RPVCCA_SR_2011_06_21_07_Annenberg_Project_Lower_Point_VicenteCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:
DATE:JUNE 21,2011
ELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE -PROJECT
STATUS UPDATE
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~I \.
Project Manager:Ara Mihranian,AICP,Deputy Community Development Direct~
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file a status update on the current discussions with the Office of Grants and
Local Services (OGALS)and the National Park Service (NPS)on the potential filing of a
future application for the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.
BACKGROUND
On October 12,2010,the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the
requested entitlement applications (Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,and Coastal
Development Permit)for the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.At that
meeting,concerns were raised regarding the use restrictions imposed on Lower Point
Vicente by previous Federal Land and Water Conservation (LWCF)grants administered by
the State Office of Grants and Local Services,as well as the Program of Utilization (POU)
imposed on Lower Point Vicente by the National Park Service (NPS).In addition,
questions were raised by the public and some Planning Commissioners on whether a
General Plan Amendment application should be included in the application package that
was previously authorized by the City Council for the proposed Annenberg project.
Since these specific concerns relate to policy and processing direction that is within the
purview of the City Council,Staff suggested,and the Planning Commission agreed,that
these processing issues should be brought forward to the City Council for discussion and
direction.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing on
the proposed project until the City Council provides direction on the processing issues.
A discussion of the issues related to the proposed Annenberg Project was brought to the
City Council at its November 16,2010 meeting.While it was clear that a majority of the
7-1
City Council did not support the processing scenario recommended by Staff (to proceed
with the entitlement process and seek approvals from OGALS and NPS at the conclusion of
the City’s review process) at the November 16th meeting, no other direction or action was
taken by the City Council that evening with regards to the proposed Annenberg Project
applications. At the same time, the processing of the application package was not formally
halted by the City Council, nor was the previous Council authorization to the Annenberg
Foundation to pursue applications for their proposed project at Lower Point Vicente
rescinded. As a result, the application package remained on file while the processing of the
application remained pending with the Planning Commission.
Given this situation, Staff consulted with the Annenberg Project ad hoc sub-committee
made up of Councilman Stern and Councilman Campbell who agreed that processing
direction from the City Council was needed. As such, on December 21, 2010, Staff
identified processing scenarios for the City Council to consider. Based on the discussion at
the December 21st meeting, the City Council suspended the local entitlement process and
directed Staff to work with the Annenberg Foundation to submit a formal application to NPS
and OGALS in order to obtain their approvals for the proposed Annenberg Foundation
project at Lower Point Vicente.
To date, the City and the Annenberg Foundation have had informal conversations with
OGALS and NPS for the purpose of preparing and submitting a formal LWCF application
for the proposed project. Although a formal application has not been completed for
submittal to these agencies, Staff has obtained valuable feedback from OGALS and NPS
on the application processing options available for the Annenberg Foundation in order to
obtain approval of the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente. On June 10,
2011, City Staff provided the Council Sub-Committee with an update on the filing of an
application to OGALS and NPS. The Council Sub-committee agreed that the entire City
Council should receive a similar status update at its next meeting.
DISCUSSION
Since the December 21st meeting, City Staff and the Annenberg Foundation have been in
contact with OGALS and NPS for the purpose of obtaining a clear understanding on the
application categories and application submittal process, as well as to determine the
project’s appropriateness as it relates to the existing Program of Utilization (POU).
According to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the following two application
categories are available to obtain approval of the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower
Point Vicente:
• “Public Facility Request” – An application which would request that OGALS and
NPS approve the proposed project as a “public facility” exception to the existing
recreational open space restrictions at Lower Point Vicente.
• “Conversion Request” – An application whereby OGALS and NPS approve the
conversion of all or a portion of the project area to a non-open space use provided
the converted open space area is replaced by comparable recreational open space
area elsewhere in the City.
7-2
From the outset, it was conveyed to the City and the Annenberg Foundation, that the
LWCF application would first be submitted to OGALS, who would review the information
submitted and prepare a recommendation to NPS. It would then be OGALS that would
submit the final complete application to NPS for its consideration. What was not made
clear was what application category OGALS and NPS would support for the proposed
project. As such, an effort was made to obtain direction from both agencies regarding the
application category that would most likely be supported by these agencies, as well as
understand the Project’s compliance with the POU.
With the intent of obtaining the needed direction to complete the LWCF application, to date,
there have been numerous phone conversations with OGALS and more recently with NPS
to understand what application category the proposed project would qualify for. Based on
these discussions, in March 2011, the Annenberg Foundation submitted a preliminary draft
application that partially responded to the questions listed in the LWCF application to
facilitate the on-going discussions. City Staff reviewed the preliminary draft application to
verify accuracy with the content of the information prior to its submittal by the Annenberg
Foundation. The preliminary application was reviewed by OGALS, who provided input on
the project as it relates to the LWCF requirements. Throughout this process, OGALS
continued to reiterate to the City and the Annenberg Foundation that a formal determination
or recommendation cannot be made without the submittal of a complete and formal
application. Moreover, it was also conveyed that a formal application could not be
completed without the submittal of the required environmental review documents.
In order to engage the NPS Staff in the discussions and to obtain its input on the
application categories and the POU, an in-person meeting was organized for May 16, 2011
in Sacramento with OGALS and NPS Staff. In the spirit of the Council’s direction at its
December 21st meeting and because of the benefit that an in-person meeting would have in
understanding the submittal requirements as it relates to the restrictions imposed on the
City-owned Lower Point Vicente, the Annenberg Council Sub-committee agreed that it
would be beneficial for two City Staff members to attend this meeting in Sacramento. The
following topics were discussed at the May 16th meeting as it relates to the proposed
project:
• Program of Utilization
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Application
According to the NPS representatives (Mr. Murray and Mr. Siegenthaler), in accordance
with the provisions of the existing POU, an amendment to the POU to accommodate the
proposed project could be submitted and considered concurrently with the LWCF
application. In order to amend the POU, a request letter to the NPS by the City needs to be
submitted with the LWCF application describing the proposed amendments. Additionally,
an updated site plan identifying the proposed improvements needs to accompany the letter.
It was also agreed that irrespective of this project, the POU should be amended to address
the existing improvements that do not correspond to the POU on file with the NPS (such as
the expanded PVIC building and expanded parking lot).
7-3
In regard to the LWCF, both the NPS and OGALS indicated their general support for
certain project components (i.e. outdoor interpretive exhibits, increased habitat, park
benches, pedestrian trails, and indoor exhibit space and interpretive materials to name a
few) and understand the benefits such a project would offer the community. Moreover,
NPS and OGALS were encouraged by the programming offered at the facility as it relates
to recreational opportunities offered at the City’s 1,400 acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
However, NPS indicated that based on the submitted preliminary information and the
current proposed project, a public facility exception would likely not be supported for the
entire project as presently proposed. NPS indicated that they have questions about the
animal programming, which is approximately 10,000 square feet in area, the footprint of the
new interpretive center and plaza area, and parking. According to NPS, a conversion
would likely be needed to gain approval. NPS and OGALS pointed out that a determination
cannot be made until a formal application is submitted. Pursuant to the LWCF application
(Steps 5-7), the required CEQA and NEPA documents must be completed by the City prior
to submitting a formal application to OGALS and NPS.
In light of the input from OGALS and NPS over the past six months, the applicant is in the
process of contemplating which application to pursue. The pursuit of a “pubic facility”
application could require consideration of substantial changes to the design and layout of
the proposed facility. On the other hand, a “conversion application” is more complicated
since a conversion property will have to be identified, appraised, and evaluated for its
recreational value. The applicant has indicated that its designers and programmers are
evaluating the project to see if the structure can be scaled back in size, including the
footprint and hardscape, while still achieving a world class educational and recreational
facility that doesn’t compromise the programs that are to be offered to the public.
The Annenberg Foundation has notified Staff and the Council Sub-committee that it will
continue to listen to the comments expressed by the City Council, the public, NPS and
OGALS to improve the project for the public’s benefit. The applicant will continue to
engage in discussions with NPS and OGALS to garner their feedback on the project with
the goal of ultimately obtaining both agencies’ endorsement of the project. Once a point is
reached where a formal application is ready to be pursued, Staff will seek Council direction
to re-start the environmental review process, because as indicated above, a local
environmental review process will need to take place prior to submitting a formal application
to OGALS and NPS.
On a final note, since the December 21st Council meeting, the applicant has continued to
participate in outreach efforts within the community. As result, the programs proposed for
the project have continued to be refined and developed to further expand public
opportunities, specifically as it relates to recreational and interpretive programming.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Staff Time
At the December 21st Council meeting, Staff was asked for an estimate of the Staff time
that would be expended in preparing the application to OGALS and NPS. Staff estimated
7-4
ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEMO – JUNE 21, 2011
that it would need approximately 20 hours of Staff time. In addition, while no maximum limit
on Staff time spent was established by the City Council, Staff indicated that it would provide
periodic reports to the City Council on the estimated time Staff spends on the project. At
the March 31, 2011 Council meeting, Staff provided the City Council with a verbal status
update on the project under the City Manager’s Report. At that time, Staff estimated that it
had spent a collective total of 26 hours on the application. To date, the Community
Development Director has spent approximately 20 hours and the Deputy Community
Development Director has spent approximately 37 hours on the OGALS and NPS
application for a collective estimate time of 57 hours.
Correspondence Received
At this time, there have been twelve public comment letters submitted to the City. One
letter supports the project, one letter is to the NPS from the applicant’s legal counsel, and
remaining letters express opposition to the project. These comment letters are attached to
this Staff Report. In the event additional comments are received after the transmittal of this
Staff Report, those comments will be provided to the Council as late correspondence at the
June 21st meeting.
June 21st Meeting Announcement
In order to ensure that the public is aware of tonight’s Council meeting, on June 13, 2011,
Staff updated the City’s website under the Annenberg Project home page with information
pertaining to tonight’s meeting. Additionally, Staff issued a list-serve message announcing
tonight’s meeting. A follow-up list-serve message clarifying the Staff’s recommendation for
the June 21st Council meeting was sent out on June 16, 2011.
Upon the transmittal of this Staff Report to the City Council, this Staff Report will be posted
on the City’s website. A list-serve message will be sent out announcing the availability of
the staff report, with a link to the staff report embedded in the message.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Public Comment Letters
7-5
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com)
Sent:Monday,June 13,2011 10:16 AM
To:'Ara M'
Subject:FW:Support For Annenberg Project
From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com]
sent:Monday,June 13,2011 9:33 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;'Carolyn Lehr'
Subject:Support For Annenberg Project
Yesterday at the street fair I had occasion to chat with representatives of the proposed Annenberg Project.As
you may remember,I have contacted you before expressing support for same.Their folks were charming.I was
struck by how patient and understanding they were about the difficult and to me inexplicable,political controversy
which has somehow developed around what I feel to be a very worthy project.
Once again,I believe that this project will add a lot of value to our community.I feel that the Annenberg
Foundation as been a good friend to Rancho Palos Verdes.As a long lime member of the Land Conservancy,I
am deeply appreciative of their contributions to the purchase of open space preservation properties.I see huge
potential for this partnership to grow into the future,with possibly very important benefits to out city and our
residents.
I thank you for your steadfast support in the face of what I find to be sometimes embarrassingly strident political
opposition.
Noel Park
6715 EI Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)377-4035 home
(562)413-5147 cell
6/16/2011 7-6
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:Monday,June 13,2011 7:16 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Ce:joelr@rpv.com;c1ehr@rpv.com
Subject:Confused.Re:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente -June 21st Ci
Hi Ara,
I am under the impression that RPV has not submitted an Application to OGALS re:
Annenberg.The following rpvlistserver notice implies that something has happened which
the City Council,as a body,in public,needs to know about in relation to said application.
I have also heard that a "draft application"was submitted and that on the advice of OGALS,
said draft was not posted to the City's web site because "the public might become
confused"Well,I'm confused,anyway.
How much Staff Time are you,personally,authorized to consume on the Annenberg
Application?Does your trip to Sacramento count in the estimated 20 hours it would take
Staff to produce the "formal Application"which Council authorized?
Normal people get to cough up an extra $1,727.00,up front,with an application to remodel
their own land if Staff decides a "Neighborhood Compatibility"analysis is required per our
Municipal Code.Is the Annenberg application moving forward based on additional fees
being paid,up front,to cover the additional Staff Time costs?
As I recall,Staff ran off and did bunches of research on the Terranea TOT delayed payment
suggestion without asking the "suggester"to pay some estimated Staff Time recovery fee up
front.I sure hope the same mistake is not being made again.
Another Staff Report.More rpvlistserver announcements.Even if Annenberg is providing
the payroll dollars up front,our Staff is too busy to take care of regular business.Ara,I want
you back.I shouldn't have to feel guilty when I point out how something like the east Crest
Road/Rancho Palos Verdes Park Estates agreement has fallen through the cracks.
I know it is not your decision to make.However,I for one would appreciate it if the Staff
Recommendation for June 21 would be to count the Annenberg application as "dead in the
water"as of the date when the Planning Commission could not make the finding that the
application was compliant with the RPV General Plan.
Plan A didn't fly.Instead of all this fussing,the Annenberg Foundation is as free as anyone
else to step up to the counter in the Planning Dept.with a Plan B.Homeowners and
Developers do it all the time.
I can barely imagine how many "companion animals"might have been rescued in the past
few years with the money the Annenberg foundation has spent on "professional support"for
this "humanitarian proposal".
I look forward to the Council's next "direction".I don't like being a member of the "confused
6/16/2011 7-7
Page 2 of2
public"....S
In a message dated 6/13/2011 4:15:12 P.M.Pacific Daylight Time,rpvlistserver@rpv.com writes:
Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente -Status Update
On June 10th,City Staff provided the Council Sub-Committee (Councilmen Campbell and Stern)with an
update on the filing of an application to the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)and the
National Park Service (NPS).It was agreed that the entire City Council should receive a status update at
its next meeting.As such,on June 21,2011,Staff will provide the City Council with an update on the
Annenberg Project and will seek direction from the Council on future processing options.The June 21 st
City Council Staff Report relating to this agenda item will be posted on the City's website later this week
and a list-serve message will be sent out announcing the availability of the Staff Report.
Inquiries should be directed to Ara Mihranian,Project Planner,at 310-544-5228 or via email at
aram@rpv.com.
BREAKING NEWS
City staff occasionally posts other important non-emergency information on the Breaking News page of
the City's website located at:http://www.palosverqes.com/rpv/breakingnews
Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking
News article is posted to the City's website.You can join at:nttR:I/WWYY.QalpsYe[des,cQm/rpv/lj~Jserver
Please do not reply directly to this message.The correct contact for each Listserv message topic is
included in the message.We welcome your comments and suggestions,please send them to:
co mments@palosverdE;ls.com
This Listserv progr.am is one of many services crea,ted,hosted,and provided by Palos Verdes on the
N~T,a non PIPJ[tJi01 C~Q.OJIUnwlli1Y ~ervjC:!'LO...f.9aniz.atio_o.s~JY1D.g OJtLG.ommunitie.s by providing computer
technology support to the City,educational internships and animation training to kids,workforce training
to adults,free c1a~_se$for seniors,and free web pages to n9n~pr9fit organizations since 1995.Click here
for inforf11e::ttionC:3.PQut fr~§c.lg$$e.;UQ .rE!:;;jqE:mt~.C'pnt~lY§'PY ~rnail_a.t illf9JmatiQn@p.<:~jQsyerdes.com
6/16/2011 7-8
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
-------------
From:cicoriae@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,June 14,2011 10:41 AM
To:aram@rpv.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com;david_siegenthaler@nps.gov;bbaker@parks.ca.gov;pc@rpv.com
Subject:Lower Pt Vicente photos 1 of 3 em ails
Attachments:Lower Pt Vicente Main Parking Lot.JPG;Lower Pt Vicente Parking Lot 2.JPG;Lower Pt
Vicente Overflow Parking Area.JPG;Lower Pt Vicente Overflow Parking 2.JPG
Hi Ara,
I see from the RPV listserv that there will be an update on the Annenberg application for building on Lower Pt.
Vicente Park.I wanted to share with you,City Council,National Park Service and CA Dept.of Parks some
photos I took on May 30,Memorial Day,around 1:30 PM.I had done my monitoring hike in the Portuguese Bend
Reserve of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve as a volunteer for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy,
seeing literally hundreds of people out on the trails in a 2-hour period.Driving out from the Preserve,I counted 84
cars lining Crenshaw from the Burma Rd.trail entrance to the entrance to Island View and that didn't include the
cars that filled to overflow the parking at Del Cerro Park,adjacent to the Preserve.I wondered whether there was
similar enthusiasm for the outdoor recreational opportunities our city offers at Lower Pt.Vicente,so I took a route
home that would pass by there.
The attached photos show just what I captured with my camera at Lower PI.Vicente without leaVing my
car:parking lots full and over-flowing and people enjoying the park in myriad ways,inclUding nature photography,
picnicking,meditating,walking,and playing frisbee.It is clear to me,and I hope it is to you as well,that Lower Pt.
Vicente Park is very well used as-'!is for the purpose it was intended--public outdoor recreation for people
throughout the region who come here to enjoy the open coastline outdoors--something that cannot be replaced;
something that we have seen dwindle over time because somebody thought there was a "better"use.There is no
better use.
After leaving Point Vicente,I drove past Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and snapped a few photos as well.They
show the same thing:this park,too,is heavily used.
When work stops;when people have time to take a brief break from busy lives;when people are looking for a
place to get away and reap the benefits to their well-being that only time out in nature can provide,these coastal
bluff-top parks provide just that.These are wide open spaces--some more natu'ral than others,all offering a place
to be out in nature taking in the warmth of the sun,the chill of the air,the ocean breezes,the sounds,the scents,
the sights--all of it.These places enrich our lives like nothing else can in the South Bay,just as they are.
Please reconsider the City's recent campaign to build on these bluff tops.
Because there are a number of photos,I will attempt to send those of the parking at LPV first,then photos of
activity there,and follow with an email of photos of Abalone Cove.
Very truly yours,
Eva Cicoria
6/16/2011 7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
7-17
7-18
7-19
7-20
7-21
7-22
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Stasys Petravicius [stasys1@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,June 14,2011 11 :31 AM
To:cicoriae@aol.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com;david_siegenthaler@nps.gov;bbaker@parks.ca.gov;pc@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Lower Pt Vicente photos 1 of 3 emails
Hi All-1 agree with Eva-There is NO need for another building and entertainment complex at Lower
Point Vicente.The photos PROVE it!Stasys Petravicius-a resident for 2/3 of my life in RPV!!Stasys
On Jun 14,2011,at 10:41 AM,cicQri<!~9.1.l;;9111 wrote:
Hi Ara,
I see from the RPV Iistserv that there will be an update on the Annenberg application for building on
Lower Pt.Vicente Park.I wanted to share with you,City Council,National Park Service and CA
Dept.of Parks some photos I took on May 30,Memorial Day,around 1:30 PM.I had done my
monitoring hike in the Portuguese Bend Reserve of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve as a
volunteer for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy,seeing literally hundreds of people
out on the trails in a 2-hour period.Driving out from the Preserve,I counted 84 cars lining
Crenshaw from the Burma Rd.trail entrance to the entrance to Island View and that didn't include
the cars that filled to overflow the parking at Del Cerro Park,adjacent to the Preserve.I wondered
whether there was similar enthusiasm for the outdoor recreational opportunities our city offers at
Lower Pt.Vicente,so I took a route home that would pass by there.
The attached photos show just what I captured with my camera at Lower Pt.Vicente without leaving
my car:parking lots full and over-flowing and people enjoying the park in myriad ways.including
nature photography,picnicking,meditating,walking,and playing frisbee.It is clear to me,and I
hope it is to you as well,that Lower Pt.Vicente Park is very well used as it is for the purpose it was
intended-public outdoor recreation for people throughout the region who come here to enjoy the
open coastline outdoors-something that cannot be replaced;something that we have seen dwindle
over time because somebody thought there was a "bette('use.There is no better use.
After leaving Point Vicente.I drove past Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and snapped a few photos
as well.They show the same thing:this park,too.is heavily used.
When work stops;when people have time to take a brief break from busy lives;when people
are looking for a place to get away and reap the benefits to their well-being that only time out in
nature can provide,these coastal bluff-top parks provide just that.These are wide open spaces--
some more natural than others,all offering a place to be out in nature taking in the warmth of the
sun,the chill of the air,the ocean breezes,the sounds,the scents,the sights-all of it.These
places enrich our lives like nothing else can in the South Bay,just as they are.
Please reconsider the City's recent campaign to build on these bluff tops.
Because there are a number of photos,I will attempt to send those of the parking at LPV first,then
photos of activity there,and follow with an email of photos of Abalone Cove.
Very truly yours,
Eva Cicoria
<Lower Pt Vicente Main Parking LoUPG><Lower Pt Vicente Parking Lot 2.JPG><Lower
Pt Vicente Overflow Parking Area.1PG><Lower Pt Vicente Overflow Parking 2.JPG>
6116/201 1 7-23
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Barbara Epstein [moccasinbarb@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,June 14,2011 3:38 PM
To:Ara M;CC@rpv.com
Cc:pc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear Leaders of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I am writing in strong protest against the Annenberg Project.This project
constitutes a criml:nal "tahing"of rare open space property from the public and
giving it to a private foundation,This,in itself,is illegal.
I protest this project because it violates the spirit,and possibly the letter,of the
California Coastal Act of 1972.I remember where I was the day the Coastal Act
passed.Our family,with our three little kids,was driving hom.e from the beach
in Malibu when we heard the news of the new law on the car radio.It was the
happiest da,!'of the year,lmowing that our coast would now,at last,be safe from
the excessive,thoughtless development that had raged along our shore since the
very beginning of California history.
I protest this project because it til:olates the letter and the sprit of the original
agreement under which Point Vicente was given to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes by the United States government.
I protest this project being marketed as a "gift ".It is not a "gift ".It is the
opportunity for an arrogant foundation to seize public parldand for its own
aggrandizement and glory,spreading its name on yet another piece of public real
estate to embellish its own image.A gift is about "giving";this project is
about "tahing".
I protest this project because the Annenberg group marhets it as "Educational".
As a public school educator Ilmow "educational"when I see it,and there is
nothing educatl:onal about a dog and cat center.Everyone has dogs and cats,they
live with us in our homes as members of our family,we are together constantly,
and there is nothing unlmown or mysterious enough about these animals to
require a huge shrine to their care or to their existence,
As an educator,I spent entire school years helping my underprivileged students
collect recycling in order to have enough money to pay for a school bus to tahe us
to Point Vicente and Ladera Linda.We went there to reinforce our understanding
of the role this area played in the hves of those who went before us.Our fourth
6116/2011 7-24
Page 2 of2
grade Social Studies booh introduced the history and people of California.We
went to Point Vicente to pretend UN were those early people,the Natiue Ones,
explorers and whalers,and stood where Japanese neighbors fanned,and now we
watched intently for whales going by.We went there to learn about the natiue
plants and the geological reason the "Point"doesn't easily wash away by
erosion.Our third grade book had a beautiful chapter on the California coast,its
geology,and how erosion constantly changed i,t.Now we could see what the book
was trying to tell us.Here was our chance to watch the once-endangered pelicans
glide by us at eye leuel.Here is where we could run and play games on open land,
our socks collecting seeds from the weeds,then sitting down on the grass to count
and classify them.Here we could watch the clouds,imagining,and see what hind
of clouds we could identify.We could trach the sun by mahing a sundial with a
stich,from the time we arriued until we had to go.Here was our focus.It was all
outdoors,with a some help from Point Vicente Interpretive Center.The new
Center is even better,these days,and is all we need in terms of "education ".A big
building would only be a distraction and an obtrusion.I would neuer tahe a class
there.Buildings and parking lots cannot teach,but weeds can.Weeds haue
names,and serue a purpose.
I protest the uery thought of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes supporting this
plan or euen considering this project at all.The Founders of this city wisely saw
the need for preseruation of coastal open space.Now you haue a chance to help
continue that uision,and for all the right reasons.
Barbara Epstein and Family
6116/2011 7-25
AraM
From:Barbara Epstein [moccasinbarb@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,June 14,2011 3:49 PM
To:Ara M;cc@rpv.com
Cc:pc@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project
Sorry,I forgot to put in my address:
Barbara Epstein
21 Moccasin Lane
Rolling Hills Estates
3103787317
moccasin barb®Cox.net
6116/2011
Page 1 of 1
7-26
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Richard Yeh [richwyeh@gmail.com]
Wednesday,June 15,2011 8:08 AM
aram@rpv.com
there is no need for a dog house!
there is simply no need for an annenberg style animal house to be constructed inside the
city of rancho palos verdes!
1
7-27
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:L.Bilski [ldb910@intergate.com]
Sent:Wednesday,June 15,201112:19 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Cc:CC;pc@rpv.com;Lenee Bilski
Subject:CC Agenda:Update on future processing options for AnnenbergProject at Lower Point Vicente
June 14,2010
To Ara Mihranian,RPV Planning RE:Annenberg Project
I am opposed to RPV city staff spending any more time on "drafts"for this inappropriate proposal for the deed-restricted Lower Pt.
Vicente Parkland.I am opposed to Annenberg's big building on LPV.
The CC directive ofDcc.2010 was to submit a formal application to OGALS.A Public Facility Request application was decided
upon,and a discussion began with a "draft"submitted in March 2011.
As for taxpayer costs,Has the applicant paid additional fees to the City for this extraordinary time and effort expended while
processing a "draft"application to OGALS for a Public Facility Request for lower Pt.Vicente?In your staff report,please include
who paid for the May trip to Sacramento and which members of city staff went.Also,who besides you,Ara,and Joel Rojas among
city staff\verc involved in preparations for that trip and how much staff time was expended on it?
The "draft application"is not a formal application.A draft application is not anything that OGALS can make a decision on.
WHY HAS THIS PROJECT NOT BEEN REVISED SO AS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE LAND"
Three government agencies raised concerns since July 2010,but the Annenberg Foundation has not made any changes to their
project.It is obvious that "as proposed"the city has been advised that this project on Lower Pt.Vicente would not receive federal
approval.If the project remains unchanged,why would the city expect any encouragement from OGALS and NPS to pursue this
project any further?Please recommend changing the proposal.
The NPS has read,explained,listened and then clarified to the city and the applicant the existing problems with the current proposal.
Instead of presenting any changes,"discussion"oftheJ>ublic Facility QR.ti~lLkeeping the plans "as is"has been pursued since
December.There's little hope of getting approval.Isn't that why a formal Public Facility Request application has not been submitted
yet?
A win-win situation would be to submit a proposal for LPV without the big building with it's hardscape and parking,and put the
building at an alternate location.How many times does the city and the applicant need to be told by the authorities that "as proposed"
there are non-compliant elements in these plans?I had hoped that the Annenberg Foundation would be willing to accept that fact and
revise their proposal to fit the legal limitations.
As for th_e.Qpjion of building on th~~ltf:mmj-ve site at Upper PLVicente,improving trails connecting Upper Pt.Vicente (with an
Animal Center)to Lower (PVIC)would offer a wonderful outdoor experience for people and provide some good exercise,too -
instead of children sitting in a big building at LPV looking at computer screens and graphics of outdoor scenes and animals.Please
recommend this.
A pu_bJiG yote option (ballot Initiative)on the proposal would not cancel the legal federal restrictions on this land,so what would be
the point of a vote?Please explain this option to the general public in your report andlor at the City Council meeting.Please do not
recommend this.
Land "Conversion"is an unacceptable alternative to me and to many in the community.
Please advise the Council and the public as to what this would involve.D9 not recommend it.
Ptease rec_ommend to the Council that the applicant pursue an alternate site for the Companion Animal Care Center instead of on
lower Pt.Vicente Parkland.
Lenee Bilski
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
6116/2011 7-28
Page I of I
Ara M
---_._-------
From:Judy Herman Oudyherman@cox.net]
Sent:Wednesday,June 15,2011 8:59 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg proposal
To:Honorable Members of the City Council
Ara Mihranian,Principal Planner
The wide open spaces spared from development and ocean views are what draw visitors and residents
alike to Rancho Palos Verdes.Don't let the Annenberg Foundation pave over our bluff-top public park
at Lower Point Vicente.The fact that private land has been developed along the coast is precisely why
we must not give over public land to development in this city founded to protect our coastline.
There is no need for a 50,979 square foot complex devoted mainly to pet care and
adoption on a scenic coastal bluff top where locals and visitors enjoy picnicking and
playing in the fresh ocean air.The large building along with an additional proposed
1,000 square foot out building,hardscaping and roads for emergency vehicles,
mean that the project would sprawl over Lower Point Vicente.
The federal government,however,conveyed the land to the city with the
requirement that it be used for public outdoor recreation.
This proposed "gift"comes at too high a price.How will the City pay for its legal
defense against the federal government,which sees the plan as a violation of the
land conveyance agreement?The much higher price we would pay would be the
loss of irreplaceable coastal open space.
The Annenberg Foundation has modified its plans several times.We ask for one
more essential modification:move the project to a more suitable site.
Sincerely,
Judith B.Herman
Rancho Palos Verdes
6/16/2011 7-29
SHEPPARD MULLIN
-----------
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHIfR &HAMPTON liP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
June 15,2011
By E-Mail and U.S.Mail
Christine Lehnertz
Regional Director
National Park Service
One Jackson Center
111 Jackson Street,Suite 700
Oakland,California 94607
Chris_Lehnertz@nps.gov
Four Embarcadero Center I 17th Floor I San Francisco,CA 94111-4109
415-434-9100 office I 415-434-3947 fax I www.sheppardmullin.com
Writer's Direct Line:415-774-3285
rurarn@sheppardmullin.com
Our File Number:25YX-157957
Re:City of Palos Verdes,Lower Point Vicente
Dear Director Lehnertz:
I am writing on behalf of the Annenberg Foundation to request a meeting with
you to discuss the Annenberg's efforts to work with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to enhance
the public's outdoor recreation use of the City's Lower Point Vicente park.Although the
Annenberg Foundation will pay for all ofthe costs of the project as a charitable gift to the City,
the National Park Service is involved because the City park land is subject to the restrictions in
Section 6f of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Some of your staff have expressed the view that the proposed project would
constitute a conversion under Section 6f.We believe the project fully meets the requirements for
a public facility under 6f and that the project should be viewed as a model for its innovative
approach of using domestic pets as a key interconnection with outdoor recreation and protection
of native wildlife and habitat.We are continuing to work with the City and the California
Department of Parks to refine the project to address concerns expressed about the project and are
open to working with the National Park Service to make this the best possible project for the site.
7-30
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &HAMPl'ON LLP
Christine Lehnertz
June 15,2011
Page 2
We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest
convenience.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports our request for a meeting.I will call
your office for a follow up discussion.
Very truly yours,
for SHEPPARD,MULLIN,RICHTER &HAMPTON LLP
W02-WEST:FRU\403634713.1
cc Leonard Aube,Annenberg
Patti Keating,OGALS
Joel Rojas,City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mirhanian,City of Rancho Palos Verdes
David Siegenthaler,NPS
7-31
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Patti Carrington [pattiscarrington@gmaiJ.com]
Sent:Thursday,June 16,2011 6:29 AM
To:aram@rpv.com;CC@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
On the direction of our city counsel,staff is continuing work on a project that should have been
shelved.The people of RPV DO NOT WANT IT,but apparently the City Counsel does.
They are spending time and money to pursue the construction of a commercial building for the
use of the Annenberg group on a site that would not be consistent with the federal restrictions
on the parkland according to the Nat'l,Park Service.
They should just go for the alternative location at upper PI.Vicente.
Is our city for sale?When will this end?
6/16/2011 7-32
Annenberg proposal
Ara M
From:William &Marianne Hunter [2hunter@cDx.net]
Sent:Thursday,June 16,201111:05 AM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg proposal
Page 1 of 1
Dear Sir,I have been following the A=enberg Project now for many months.I have
changed my stance from ambivalent to opposed as the controversial issue has come under
scrutiny.I have written many letters to the local papers,my City Council and to
neighbors regarding the A=enberg Project in RPV on City owned land.
The building and it's uses are inappropriate to THIS site,in my understanding ofthe law
and in my opinion.There are no circumstances in which I can see devoting California's
precious coastline to a project of this use.RPVlPeninsula residents do not need
assistance in understanding how to care for their pets.(our pets,including mine,are
embarrassingly pampered in comparison to the impoverished people of the world!).We
have access to pet adoptions.The programs proposed by the A=enberg Foundation
(authors of many good works!)is not site appropriate.It could function just as well in
any other local,and therefore should NOT be placed on the coastline.The business
office space is an unfortunate affront to the PUBLIC use of this land,set aside for
PUBLIC recreation.
I urge you to reject the Annenberg project for this site.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marianne Hunter
6/16/2011 7-33
Page I of I
Ara M
From:Lori Jones [Iori@ultramercial.com]
Sent:Thursday,June 16,2011 12:06 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg
Hi Ara,
Why is the staff still considering recommendations for the proposed Annenberg Project?
I think the city needs to consider not only the money they have already spent on a project that does not
comply with the Deeded and General Plan restrictions at LPV but the potential cost of an initiative that
would bring this project up for a vote by the people ofRPV.
Surely,the money you have spent and will continue to spend on this project if it is not rejected could be
used to benefit the city.(Out of curiosity,I'm wondering if the money you have spent so far equals the
cost of the drainage pipes needed at LPV?)
I would like to make a formal request to find out how much money the city has spent so far on the
proposed Annenberg Project.Will you please let me know if I need to contact another city official on
this matter?
Thank you,
Lori Jones
6/16/20 II 7-34