevron to execute and deliver an agreement addressing
the use of the Project site consistent with the provisions of the Lease.
Comment 5
Another important `legal' matter, certainly a point of contention, revolves around the City
Attorney's acceptance of one of RFP's proposals 36 minutes late, beyond the deadline set in
the RFP. The city's Municipal Code very clearly DOES NOT make any exception to the strict
rule, period, and for good reason. Such strict language is repeated in many other Municipality's
Code Books, including California's Public Contract Code, PCC 10168. Not to mention in Article
X of the RFP itself. By the way, The Right to Reject clause / language ( Article IX ) in same
RFP, has nothing whatsoever to do with the restrictive language that strictly addresses the
legality of how late RFP submittals, inside 'closed / sealed' envelopes' are expected to be
handled. Period. There are some legal minds amongst us that are considering filing a complaint
to the appropriate judicial office, with respect to how `this matter' was handled.
Response 5
This comment cites to requirements related to bids for "public works projects" as defined by
Labor Code section 1720 (Pub. Cont. Code § 10128, EI Segundo Municipal Code § 1-7C-2.)
Therefore, the strict requirements cited by the comment are not applicable to Topgolf s
response to the City's original Request for Proposals. There has been no violation of the bidding
process, and, contrary to Anti-CRAPPOS repeated speculative insinuations, there has been no
acts of impropriety in the bidding process committed either by the City or by Topgolf.
In connection with the Request for Proposal biding process, the City held twelve (12) task force
meetings and accepted nine (9) proposals. With regards the late submission, the City Attorney
determined Topgolf did not have a competitive advantage by submitting its proposal late
because no others had been opened or viewed, and the task force unanimously voted to accept
it. (108 Holdings, Ltd. v City of Rohnert Parr (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 186 [local government has
discretion interpreting and implanting local laws and regulations].)
SheppardlMufian
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 6
Comment 6
The very fact that Top Golf had been sole -sourced for years, going back to 2012, has resulted in
the accomplishment of many due- diligence steps by both Top Golf / CenterCal & the City itself.
And even though the city finally relented, in more recent history, in allowing the RFP to take
place ( but only after a 3-2 CC vote in Oct '17 seemingly nixed it for good ), one cannot but
suspect that the exercise would inescapably result in a self- fulfilling prophesy to where no
reading of tea -leaves were needed to know to whom the final nod was destined to be awarded
to. Kabuki Theater for some reason, comes to mind. Just wondering aloud what liabilities might
the city face is anyone or several of the other 8 developers who submitted their proposals in a
timely manner, hear about the noted late submittal & resulting `acceptance' or who may even
get wind of the long history of the city's relentless desire to embrace Top Golf. Anybody know ?
Response 6
This comment does not contain a specific allegation, and is, instead, speculative conjecture.
Contrary to Anti-CRAPPOS's prerogative, the fact that Anti-CRAPPOS disagrees with the City
staff and Planning Commission's views of good policy and recommendations to approve this
Project does not make the vague allegations in the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence true.
Comment 7
Enough is enough with not too subtle attempts that have been going on for years now by
selected city decision -makers to skirt the city's own regulations ( and even State ones - am
recalling the Cease & Desist Order of many years back levied for suspected violations of the
Brown Act ). The majority of the residents of our city do not favor C-R developments in our
cherished Open Spaces. Not to mention setting a very bad precedent / slippery- slope that could
similarly adversely affect other Parks & Recreational Open Spaces in town.
Response 7
This comment does not contain a specific allegation, and is, instead, speculative conjecture.
Contrary to Anti-CRAPPOS's prerogative, the fact that Anti-CRAPPOS disagrees with the City
staff and Planning Commission's views of good policy and recommendations to approve this
Project does not make the vague allegations in the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence true.
Comment 8
Bravo. Applause.
The back & forth from the dais during this past City Council meeting ( 9/4/18) @ subject of the
RFP results related to sought improvement at The Lakes seemed well rehearsed ( but then
again it's purely conjecture on our part ). What is it that Abe once said about " .. fooling some of
the people ... " .
Very clever too about not just giving the nod to you know whom & then parsing the remaining
`contenders' from 3 down to 2 and in so doing dropped the one developer/ proposal who aimed
to improve but retain the entire 26 + acres as normative to the traditional game of golf. Of
course it is way easier to later on drop one from contention & give the nod ( surprise, surprise )
to you know whom. Versus dropping two, after more `study' ( some may call it pretentiousness,
but not us ). Plus the added advantage gained by playing `the waiting game' to see what
SheppardMuliln
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 7
challenges might be coming down the pike, hearing the outcomes / results & only after give the
final nod. A double-edged sword. Multi -tasking at its best. Brilliant.
But others can play the waiting game too.
We are close to deciding which of the other submitters to possibly clue -in ... and let them make
their own decisions as to 'what next'. Not very smart to have trimmed down the list to only
consider 'Hi -Tech' offerers. Question that begs to be asked now is why have wasted man-hours
of non -Hi -Tech submitters for nothing, if the majority in CC seemed so inclined, at the end of the
day, to only consider 'Hi -Tech' submitters. Seems to us that the CC should have provided the
RFP Task Force instructions from the git-go about such preference ( but didn't ).
Response 8
This comment does not contain a specific allegation, and is, instead, speculative conjecture.
Contrary to Anti-CRAPPOS's prerogative, the fact that Anti-CRAPPOS disagrees with the City
staff and Planning Commission's views of good policy and recommendations to approve this
Project does not make the vague allegations in the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence true.
Comment 9
From a legal standpoint we are of the firm belief that the buck should have stopped with your
City Attorney is refusing to accept that late submittal a day or so prior, versus placing the
responsibility unto the 7 non -lawyer members of the RFP Task Force after being read verse &
chapter of Article VII's Right to Reject, even though its one sentence in Article X that needed
emphasis & proper action BY A LAWYER, some days prior to the voting. Considerations on
what WE do next re' this questionable & pungent matter still under discussion.
Response 9
Please see response to Comment 5.
Comment 10
We have made some phone inquiries to a representative of the Department of Conservation &
have received hopeful feedback about wanting to see selected documents. A trip to Sacramento
might be in the offing.
Response 10
We respect Anti-CRAPPOS right to petition all levels of government and state agencies.
However, there is nothing in the Anti-CRAPPOS correspondence that demonstrates any
violation of federal, state or local law.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, Topgolf has complied with the requirements of the EI
Segundo Municipal Code, City General Plan, CEQA and all other applicable state and local
regulations. The Project will upgrade an important site in the heart of the City and will provide
economic and recreational benefits to the community and surrounding properties.
SheppardMullin
City Clerk
October 14, 2019
Page 8
Because of the Project's community benefits and the fact the opposition in the Anti-CRAPPOS
correspondence have no merit, we respectfully request the City Council approve the Project as
recommended by both City staff and Planning Commission.
We are available to answer any questions the City Council may have regarding this request
and/or the contents of this response letter.
Sincerely,
Whitney A. Hodges
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4818-1646-7369.1
Attachment
cc: Mayor Drew Boyles
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Pirsztuk
Councilmember Don Brann
Councilmember Scot Nichol
Councilmember Chris Pimentel
Tanner Micheli
Jessica Sanberg
Shillinq, Mona
From: anti.craapos <anti.craapos@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 9:22 AM
To: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Cc: Petit, Meredith
Subject: More on our coalitions' stance on RFP Process @ The Lakes
Bravo. Applause.
The back & forth from the dais during this past City Council meeting ( 9/4/18 ) @ subject of the RFP results related to
sought improvement at The Lakes seemed well rehearsed ( but then again it's purely conjecture on our part ). What is it
that Abe once said about " .. fooling some of the people ... " .
Very clever too about not just giving the nod to you know whom & then parsing the remaining `contenders' from 3 down
to 2 and in so doing dropped the one developer / proposal who aimed to improve but retain the entire 26 + acres as
normative to the traditional game of golf. Of course it is way easier to later on drop one from contention & give the nod
( surprise, surprise ) to you know whom. Versus dropping two, after more 'study' ( some may call it pretentiousness, but
not us ). Plus the added advantage gained by playing 'the waiting game' to see what challenges might be coming down
the pike, hearing the outcomes / results & only after give the final nod. A double-edged sword. Multi -tasking at its best.
Brilliant.
But others can play the waiting game too.
We are close to deciding which of the other submitters to possibly clue -in ... and let them make their own decisions as to
'what next'. Not very smart to have trimmed down the list to only consider 'Hi -Tech' offerers. Question that begs to be
asked now is why have wasted man-hours of non -Hi -Tech submitters for nothing, if the majority in CC seemed so
inclined, at the end of the day, to only consider 'Hi -Tech' submitters. Seems to us that the CC should have provided the
RFP Task Force instructions from the git-go about such preference ( but didn't ).
From a legal standpoint we are of the firm belief that the buck should have stopped with your City Attorney is refusing
to accept that late submittal a day or so prior, versus placing the responsibility unto the 7 non -lawyer members of the
RFP Task Force after being read verse & chapter of Article VIPs Right to Reject, even though its one sentence in Article X
that needed emphasis & proper action BY A LAWYER, some days prior to the voting. Considerations on what WE do next
re' this questionable & pungent matter still under discussion.
We have made some phone inquiries to a representative of the Department of Conservation & have received hopeful
feedback about wanting to see selected documents. A trip to Sacramento might be in the offing.
anti.CRAAPOS
Shilling, Mona
From: anti.craapos <anti.craapos@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2018 4:07 PM
To: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Cc: HenryKusch@chevron.com; Petit, Meredith
Subject: Re' Agenda Item Comment D- 2 @ Upcoming City Council Meeting on 9/4/18
We anti.CRAAPOS are members of a continuing coalition focused on stopping the development of any C-R (
Commercial Recreation ) Facility in an Open Space Zoning designation of The Lakes. All 26.42 acreages of
which are included in the State of California's Inventory Data Base ( CPAD ) and deemed Protected by
California's Department of Conservation.
And as such we will continue our fight against such establishments for the sake of the Community.
The Department of Conservation was not one of the State's Agencies asked to review the DEIR. We
most certainly intend to approach them in Sacramento to inquire about continuing pressing subjects, all
associated with Open Space Zoning & restrictions dealing but not limited to : new building approval
processes, building height, maximum allotment for parking spaces, mixed-use zoning compatibility,
parcel -count, permitted noise levels & hours of operation, etc, etc, etc. And one more thing, expected
consumption of spirits - basis experiences in existing establishments ( including videos ); supported by
revenue figures derived from such consumption.
It would be prudent for you to review California Code Sections 65560 - 65570 and also Sections 65910 -
65912. As well as El Segundo General Plan- Title 6.
There are also closely related restrictions spelled out in Chevron's Grant- Deed. Speaking of which,
Chevron's local management should not be too hasty in relaxing any such restricted language going
forward as upcoming challenges as noted plus possibly some legal in nature could very well
unfortunately implicate them as well. Best of course to await resulting outcomes.
Another important `legal' matter, certainly a point of contention, revolves around the City Attorney's
acceptance of one of RFP's proposals 36 minutes late, beyond the deadline set in the RFP. The city's
Municipal Code very clearly DOES NOT make any exception to the strict rule, period, and for good
reason. Such strict language is repeated in many other Municipality's Code Books, including
California's Public Contract Code, PCC 10168. Not to mention in Article X of the RFP itself. By the
way, The Right to Reject clause / language ( Article IX ) in same RFP, has nothing whatsoever to do
with the restrictive language that strictly addresses the legality of how late RFP submittals, inside
51
`closed / sealed' envelopes' are expected to be handled. Period. There are some legal minds amongst us
that are considering filing a complaint to the appropriate judicial office, with respect to how `this matter'
was handled.
The very fact that Top Golf had been sole -sourced for years, going back to 2012, has resulted in the
accomplishment of many due- diligence steps by both Top Golf / CenterCal & the City itself. And even
though the city finally relented, in more recent history, in allowing the RFP to take place ( but only after
a 3-2 CC vote in Oct `17 seemingly nixed it for good ), one cannot but suspect that the exercise would
inescapably result in a self- fulfilling prophesy to where no reading of tea -leaves were needed to know
to whom the final nod was destined to be awarded to. Kabuki Theater for some reason, comes to mind.
Just wondering aloud what liabilities might the city face is anyone or several of the other 8 developers
who submitted their proposals in a timely manner, hear about the noted late submittal & resulting
`acceptance' or who may even get wind of the long history of the city's relentless desire to embrace Top
Golf. Anybody know ?
Enough is enough with not too subtle attempts that have been going on for years now by selected city decision -
makers to skirt the city's own regulations ( and even State ones - am recalling the Cease & Desist Order of
many years back levied for suspected violations of the Brown Act). The majority of the residents of our city do
not favor C-R developments in our cherished Open Spaces. Not to mention setting a very bad precedent /
slippery- slope that could similarly adversely affect other Parks & Recreational Open Spaces in town.
anti.CRAAPOS ( anti- Commercial Recreational at Areas Protected Open Spaces )
52
Shilling, Mona
From: Mitnick, Scott
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 2:32 PM
To: Shilling, Mona
Subject: FW: The Biggest Losers (fate of The Lakes) - 10/15 Agenda Item B1
Attachments: Lakes-Topgolf questionaire.docx; ATT00001.htm; Topgolf Notice -2019-10-15
CC -Mailing and posting.pdf; ATT00002.htm
From: Mitnick, Scott
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 1:05 PM
To: Mitnick, Scott <smitnick@elsegundo.org>
Cc: Petit, Meredith <mpetit@elsegundo.org>; Voss, Barbara <bvoss@elsegundo.org>; Hensley, Mark (City Attorney)
<mhensley@hensleylawgroup.com>; Lee, Sam <SLee@elsegundo.org>; McClain, Gregg <gmcclain@elsegundo.org>;
Schonborn, Eduardo <eschonborn@elsegundo.org>; Whalen, Bill (Chief of Police) <bwhalen@elsegundo.org>; Berkman,
Ken <kberkman@elsegundo.org>; Lillio, Joseph <jlillio@elsegundo.org>
Subject: The Biggest Losers (fate of The Lakes) - 10/15 Agenda Item B1
City Council -
Please see below private party email with respect to October 15th public hearing agenda item. Staff and
applicant will be prepared to address the issues raised.
Scott Mitnick
City Manager
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Perkins <kevefx izmail.com>
Date: October 13, 2019 at 9:44:28 AM PDT
Subject: The Biggest Losers (fate of The Lakes)
Hello Gundo Golf Families,
As you may or may not know, this upcoming Tuesday, Oct. I5th at 6pm The ES
city council will hold a public hearing at City Hall and after 7 years decide the
fate of The Lakes. Every indication is that council will elect to approve Topgolf
and move forward in a new direction. While I am sure there will be some program
options for juniors at the new facility, and the Gundo Golf Club will be welcome
to continue to program there, in reality the atmosphere will be very different and
whether or whether not it will be a place we all choose to drop our kids to learn
the game of golf is something else. I am asking all who cherish this facility and
the current access it allows, to please attend and/or speak your mind as it will be
the final chance to be heard on the subject.
Most of us chose to live in El Segundo for the "small town" atmosphere that it has
always been revered for, the amazing system of schools and Parks and Rec in
specific. In a general sense, it seems to me that atmosphere in our city is changing
for the busier, not necessarily for the better. Some of these changes very well may
be necessary, but others are choices that will shape the image and culture in our
community for decades to come. This is one of those decisions. We have worked
hard for the past 3 years to create a program (The Gundo Golf Club) that
introduces golf to the youngest of players, a pipeline for developing their game
with the ultimate goal of a high school golf team. We had hoped that participation
reached a viable level so that over the next few years, a high school team could be
formed and a steady stream of golfers would not only secure a stable team, but
highly competitive championship teams of the future. Tuesday's decision could
greatly impact our progress in that direction.
I have visited Topgolf facilities. As a golfer, it is not a place I would choose or
afford to practice and develop my game. As the parent of a highly focused golfer
who is also becoming a young lady, it isn't an environment that I envision using
as our "home course" anymore. I am sure we will go from time to time, this isn't
a zero sum game, but the environment, pricing and projected hours of use would
not be suitable for a junior golfer aiming for a future in this game. If you are a
golfer then you know my concerns. If you are a parent you should know them
even more. In my opinion our (city of El Segundo) junior golfers are the ones
MOST IMPACTED by this decision.
We have an obligation to offer "Gundo style access" to youth who choose to play
golf, same as we care to do for all the other sports in this city. It is the atmosphere
and people who make the experiences what they are. I am deeply afraid that when
the dust settles we will lose both.
Please take a moment to fill out the attached questionnaire and return or reply to
me, it is an effort to take stock of how the rest of our Gundo Golf Program
families feel on this subject. We will begin to determine a short term solution in
the face of a 9 month closure as well as greater decisions about what this program
may look like in future. I hope you all will attend the public hearing and lend a
voice.
Best to you all!
Questionnaire —TO GUNDO GOLF PARENTS
How old is your child/children
Do you currently drop your child off at The Lakes for lessons, golf programs, course play?
• Yes No
How comfortable are you dropping your child off at The Lakes?
• Very comfortable
• Somewhat comfortable
• Not comfortable
Are you familiar with the TopGolf Entertainment Complex?
• Very Familiar -have gone to a TopGolf facility
• Moderately Familiar -visited the website or seen on-line videos
• Somewhat Familiar -have heard it mentioned in conversation
■ Not Familiar -never heard of it
Will you be comfortable dropping your child off at a TopGolf Entertainment Complex in EI Segundo?
■ Very comfortable
■ Somewhat comfortable
• Not comfortable at all
TopGolf has said it will have security in the parking lot. If it does, will this
■ Add to your level of comfort
• Decrease your level of comfort
• Have no affect on your comfort level
Would you like to see the current set up at The Lakes converted into a TopGolf Facility?
• Yes No
How often do you currently utilize the Lakes Facility?
How often are you likely are you to visit a TopGolf Facility at The Lakes?
Additional Comments:
City of EI Segundo
Public Hearing Notice
The CITY COUNCIL will conduct a public hearing on:
Address: 400 S. Pacific Coast Highway
Project Description: The proposed Lakes Specific Plan (TLSP) consists of the 26.55 -acre area that currently
comprises The Lakes at EI Segundo. The project proposed for the approximately 12 -acres located within the southern
portion of the project site would replace the existing driving range with a 3 -story golf -themed, commercial recreation
and entertainment facility including hitting bays, restaurant/bar, and accessory uses operated under the "TopGolf'
brand. Other project improvements include modifications to the fairways and layouts of six holes at the existing golf
course, parking lot expansion, replacement of existing net poles, and demolition and replacement of the clubhouse/pro
shop. The proposed project includes the Lakes Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Zoning
Text Amendment, a Site Plan Review, a Lot Line Adjustment, and a Conditional Use Permit. Lastly, a lease between
the City and CenterCal for the driving range and parking facilities, and a management agreement between the City and
TopGolf for the golf course operations.
On January 24, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted resolutions recommending that the
City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the project.
Applicant: Topgolf and CenterCal
Hearing: Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 6:00pm
City Council Chambers
350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245
Environmental Determination: On September 5, 2017, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for The Lakes Specific Plan Project, which included
a total of 63,090 sq. ft. of net usable space (72,455 gross square feet). However, the Council did not take any
I subsequent action to approve or carry out the project. The proposed project is a slightly modified version of the Lakes
Specific Plan Project analyzed in the previously -certified EIR. The modifications consist of changes in the locations
and sizes of entertainments areas and restaurant/bar areas, resulting in a 76 sq. ft. decrease in net area, but a 351 sq.
ft. increase in the gross area due to larger circulation space; however, all other components remain the same, including
the number of hitting bays, height of the building and the proposed uses. The City's environmental consultant has
independently reviewed the modifications and has determined that they will not result in any new significant
environmental impacts and will not increase the severity of any effects previously identified in the EIR. The
modifications are adequately covered by the EIR. No significant new information has been added to the EIR since the
Notice of Availability was given on January 26, 2017. The EIR concludes that the project would have less than significant
impacts, or no impacts, in the areas of Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral
Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service
Systems. The EIR finds that the project has the potential for significant impacts to Air Quality, Hazards/Hazardous
Materials, and Noise; however, each of these potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the
implementation of mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure
the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are properly implemented in the event the project is approved. The
EIR reflects the independent judgment of City staff and considers project design features, site and surrounding
environmental conditions, previous environmental evaluations, standard construction/engineering practices, and
potential future projects. Staff is recommending certification of the EIR. The EIR is available at City of EI Segundo —
Planning and Building Safety Department, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245. The EIR is also available online
at:
htlgs:l/www.elseQundo.aro/deats/olanniriasafety/olannina/ea 1135 too ❑olf environmental initial studv/ea 1135 to
D gofl draft eir/default.aso
Further Information: Any person may give testimony at the public hearing at the time and place indicated above.
Written comments may be submitted to Principal Planner Eduardo Schonborn, AicP, at eschonbornee[sea undo.ora,
or mailed to the address above. Note that any appeal of a decision made following a public hearing may be limited to
the issues raised by evidence submitted before or during that public hearing.
Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
Shilling, Mona
From: Mitnick, Scott
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Shilling, Mona
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, October 15th @ 6PM - LAKES AT EL SEGUNDO / TOPGOLF
UPDATE
City Council / City Clerk —
For 10/15 City Council meeting agenda item.
Scott Mitnick
City Manager
Begin forwarded message:
From: Good Swings Happen<iosht@,,Roodswingsliat)gen.com>
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, October 15th @ 6PM - LAKES AT EL SEGUNDO
/ TOPGOLF UPDATE
Date: October 14, 2019 at 12:05:39 PM PDT
To: Scotty <scot4nicolrealestate.com>
Reply -To: Good Swings Happen <ioshaaoodswinashaDnen.com>
Lakes at EI Segundo/Topgolf Update
View this email in vour browser
ity Member,
since The City of EI Segundo has entertained the Topgolf project at The Lakes. Through an RFP process The City
)roposers to lead the Lakes into the future. If you wish to read the 595 page document that serves as a guideline fol
)r /webIink8/a/doc/1047439/Electronlc.as x
iot anticipated that council will move forward and vote to accept Topgolf at this hearing,
ould have been that the city move in a direction more consistent with recreational and community values then that c
Tuesday, October 15th at 6PM there will be a public hearing .providing updated information, a status of the project
EI Segundo City Council have worked over the past several months to mitigate concerns that have been expresse
s the current golfing community greater access then otherwise would have been afforded. I would anticipate that th,
2
f be the final opportunity to see and hear what those final deal points will look like. It will also be the final opportunit)
at may be, before a conclusion is reached.
mine our best avenues for providing junior golf program options for your kids during an anticipated extended period
20. Additionally, we are navigating and evaluating opportunities to serve your junior golfer and family as are availab
g term future. As always, Good Swings Happen truly appreciates the opportunity to work with your children support!
City of EI Segundo
Public Hearing Notice
Y COUNCIL will conduct a public hearing on:
�; 400 S. Pacific Coast Highway
Description: The proposed Lakes Specific Plan (TLSP) consists of the 26.55 -acre
�s The Lakes at EI Segundo. The project proposed for the approximately 12 -acres located
)f the project site would replace the existing driving range with a 3 -story golf -themed, cor
;rtainment facility including hitting bays, restaurant/bar, and accessory uses operated u
)they project improvements include modifications to the fairways and layouts of six holes
)arking lot expansion, replacement of existing net poles, and demolition and replacement c
ie proposed project includes the Lakes Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zonf
endment, a Site Plan Review, a Lot Line Adjustment, and a Conditional Use Permit. Last
and CenterCal for the driving range and parking facilities, and a management agreement bi
for the golf course operations.
ary 24, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted resolutions recc
ncil certify the Final EIR and approve the project.
nt: Topgolf and CenterCal
Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 6:00pm
City Council Chambers
350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245
mental Determination: On September 5, 2017, the City Council certified an EnvironmE
d approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for The Lakes Specific Plan Pro
if 63,090 sq. ft. of net usable space (72,455 gross square feet). However, the Counc
ent action to approve or carry out the project. The proposed project is a slightly modified N
Plan Project analyzed in the previously -certified EIR. The modifications consist of chant
s of entertainments areas and restaurant/bar areas, resulting in a 76 sq. ft. decrease in net
se in the gross area due to larger circulation space; however, all other components remain
ber of hitting bays, height of the building and the proposed uses. The City's environme
lently reviewed the modifications and has determined that they will not result in a
cental impacts and will not increase the severity of any effects previously identified
tinnc arP ariPni iatPly r_nvarPH by thin FIR Nn cinnifir•ant npw infnrmatinn hac hppn nrlrlPrl
Best Regards,
Josh Alpert, PGA
Good Swings Happen Junior Golf Academy
Copyright © 2019 Good Swings Happen, All rights reserved.
unsubscribe from this list uodate subscription preferences
This email was sent to scotOnicolreal estate. com
why did i pet this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
Good Swings Happen Good Swings Happen EI Segundo, CA 90245 USA
Shilling, Mona
From: Mitnick, Scott
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 12:26 PM
To: Shilling, Mona
Cc: Hensley, Mark (City Attorney); Shilling, Mona
Subject: Lakes At EI Segundo/Topgolf
Attachments: Summary of those Items in the 595 -page Topgolf Agreement of Specific Concern to the
EI Segundo Golf Community.docx; EI Segundo Topgolf that Combines the Best of
Revenue Generation and Entertainment with Local Community Engagement.docx
City Council / City Clerk —
For 10/15 City Council agenda.
Scott Mitnick
City Manager
Begin forwarded message:
From: Josh Alpert <ios@ioshaolf.corn>
Subject: Lakes At El Segundo/Topgolf
Date: October 14, 2019 at 10:06:18 AM PDT
To: "Nicol, Scot (Council Member)" <snico1@e1seaundo.or2>
Cc: Craig kessler <ckessler@scga.ora>
Scot,
Thank you for reaching out yesterday to see if I have any questions in an effort that they be answered ahead of
tomorrow night's meeting.
Please find attached an executive summary submitted by Craig Kessler, SCGA Governmental Affairs (cc'd
here). I would agree with his conclusions to large extent and feel it would be especially prudent that there be
oversight in form of a "golf committee" as suggested. A greater effort to make sure that the words actually
become deeds is in all of our best interest.
1. The area that I find most concerning is the pricing structure on the lowest level of the driving range during
Topgolf down time (or non busiest times). There is a huge gap between what was laid out as a reasonable
opportunity for "golfers" to continue to use the facility to practice and what is being offered according the
document.
1. DRIVING RANGE shall allow El Segundo Recreation and Parks members to utilize the first
level of the Driving Range venue at the following rates: a. Monday — Friday (Non -Holidays)
from 6 am to noon @ $10 per bucket or 45 balls. Saturday — Sunday and Holidays from 6 am to
9 am @ $10 per bucket of balls or 45 balls.
In the document submitted to council back in March, authored by myself, the SCPGA and SCGA, (copy below)
suggested pricing for all normative golfers, not just ES card holders, to be consistent with normative golf
driving range prices only on the lowest level of the driving range and only during Topgolf s non busiest times.
It would seem to me that the trade off getting a lower per hour price on a level of range that typically is baren
during the weekday hours could very well work itself into a net positive for Topgolf anyway. Additionally, the
effort to have incorporated a rate that truly supports practicing golfers throughout the South Bay would also
have gone a long way toward building confidence that this facility will do both the entertainment thing and the
golf thing as it always indicated it would.
Effectively, the best discount available, from 6am-12pm weekdays, (only to park and rec card holders), is a
$22.50 large bucket of balls. That's effectively a 100% rate increase over current pricing and during hours
which won't allow any working person or any youth (in school) to participate. In the case of the current
customer who practices before 1 OAM or buys range balls in bulk, the differential is far greater.
It was suggested per the memo below, with support from SCGA and SCPGA, that pricing on the lowest level
from 6AM-4PM weekdays and some early AM hours weekends, run at $15 per 100 balls. Which in itself is over
a 30% price increase over current. It is my estimation that the current pricing strategy will rule out the
practicing golfer from using the facility in any meaningful way. So as not to tie Topgolf to a specific price, if
there is wriggle room to suggest "a rate consistent with that of the local market" (Westchester) vs. a specific
price that could be problematic over the term of a 50 year lease, maybe that's a better way to present? Not sure
what can be done at this late hour but wanted to share with you those sentiments in any regard. "Note that as
driving ranges go, Westchester has the highest range prices in the greater region.
2. I appreciate that you and Chris worked hard and did your best to mitigate concerns and create a greater ability
for jr. golf programs to physically be conducted. Clearly, the final document shows that there will be a
contractually protected ability to run classes to some extent. Equally as clearly, they will be offered at a far
lesser extent that they are now. As a leader of youth programs, and as a parent myself, I share many of the same
concerns that our "golf family customer" has about the unknown of how this all plays out in reality. This is why
these protections are so important in the first place.
For clarity purposes, during Tuesday's presentation, perhaps it would be productive if some specifics are shared
as to:
1. Parents ability to drop their kids curbside to do a program at Topgolf and/or for programs that meet on the
golf course side of things. It is fair to say the current practices have most parents dropping and picking up kids
ages 5-17 at the curb a good percentage of the time. If there is a necessity for parents to stay during the entire
program, that should be indicated as well. (I have heard a lot of questions along these lines by parents so clarity
on this would be appreciated.)
2. Will a junior golfer have the ability to practice at the driving range on their own without a parent present?
Respectfully,
Josh Alpert, PGA
Good Swings Happen
Lakes Range:
Small / 35 balls / $6.00
Medium / 75 balls / $9.00
e Large / 110 balls / $12.00
Range Discount cards with 4 levels offered:
Par: $30 for $35.00
Birdie: $60 for $75.00
Eagle: $110 for $150.00
Hole in One: $250.00 for $400.00
Westchester - Driving Range
Medium Basket: $10.00
80 Balls
Large Basket: $12.00
115 Balls
$20 Range Key
$20 Credit
$50 Range Key w/15% Discount
$60 Credit
$100 Range Key w/25% Discount
$125 Credit
$250 Range Key w/35% Discount
$350 Credit
3
CENTERCAL/TOPGOLF - CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AGREEMENT
Summary of Issues of Particular Concern to Golf Community
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LANGUAGE
The Executive Summary transmitting the voluminous documentation constituting the sum total of legal
documentation necessary to approve the Topgolf/CenterCal project and impel it forward speaks in
specific in the following terms regarding the "affordable access" issues that formed much of the "Areas
of Common Understanding" that the golf community submitted to the city:
"As detailed in the proposed agreement, CenterCal as the proposed lessee is required to make
the driving range available for use by youth groups, student athletes, residents and other groups
to provide use opportunities that are similar to those currently available at the driving range."
"For the purposes of keeping the driving range available for residents, youth groups, golf
instruction and student activities that currently occur at the driving range, CenterCal is required
to abide by Golf Course Manual Section IX (Recognized clubs) and Section X (Driving Range
Operations) (See Exhibit of Attachment M)."
The Executive Summary also includes recitations and cites to those sections of the proposed agreement
that prescribe the redesign of the extant 9 -hole golf course, that require the redesigned golf course and
the Topgolf driving range/entertainment center to be under one master lease agreement, that enshrine
Topgolf's intention to sublet the golf course operation to a golf management company, and that
reiterate the parties' intent to preserve the junior/developmental/family programs that have been
nationally recognized as exemplary.
###########
DRAFT LEASE PROVISIONS
11.3 Between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. each day, Lessee shall make driving bays available for youth sports
and provide a ten percent (10%) discount on driving range charges for residents of the City of EI
Segundo and youth sports users identified in this Section and Section 11.4, Lessee shall provide for
access through the first floor of the Premises Improvements and provide for restroom facilities on the
first floor such that individuals under the age of eighteen (18) may choose not to access the second and
third floor of the Premises Improvements.
11.4 During the Lease term, in addition to the requirement of Section 11.3 Lessee shall allow the uses
set forth in Sections IX and X of the Golf Course Ooerations Manual (Exhibit "J" hereto) and shall allow
the operator of the golf course to use the Premises for the purposes of providing the services and
programs as set forth in Sections IX and X of the Golf Course Operations Manual (Exhibit "J" hereto) as
may be amended from time to time by the City in accordance with the Golf Course Management
Agreement, provided that no such amendment shall increase Lessee's obligations hereunder or under
the Golf Course Operations Manual or require Lessee to expend additional monies.
###########
GOLF OPERATIONS MANUAL [Sections incorporated by reference in Secs. 11.3 and 11.4 of Lease]
IX. DRIVING RANGE OPERATIONS
A. Hours of Operation
1. DRIVING RANGE shall allow EI Segundo Recreation and Parks members to utilize the
first level of the Driving Range venue at the following rates: a. Monday — Friday (Non -
Holidays) from 6 am to noon @ $10 per bucket or 45 balls. Saturday — Sunday and
Holidays from 6 am to 9 am @ $10 per bucket of balls or 45 balls.
B. Access for School Sponsored Golf Groups
1. The DRIVING RANGE shall provide selected school -sponsored golf teams and charities
supporting youth mentorship access to the Driving Range venue for free game play
during the hours of 9:OOam — 5:OOpm, Monday through Thursday (Non Holidays), under
Operator's youth program (for example, Topgolf's Youth Play It Forward initiative).
2. The Driving Range shall provide access to the Driving Range venue for free team
practices at various parts of the week to the Mira Costa Boys and Girls, Vista Mar High
School, the American Martyrs elementary school programs and the recently formed
"Gundo Golf League" is an EI Segundo specific program where players from Richmond
and Center St. Schools begin their journey toward becoming players capable of
representing an EI Segundo High School golf team in the future. To the extent the
Driving Range has ball -tracking technology, it will provide these teams instant feedback
on their swing analytics and ball flight and be able to track their progress over time
through app and web -based applications.
3. The OPERATOR and Driving Range will also extend conversations to First Tee, SCGA,
SCPGA and others who currently use the Lakes for junior programs, tournaments and
leagues to maintain them as a preferred location.
C. Access for Golfers
1. DRIVING RANGE shall provide a "warm-up" solution for golfers with tee times at the
course. This will be done thoughtfully to ensure efficiency and accessibility between the
golf course operations and the Driving Range. Driving Range shall charge a rate that is
consistent with rates charged at other driving ranges owned by public agencies in the
region.
X. LESSON PROGRAMS
A. Purpose
1. To utilize the Driving Range venue and Golf Course Facility to create cobranded
instructional opportunities and optionality for youth and adults.
2. DRIVING RANGE will provide dedicated bay time on all days of the week at the Driving
Range venue to ensure that instruction can happen both on the golf course and driving
range.
3. To provide a service to all levels of golfers so that they may enjoy golf by improving
their individual skill levels.
4. To provide a means of introducing new golfers to the game of golf therefore
improving revenue potential and Course usage.
5. To provide different types of instruction to fit the needs and incomes of all people
desiring to play the game of golf.
B. Instruction can take place in the Driving Range venue for full -swing capability and the use of
visual tracking technology, on the practice greens for chipping and putting, and will move onto
the golf course to pull it all together. The Driving Range venue provides an all-weather solution
enabling instructional programs to continue without pause.
C. Illustrative co -branded youth development and operational programming possibilities that
will utilize both the Topgolf venue and the Golf Course Facilities could include but not be limited
to:
a. Player Development Programs
b. Summer Academy / Junior Camps (over 5,500 kids participated at Topgolf in Summer
2018)
c. Group Classes
d. PGA Junior Leagues (www.pgajrleague.com) — Operator teams compete in Junior
League events and the Driving Range venue will play host to some team competitions.
e. Bays to Fairways — 6 -week program endorsed by the PGA of America — first 5 weeks in
the Driving Range venue and the last week on the golf course.
f.Junior Tournaments
g. Team Training Programs through Operator youth programs (for example, Topgolf's
Youth Play It Forward Initiative)
h. Club Fitting
i. Adult Program Offerings: Private Lessons and Clinics; Community Outreach Programs;
League Play; Tournaments and Outings; Creative Events to maximize community
outreach; World's Largest Golf Outing — National Charity Event
D. OPERATOR's approach shall serve to create cohesive instructional opportunities for adults
and important development programs for youth interested in the game of golf. OPERATOR will
maximize the synergies between the Driving Range venue and Golf Course Facilities to introduce
non -golfers to the sport with the purpose of growing the game and also serve as a true amenity
to city residents.
###########
CONCLUSION
The protections the golf community sought with respect to the preservation of the 9 -hole golf course
are solid, albeit in the interstices of the negotiation among the parties CenterCal and Topgolf managed
to insulate themselves against "losses" exceeding $150,000.00 per year, a feature that removes
incentive to operate a maximally efficient golf operation and something the golf community will need to
continually be cognizant of, particularly with respect to providing the kinds of support to the short
course that only golf organizations can provide. Topgolf has yet to show interest in growing golf, only its
own business model, which is more "Disneyland" than recreation.
The protections the golf community sought with respect to junior programming, school access, local golf
clubs, normative golf practice and EI Segundo residents are incorporated into the proposed agreement
but not as sufficiently protective thereof as many of the other very specific protections the actual parties
to the 10 -month negotiation (City of EI Segundo, CenterCal and Topgolf) placed therein to "protect"
themselves. Such are the vagaries of not being an active participant in any "negotiation." The
circumstances, which are the circumstances faced all golf communities in these kinds of situations,
simply don't permit anything more than 3rd party involvement, which in this case was rather strong and
effective 3rd party involvement.
The protections the golf community sought with respect to the employment of Class "A" PGA
Professionals and Class "A" Golf Course Superintendents are also in the proposed agreement by an
incorporation of Golf Course Manual provisions that are not otherwise contradicted or preempted by
the proposed agreement. These are not as robust as many would have hoped; however many did
anticipate.
Members of the local golf community and by implication the organizations that purport to represent
their interests have to make a judgment as to whether the "protections" they seek to include in any final
agreement are better fulfilled by a support that seeks to be part of how they are implemented in real
time or an opposition that seeks to delay a decision pending the adoption of stronger protective
language.
Given that the parties have spent 7 long years trying to get to this point, there is not going to be much
appetite for any further delay; thus the much better course is NOT to pursue those stronger protections
by further tweaking the agreement, but rather to persuade Council to accomplish that end, one that
they clearly went to great lengths to achieve in this agreement, through means separate therefrom. A
reconstituted "Golf Committee" perhaps with additional members and a scope narrowed to the "golf'
centric issues covered in the provisions highlighted herein would make the most sense. By assigning this
responsibility to a "Golf Committee" reconstituted along these lines, Council could satisfy itself and the
greater golf community that more than mere words are being put in place to turn those words into
reality on the ground — an ongoing institution, advisory to be sure, but something with real substance
that because it was sanctioned by Council, will be taken seriously by CenterCal, Topgolf, and whoever
Topgolf selects as the golf management company to manage the remnant 9 -hole golf course and
expanded short game practice facility. Such an institution could easily serve as the focal point for that
part of the narrative that has suffused this situation from day one about Topgolf wanting to work with
the game and its organizations to partner in the growth and sustenance of the normative game. Maybe
then old golf hands like the author of this analysis will conclude sometime in the near future that
Topgolf does indeed care about something other than its "Disneyland" business model. That would be a
good result —for the golf community, Topgolf, and the City of EI Segundo.
Respectfully Submitted,
CRAIG KESSLER I Director, Governmental Affairs
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOLF ASSOCIATION
3740 Cahuenga Blvd. I Studio City, CA 191604
818/980-3630 ext. 320 1310/941-4803 (cell) I scga.org
4
DATE: February 19, 2019
TO: EI Segundo Mayor and Council
FROM: Good Swings Happen, Southern California PGA Section, and Southern California Golf Association
SUBJECT The actions conducive of making The Lakes @ EI Segundo Topgolf the entertainment/golf
complex capable of acting as the model golf/entertainment hybrid that retains the best of what
the old Lakes @ EI Segundo represented in terms of community engagement,
junior/developmental programming, and affordable/accessible recreational golf and combines it
with the best of what Topgolf has to offer in terms of universal entertainment and revenue
generation to yield an EI Segundo specific Topgolf capable of being as much an asset to the City
of EI Segundo's financial bottom line as it is an asset to the local recreational community.
BACKGROUND
From the beginning of a much too long saga there have been a few points about which all parties have concurred,
among them the following. A Topgolf at the Lakes @ EI Segundo will retain a 9 -hole executive golf course pretty
much within the same footprint as the current course. A Topgolf at the Lakes @ EI Segundo will continue to
accommodate the nationally honored junior/developmental golf programs that have put EI Segundo on the
national golf map and served its residents and local schools well for years. A Topgolf at The Lakes @ EI Segundo
will continue to employ Class A PGA Golf Professionals to continue providing that programming excellence as well
as continue providing first rate golf instruction at municipal golf market rates. A Topgolf at The Lakes @ EI
Segundo will work in good faith with golf's normative leadership organizations (e.g., Southern California PGA
Section and Southern California Golf Association) to provide them the access necessary to put real meat on the
bones of Topgolf's claim to be a proactive part of golf's growth efforts, initiatives and programs. A Topgolf at The
Lakes @ EI Segundo will continue to accommodate local school teams and local school golf programs that have
depended on the generosity of the Lakes and the City of EI Segundo for their existence. A Topgolf at The Lakes @
EI Segundo will continue to accommodate local golfers who want to use the Topgolf driving range for ordinary golf
practice at municipal market rates during those times of the day that do not interfere with the revenue generating
entertainment function that is the central organizing principle of Topgolf.
All or at least almost all concur in these points, which is why the City has been adamant about keeping the golf
course part of the Topgolf leasehold in every respect, functional, financial and otherwise. It is also why the City
incorporated both directly and by reference the following document into the formal agreement that was initially
considered by Council but rejected on a 3-2 vote in favor of doing an RFP process. Given that the result of the
rejected sole source process and the ultimately approved RFP process was the same —Topgolf — and that the
discussion about the kind of facility the City wanted to see on the old Lakes site was suffused by the same goals,
the following remains representative of the deal points that the City still wants to see incorporated into the 2nd of
these final formal agreements to construct a Topgolf in conjunction with a 9 -hole executive golf course on the site
initially gifted to the City by Chevron:
AREAS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TOP GOLF AND CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
As part of TopGolf's ongoing commitment to the golf community and the instructional programs that make the
Lakes a special place, we would like the following shared principles to serve as a guidepost for TopGolf and the
1
community through the development phase of this project. TopGolf supports the following principles conditioned
only by commonly held notions of reasonableness and normative business practice:
1. TopGolf will, within the scope of its own development, work with the city to design a TopGolf facility
capable of accommodating an executive golf course that at minimum maintains the integrity/scope of the
current course's footprint, including the possibility of redesigning/re-routing the course to qualify for the
USGA Course/Slope Rating necessary to host a Type I golf club and the possibility of creating a 2nd practice
putting green for use by golf course exclusive patrons. [Note: The responsibility for any redesign and the
subsequent management of the remainder golf course are the sole province of the City of EI Segundo and
thus within the city's sole discretion.]
2. The continuing capacity of early morning golfers to hit balls before playing the golf course at specific rates
to be determined with TopGolf. Players will show their greens fees receipt and will have the ability to hit
"warm-up balls" from the ground level of the TopGolf driving range. Business hours, albeit on a basis
limited to the specific purpose, capable of accommodating those "warm-up balls" for players teeing off
from 6:00 to 9:00 AM. Food & Beverage service will be provided during normal TopGolf facility operating
hours. TopGolf commits to offering golf price discounts for EI Segundo residents (10%), as well as seniors
and active military personnel (20%). People who fall into both categories will receive a cumulative
discount of 30%. These discounts will apply for the sale of 20 -minute increments of time. In addition,
TopGolf commits to providing in EI Segundo the same monthly access card for avid/core normative golfers
that it provides at its golf centric facilities in Northern Virginia and suburban Chicago.
3. TopGolf will promote and accommodate the exemplary junior programs that have won so many awards
and gained the accolades of the Southern California golf community.
a. Specifically, in the interest of preserving the outstanding learning environment that makes The
Lakes so valuable to the community, TopGolf commits to making the best faith effort with all
such programs, including but certainly not limited to Josh Alpert's "Good Swings Happen," to
incorporate all associated camps, programs and lessons into an EI Segundo TopGolf facility in a
manner allowing those programs the best opportunity to continue their growth trajectory. These
efforts will include engaging existing Lakes Golf Pros in discussions to continue their teaching at
the facility, either as full-time employees or as independent contractors*, within constraints of
the TopGolf business model, and they will include a good faith consideration of including some
measure of a short game practice element to replace the existing one that has proven central to
the success of the Lakes' player development/teaching/junior programs. The efforts will also
include collaboration and consultation with the aforementioned throughout the facility's
development process.
b. Specifically, in the interest of continuing to serve the needs of those local junior high and high
school golf teams that currently use the Lakes as their primary practice site, TopGolf commits to
providing access to members of those teams at no charge when they are practicing as part of a
formalized pre -scheduled team exercise, and TopGolf commits to providing a protocol whereby
members of such teams are able to practice outside of such formalized pre -scheduled team
exercises at rates commensurate with local market rates for normative golf practice, conditioned
only by the recognition that such practice will necessarily be restricted to that portion of the
TopGolf facility reserved for the purpose.
2
4. TopGolf, as part of its business model, will look to employ full time Class A PGA Golf Professionals as well
as provide space for teaching on a contract basis. TopGolf's priority and preference would be the
retention of the Class A PGA Golf Professionals that currently teach at The Lakes facility in various
relationship capacities respective to the individual professional;
5. To make real the TopGolf narrative of introducing the game of golf to a wider audience by including a
good faith obligation to work with the PGA of America, PGA of Southern California, and the SCGA on
allowing those traditional golf organizations the access and cooperation necessary to actually make that
happen [No cost to TopGolf — all costs, burdens, etc., to be borne by the organizations]; and
6. The establishment of a temporary citizens oversight body with ADVISORY authority only to meet regularly
with Centercal/TopGolf project management and the city's representatives for the purposes of
monitoring progress, creating the communication portals conducive of ACCURATE, fact -based exchanges
of information, and ensuring to the greatest extent feasible that the City Council's vision for the
completed project is fulfilled while not adversely affecting TopGolf's basic business model. TopGolf will
have the ability to approve/select a minimum of 33% of the members of the advisory committee. The
advisory body will have neither official oversight nor official involvement regarding the construction
development process, including but not limited to receipt of development and building permits as well as
occupancy certificates to open for business. The advisory body's role and existence will be completed
when the project is completed and TopGolf opens for business, although to the extent the Body proves its
utility as an effective conduit of communication among operator, city and community, TopGolf
understands that the City Council per its discretion may want to make certain appropriate post
construction modifications thereto and continue post construction in a purely advisory role, i.e., replete
with the same admonitions re "official oversight" and/or "official involvement."
* Since this language was drafted the California Supreme Court issued a decision (Dynamex) that has
made it all but impossible for golf professionals to be "independent contractors," however, the California
golf industry is hopeful of securing legislative relief making independent contractor status again possible
under certain circumstances.
CONCLUSION
The above is indicative of intent, albeit it deals in specifics as well. Specifics are important when entering into an
agreement with a term of this length. To those specifics we would add the following in the way of a more
definitive effectuation of the intent suggested by both previous documentation and oral comments issued from
the dais of the EI Segundo City Council and by representatives of the Topgolf and Centercal teams — comments we
believe also match comments issued by Chevron on numerous occasions:
1. Affordable driving range pricing for the practicing golfer.
(Language pulled from "Areas of Understanding" document) — "The continuing capacity of
early morning golfers to hit balls before playing the golf course at specific rates to be
determined with Top Golf. Players will show their greens fees receipt and will have the
ability to hit "warm-up balls" from the ground level of the Top Golf driving range. Business
hours, albeit on a basis limited to the specific purpose, capable of accommodating those
"warm-up balls" for players teeing off from 6:00 to 9:00 AM."
Affordable access for "golfers" (not just EI Segundo resident Park and Rec Card holders) who
want to practice their golf games. Without affordable access, golfers will not practice at the
site, and all talk of the Topgolf driving range working in tandem to grow the game of golf will
be just that — talk without corresponding deed. A per hour or per half hour rate more
consistent with typical driving range pricing for those lowest 33 stalls when the normal Top
Golf model isn't at or near full capacity in combination with weekday access on the lowest
level until a time certain but flexible on weekdays (e.g., 3:00 —4:00 PM) and weekend
morning considerations until a time certain but flexible (e.g. 10 AM) suffices to turn "word"
into "deed." Whether hourly or through a membership arrangement, actual rate during
these times closer to $15 per hour per stall per hour (Typical Range pricing runs at $10 - $12
for 100 ball) is consistent therewith.
2. Provision of access between the lowest level of the TG hitting bays from the left side of the range so
that larger classes, camps and team programs and any instructional program or lesson can move
easily between the TG facility and the 9 -hole course short game and practice area without having to
go through "main entrance."
Taken together, the six (6) points contained in the initial "Areas of Understanding" document and the two (2)
points we have added constitute the actions necessary to make real what all parties have been discussing publicly
— Council, Topgolf, Centercal, Chevron and the local golfing community. Enshrining them into the language of the
final agreement between the City and Topgolf will ensure that this community gets what it is asking for and so
clearly wants.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the named organizations,
Josh Alpert
Good Swings Happen
Tom Addis
Executive Director/CEO Southern California PGA Section (SCPGA)
Craig Kessler
Director of Governmental Affairs Southern California Golf Association (SCGA)
4
Shilling, Mona
From: Jennings, Mishia
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 11:41 AM
To: *ALL CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: Top Golf
Please see below.
Mishia Jennings
City of ECSegundo
Executive .Assistant
7'6 the City CounciC
310-524-2302
njiennrngs@eCseauado.org
From: Val Schnabl [mailto:vjschnabl@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Jennings, Mishia
Cc: Dar Weston
Subject: Fwd: Top Golf
Begin forwarded message:
From: Val Schnabl-vischnabl r@verizon.net>
Subject: Top Golf
Date: October 13, 2019 at 2:27:31 PM PDT
To: MJenninv-s�elsei,,,uiido.orp,>
Dear Mishia, Jennings, Mishia <MJenninP-s(Z4elseP-undo.orQ>
Kindly forward the email below to all City Council members. The information Mr. Schnabl has provided below
is endorsed heartily by members of the Seniors Tuesday Morning Golf Club in El Segundo.
Respectfully submitted,
Darvin Weston, CDR, USNR-Ret.
224 W. Maple Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel. (310) 322-8919
To all from Val Schnabl:
While in Minnesota last week, I drove by a Top Golf facility in a Minneapolis suburb. It
was huge and it reminded me of a glitzy Las Vegas casino. I climbed up a couple dozen stairs to
get inside to see its sterile interior. I was not impressed. As you already know, it's a giant pin
ball machine and not a traditional driving range where you can practice at a leisurely pace for a
minimal fee. I don't think that any of us will be using that monstrosity if built in El Segundo.
The place I saw is typical of others in the United States. It has 102 large hitting bays on 3
levels and is 400 feet wide. El Segundo has 60 bays on 2 levels and is 270 feet wide. The extra
width would replace the area of the existing ninth hole. TG's parking lots are much larger than
the one in El Segundo now. The increased lot area would displace the existing first hole and
clubhouse. Imagine the negative effect on a redesigned course with the loss of that much grass
area. Also, every TG facility I saw on the internet was built in an industrial area and was stand
alone without an accompanying golf course.
I hope that Chevron and El Segundo City Hall will reconsider plans to downsize their
existing golf course, and replace its driving range and clubhouse with something that really
belongs in a more remote place, not on a small 9 -hole golf course.
Reported by,
Val Schnabl
Photos that I took of Top Golf in Minnesota (their typical design):
r
r.t
•
Aaik
--------------------------
ON m
■
r
.1r.
i
0 0
wo
•.I iJ
a -
N
f
I•
v
1%
�. �
m"
HOURLY RATES LISTED PER BAY, GRO
$240 $4116;
perhour perhour
APPLICABLE SANS TAX
$5 MEMBERSHIP FEE
10
Shillinq, Mona
From: Debra Geist <citegeist@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 2:03 PM
To: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Subject: Could this concept solve golf's time dilemma? - Golf Digest
Golfuture is the answer! I
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/could-this-concept-solve-golfs-time-dilemma
Sent from my Whone
Harada, Patricia
From: Shilling, Mona
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 12:33 PM
To: Harada, Patricia
Subject: FW: Shooting in Torrance
Public Communication for Top Golf the next time it is agendized.
Thanks,
Mona S
From: Pimentel, Chris (Council member)
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 10:02 AM
To: Boyles,Drew (Mayor)
Cc: Whalen, Bill (Chief of Police); Carpenter, Greg; ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS; Voss, Barbara
Subject: Re: Shooting in Torrance
Security at entertainment events is a concern with regards to the Lakes.
TopGolf was adamant that they mitigate these risks in difficult locations, let's be forceful about their planning
here.
On Jan 5, 2019, at 09:47, Boyles,Drew (Mayor) <dbovleseelseRundo.orP-> wrote:
In light of the tragedy last night, another opportunity exists for us to get ahead with regards to
communication, doing our best to alleviate people's concerns and put them at ease. Examples
might include what to do in an active shooter situation, how we prepare for and address these
incidents if they were to ever happen in our town, etc. I look forward to your response. Thank
you.
Drew Boyles I Mayor
844.373.2526
City of El Segundo
See My Linkedln Profile
J ....
-' ESTATE PROPERTIES
September 4, 2018
City of EI Segundo
Mayor and City Council
350 Main Street
EI Segundo CA 90245
Re: Bid Proposals - The Lakes EI Segundo
Dear Mayor and City Council,
am a resident of Redondo Beach and typically not involved with development issues in EI Segundo. This
situation is unique as you consider development plans for the Lakes EI Segundo.
If past actions can be an indication of future behavior you should be cautious of doing business with CenterCal
properties. They are part of the Top Golf/CenterCal proposal.
Before I go into the reasons I urge the Mayor and City Council of EI Segundo to speak with Redondo Beach
Mayor Bill Brand.
Here are some concerns about CenterCal:
1. Violated their agreement with the City of Redondo Beach by not paying for a Draft Environmental
Report. (Currently owe Redondo Beach at least $1.2M for this report.)
2. Sued Redondo Beach for allowing a citizen led ballot initiative to be put on the ballot.
3. Sued the Redondo Beach because the same ballot initiative won in a landslide after wasting nearly
$603,000 fighting against it.
4. Filed a SLAPP Lawsuit —As stated by legal experts are apparently behind a SLAPP lawsuit filed
against Redondo Residents and politicians by two alleged CenterCal proxies.
It's a baseless lawsuit filed against the community group Rescue Our Waterfront, Mayor Bill Brand, his
volunteer Treasurer Linda Moffat, and Council Member Nils Nehrenheim. All because of how they
voted, and in retaliation for their miserable election loss in March of 2017.
5. Violated a Court Order - A court rejected the Environmental Impact Report for their proposed Harbor
Mall. It also forbid CenterCal from speaking to the California Coastal Commission about the project.
Public record requests show they continued the very next day.
Bid Proposals - The Lakes EI Segundo
September 4, 2018
Page Two
6. Gave False Testimony — CenterCal President JP Wardy at a Redondo City Council Meeting said they
had nothing to do with delaying a hearing on their proposed Waterfront mall with the California Coastal
Commission. At a Coastal Commission meeting on 4-9-18 commission staff reported CenterCal
requested the delay.
7. Suppressing Free Speech - At the Coastal Commission the attorney who was the assistant treasurer
for CenterCal's failed campaign and "coincidentally" the same attorney for alleged plaintiffs handed out
numerous subpoenas. This was to every person who spoke out against their proposed development.
8. Possible Election Law Violations - CenterCal CEO Fred Bruning stated he was told to donate $30,000
to the Redondo Beach Firefighters PAC at a city council meeting. Within a few days the money was
used to pay for mailings in support of candidates who supported CenterCal's Waterfront Harbor Mall.
Later under oath Mr. Bruning stated he was asked to donate the $30,000 by former Mayor Aspel who
was defeated in the last election. Most of the funds (close to 85%) went to candidate mailings for Aspel
in what many have called a quid pro quo.
Conclusion:
The residents of Redondo Beach have learned firsthand the type of business partner CenterCal can be.
I hope you carefully review the bid proposals and can find a developer that will actually work with, and not
against the community in EI Segundo.
Sincerely,
Wayne Craig
RE/MAX Estates Properties
DRE #01407067
2601Pacific Coast Highway ■ Hermosa Beach California 90254
Phone 310.897.1756
11�14`I3L'IC!}L4'1�'11CCrri i �ha�nes.cun�
OF' 31NAL
5u cariar�C,��EDot $li[amia
�aiinry a€ Las Angeles
1
2
Sherri p.�r, F"aulive Officer/Clerk
E. Verner
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
m 9
10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
11 ARNETTE TRAVIS and CHRIS VOISEY, ) Case No.: BC 665330
Hon. Malcolm H. Mackey
12 Plaintiffs, ) Dept. 55
13 VS ) [PRt$99E-B] JUDGMENT AFTER COURT
14 BILL BRAND; BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017;) TRIAL
LINDA MOFFAT; RESCUE OUR ) Trial Date: 11/14/2018
15 WATERFRONT P.A.C.; WAYNE CRAIG; ) Action Filed: June 15, 2017
MARTIN HOLMES; NILS NEHRENHEIM; )
16 and DOES 1-25, )
17 )
Defendants. ]
18
19 This action for injunctive relief was tried as a court trial and submitted on November 20, 2018;
20
the Court issued its Statement of Decision and it now announces its Judgment:
21
I
22 PARTIES AND COUNSEL
23
Plaintiffs Arnette Travis and Chris Voisey were represented by Bradley W. Hertz, Esq. and
24
25 Nicholas Sanders, Esq. of The Sutton Law Firm; Defendants Bill Brand, Brand For Mayor 2017
26 and Linda Moffat were represented by Stevan Colin, Esq. of Gabriel & Associates; Defendant
27 Nils Nehrenheim was represented by Jeanne L. Zimmer, Esq. of Carlson & Messer LLP;
28
(00105494;1) 1 [PF6pb6G@1I JUDGMENT
1 Defendants Wayne Craig and Rescue Our Waterfront, political action committee were
2 represented by Bobak Nayebdadash, Esq. of Law Office of Bobak Nayebdadash. Defendant
3 Martin Holmes was previously dismissed from the lawsuit.
4 The Court makes the following rulings;
5
1. The Court finds that Defendant, Rescue Our Waterfront, P.A.C. (ROW PAC) was
6 formed as a General Purpose Committee and did not change its status under the
7 provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, and related
regulations. The Court finds that ROW PAC is not required to amend any of its
8 campaign statements, including its Form 41.0 and Forms 460.
9 2. The Court finds that Defendant, Rescue Our Waterfront P.A.C. , was never a
10 primarily formed committee as defined under the provisions of the California
Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, and related regulations.
11
3. The Court finds that Rescue Our Waterfront P.A.C. was not a controlled committee
12 and therefore it is not required to amend its Form 410 or Forms 460 to indicate any
13 such control.
14
4. The Court finds that Defendants, Bill Brand, Nils Nehrenheim and'Linda Moffat,
15 did not control Defendants, ROW PAC or Wayne Craig at any time and did not
16 exert any significant influence over the decisions, actions or expenditures of
Defendants, Wayne Craig or ROW PAC. Therefore none of the Defendants is
17 required to amend the campaign statements of their campaign committees,
including Brand For Mayor 2017, ROW PAC or the Nehrenheim for Council
18 political action committee.
19
5. The Court finds in favor of each of the Defendants, as against each of the Plaintiffs,
20 and all Defendants are deemed the prevailing parties in this action.
21 6. The Court finds that Plaintiffs, Chris Voisey and Arnette Travis, were "shills" for
22 Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC and its principals, Fred Bruning and Jean Paul
Wardy who initiated the instant lawsuit against the Defendants and directed and
23 financed the prosecution of this case against each of the Defendants.
24 7. The Court further finds that each of the Defendants acted in good faith in
25 connection with their campaigns alleged in the Complaint and the Court also finds
that the public was not deceived or defrauded in any way by any of the Defendants.
26
27 8. The Court finds the Defendants did not commit any illegal acts as alleged in the
Complaint and the Court further acknowledges the expert witness testimony of the
28 Plaintiffs' expert, Ann Ravel, that nothing any of the Defendants did was illegal.
(00105494;1)
[Rre"sedj JUDGMENT
1
2 9. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction and/or permanent injunction. The Defendants are not
3 ordered to amend their campaign statements in any way.
4 10. All other relief requested by the Plaintiffs is denied.
5
11. The Court rules that each of the Defendants is the prevailing party in this lawsuit
6 and awards each of them costs, including attorneys' fees, as against Plaintiffs
7 Arnette Travis and Chris Voisey.
8 12. The Court further finds that Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC, and its principals,
Fred Bruning and Jean Paul Wardy, were the true entity and persons behind the
9 lawsuit and were responsible for paying Bradley W. Hertz, Esq., and his law firm,
10 The Sutton Law Firm, to initiate and prosecute the instant action against the
Defendants, while using Plaintiffs Arnette Travis and Chris Voisey as sham clients
11 and shell Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court makes a ruling that the Judgment. entered
in favor of the Defendants is further entered as against judgment debtors Fred
12 Bruning, Jean Paul Wardy and Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC, and each of them.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED
15
AFR G
1s
Dated: , 2018
17 I
18
`]
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Honorable Malcolm H. Mackey
Judge of the Superior Court
(00105494;1) 3 [Prepoeed] JUDGMENT
