ATTACHMENT ANNENBERG;'~"'«
"iff/iflt'N llH)r1,ll 1',1Ik SL'fVICe _
•~U',[)ppdrtll1ent of the Int."r!or ,.:
,~...
The purpose of this Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form (PDIESF)is to provide descriptive and
environmental information about a variety of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)state assistance proposals submitted
for National Park Service (NPS)review and decision.The completed PD/ESF becomes part of the "federal administrative
record"in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)and its implementing regulations.The PD portion
of the form captures administrative and descriptive details enabling the NPS to understand the proposal.The ESF portion is
designed for States and/or project sponsors to use while the LWCF proposal is under development.Upon completion,the ESF
will indicate the resources that could be impacted by the proposal enabling States and/or project sponsors to more accurately
follow an appropriate pathway for NEPA analysis:1)a recommendation for a Categorical Exclusion (CE),2)production of an
Environmental Assessment (EA),or 3)production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The ESF should also be used
to document any previously conducted yet still viable environmental analysis if used for this federal proposal.The completed
PDIESF must be submitted as part of the State's LWCF proposal to NPS.
Except for the proposals listed below,the PDIESF must be completed,including the appropriate NEPA document,signed by
the State,and submitted with each new federal application for LWCF assistance and amendments for:scope changes that alter
or add facilities and/or acres;conversions;public facility exceptions;sheltering outdoor facilities;and changing the original
intended use of an area from that which was approved in an earlier LWCF agreement.Consult the LWCF Program Manual
(www.nps.gov/lwct)for detailed guidance for your type of proposal and on how to comply with NEPA.
For the following types of proposals only this Cover Page is required because these types of proposals are administrative in
nature and are categorically excluded from further NEPA environmental analysis.NPS will complete the NEPA CE Form.
Simply check the applicable box below,and complete and submit only this Cover Page to NPS along with the other items
required for your type of proposal as instructed in the LWCF Program Manual.
D SCORP planning proposal
D Time extension with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project 'scope
o To delete work and no other work is added back into the project scope
o To change project cost with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope
o To make an administrative change that does not change project scope
Name of lWCF Proposal:Date Submitted to NPS:
Prior lWCF Project Number(s)List all prior LWCF project numbers and all park names associated with assisted site(s):
local or State Project Sponsoring Agency (recipient or sub-recipient in case ofpass-through grants):
local or State Sponsor Contact:
NameITitle:
Office/Address:
Phone/Fax:Email:
Cover Page 1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 1
Using a separate sheet for narrative descriptions and explanations,address each item and question in the order it is presented,
and identify each response with its item number such as Step 1-A 1,A2;Step 3-81;Step 6-A 1,A29;etc.
New Project Application
D Acquisition D Development
Go to Step 2A Go to Step 28 D Combination (Acquisition &Development)
Go to Step 2C
Project Amendment
D Increase in scope or change in scope from original agreement.
Complete Steps 3A,and 5 through 7.
D 6(f)conversion proposal.Complete Steps 38,and 5 through 7.
D Request for public facility in a Section 6(f)area.Complete Steps 3C,and 5 through 7.
Request for temporary non-conforming use in a Section 6(f)area.
Complete Steps 4A,and 5 through 7.
Request for significant change in use/intent of original lWCF application.
Complete Steps 48,and 5 through 7.
Request to shelter existing/new facility within a Section 6(f)area regardless of funding
source.Complete Steps 4C,and 5 through 7.
A.For an Acquisition Project
1.Provide a brief narrative about the proposal that provides the reasons for the acquisition,the number of acres
to be acquired with LWCF assistance,and a description of the property.Describe and quantify the types of
existing resources and features on the site (for example,50 acres wetland,2,000 feet beachfront,200 acres
forest,scenic views,100 acres riparian,vacant lot,special habitat,any unique or special features,recreation
amenities,historic/cultural resources,hazardous materials/contamination history,restrictions,institutional
controls,easements,rights-of-way,above ground/underground utilities,including wires,towers,etc.).
2.How and when will the site be made open and accessible for public outdoor recreation use (signage,entries,
parking,site improvements,allowable activities,etc.)?
3.Describe development plans for the proposal for the site(s)for public outdoor recreation use within the next
three (3)years.
4.SLO must complete the State AppraisallWaiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 certifying that the
appraisal(s)has been reviewed and meets the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions"or
a waiver valuation was approved per 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2)(ii).State should retain copies of the appraisals and
make them available if needed.
5.Address each item in "0"below.
B.For a Development Project
1.Describe the physical improvements and/or facilities that will be developed with federal LWCF assistance,
including a site sketch depicting improvements,where and how the pUblic will access the site,parking,etc.
Indicate entrances on 6(f)map.Indicate to what extent the project involves new development,rehabilitation,
and/or replacement of existing facilities.
2.When will the project be completed and open for pUblic outdoor recreation use?
3.Address each item in "0"below.
2
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 2
c.For a Combination Project
1.For the acquisition part of the proposal:
a.Provide a brief narrative about the proposal that provides the reasons for the acquisition,number of acres
to be acquired with LWCF assistance,and describes the property.Describe and quantify the types of
existing resources and features on the site (for example,50 acres wetland,2,000 feet beachfront,200
acres forest,scenic views,100 acres riparian,vacant lot,special habitat,any unique or special features,
recreation amenities,historic/cultural resources,hazardous materials/contamination history,restrictions,
institutional controls,easements,rights-of-way,above ground/underground utilities,including wires,
towers,etc.)
b.How and when will the site be made open and accessible for pUblic outdoor recreation use (signage,
entries,parking,site improvements,allowable activities,etc.)?
c.Describe development plans for the proposed for the site(s)for public outdoor recreation use within the
next three (3)years.
d.SLO must complete the State AppraisallWaiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 certifying that the
appraisal(s)has been reviewed and meets the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions"or a waiver valuation was approved per 49 CFR 24.1 02(c)(2)(ii).State should retain copies
of the appraisals and make them available if needed.
2.For the development part of the proposal:
a.Describe the physical improvements and/or facilities that will be developed with federal LWCF assistance,
including a site sketch depicting improvements,where and how the public will access the site,parking,
etc.Indicate entrances on 6(f)map.Indicate to what extent the project involves new development,
rehabilitation,and/or replacement of existing facilities.
b.When will the project be completed and open for public outdoor recreation use?
3.Address each item in "0"below.
D.Additional items to address for a new application and amendments
1.Will this proposal create a new public park/recreation area where none previously existed and is not an
addition to an existing public park/recreation area?Yes __(go to #3)No __(go to #2)
2.a.What is the name of the pre-existing public area that this new site will be added to?
b.Is the pre-existing public park/recreation area already protected under Section 6(f)?Yes _No_
If no,will it now be included in the 6(f)boundary?Yes _No_
3.What will be the name of this new pUblic park/recreation area?
4.a.Who will hold title to the property assisted by LWCF?Who will manage and operate the site(s)?
b.What is the sponsor's type of ownership and control of the property?
Fee simple ownership
Less than fee simple.Explain:
Lease.Describe lease terms including renewable clauses,#of years remaining on lease,etc.
Who will lease area?Submit copy of lease with this PD/ESF.(See LWCF Manual for program
restrictions for leases and further gUidance.)
5.Describe the nature of any rights-of-way,easements,reversionary interests,etc.to the Section 6(f)park
area?Indicate the location on 6(f)map.Do parties understand that a Section 6(f)conversion may occur if
private or non-recreation activities occur on any pre-existing right-of-way,easement,leased area?
6.Are overhead utility lines present,and if so,explain how they will be treated per LWCF Manual.
7.As a result of this project,describe new types of outdoor recreation opportunities and capacities,and short
and long term public benefits.
3
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 3
8.Explain any existing non-recreation and non-public uses that will continue on the site(s)and/or proposed for
the future within the 6(f)boundary.
9.Describe the planning process that led to the development of this proposal.Your narrative should address:
a.How was the interested and affected public notified and provided opportunity to be involved in planning for
and developing your LWCF proposal?Who was involved and hOIAl were they able to review the
completed proposal,including any state,local,federal agency professionals,subject matter experts,
members of the public and Indian Tribes.Describe any public meetings held and/or formal public
comment periods,including dates and length of time prOVided for the public to participate in the planning
process and/or to provide comments on the completed proposal.
b.What information was made available to the public for review and comment?Did the sponsor provide
written responses addressing the comments?If so,include responses with this PD/ESF submission.
10.How does this proposal implement statewide outdoor recreation goals as presented in the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)(include references),and explain why this proposal was
selected using the State's Open Project Selection Process (OPSP).
11.List all source(s)and amounts of financial match to the LWCF federal share of the project.The value of the
match can consist of cash,donation,and in-kind contributions.The federal LWCF share and financial
matches must result in a viable outdoor recreation area and not rely on other funding not mentioned here.
Other federal resources may be used as a match if specifically authorized by law.
Source Type of Match Value
$
$
$
12.Is this LWCF project scope part of a larger effort not reflected on the SF-424 (Application for Federal
Assistance)and grant agreement?If so,briefly describe the larger effort,funding amount(s)and source(s).
This will capture information about partnerships and how LWCF plays a role in leveraging funding for projects
beyond the scope of this federal grant.
13.List all required federal,state,and local permits/approvals needed for the proposal and explain their purpose
and status.
Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 c:::,..=.=====>
A.Increase/Change in Project Scope
1.For AcqUisition Projects:To acquire additional property that was not described in the original project
proposal and NEPA documentation,follow Step 2A-Acquisition Project and 20.
2.For Development Projects:To change the project scope for a development project that alters work from the
original project scope by adding elements or enlarging facilities,follow Step 2B-Development Project and 20.
3.For Combination Projects:Follow Step 2C as appropriate.
B.Section 6(f)(3)Conversion Proposal
Prior to developing your Section 6(f)(3)conversion proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual and 36 CFR 59.3
for complete gUidance on conversions.Local sponsors must consult early with the State LWCF manager when a
conversion is under consideration or has been discovered.States must consult with their NPS-LWCF manager as
early as possible in the conversion process for guidance and to sort out and discuss details of the conversion
proposal to avoid mid-course corrections and unnecessary delays.A critical first step is for the State and NPS
to agree on the size of the Section 8m park land impacted by any non-recreation,non-pUblic use,
4
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 4
especially prior to any appraisal activity.Any previous LWCF project agreements and actions must be identified
and understood to determine the actual Section 6(f)boundary.
The Section 6(f)(3)conversion proposal including the required NEPA environmental review doculTlents (CE
recommendation or an EA document)must focus on the loss of public outdoor recreation park land and recreational
usefulness,and its replacement per 36 CFR 59,and not the activities precipitating the conversion or benefits
thereof,such as the impacts of constructing a new school to relieve overcrowding or constructing a hotel/restaurant
facility to stimulate the local economy.Rather,the environmental review must 1)focus on "resource impacts"as
indicated on the ESF (Step 6),including the loss of public park land and recreation opportunities (ESF A-15),and
2)the impacts of creating new replacement park land and replacement recreation opportunities.A separate ESF
must be generated for the converted park area and each replacement site.Section 6(f)(3)conversions always
have more than minor impacts to outdoor recreation (ESF A-15)as a result of loss of parkland requiring an EA,
except for "small"conversions as defined in the LWCF Manual Chapter 8.
For NPS review and decision,the following elements are required to be included in the State's completed
conversion proposal to be submitted to NPS:
1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal.
2.A detailed explanation of the sponsor's need to convert the Section 6(f)parkland including all efforts to
consider other practical alternatives to this conversion,how they were evaluated,and the reasons they were
not pursued.
3.An explanation of how the conversion is in accord with the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP).
4.Completed "State AppraisalIWaiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 for each of the converted and
replacement parcels certifying that the appraisals meet the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions."States must retain copies of the appraisals/waiver valuations and make them available for
review upon request.
5.For the park land proposed for conversion,a detailed description including the following:
a.Specific geographic location on a map,9-digit zip code,and name of park or recreation area proposed for
conversion.
b.Description of the area proposed for the conversion including the acreage to be converted and any
acreage remaining.For determining the size of the conversion,consider not only the physical footprint of
the activity precipitating the conversion,but how the precipitating activity will impact the entire 6(f)park
area.In many cases the size of the converted area is larger than the physical footprint.Include a
description of the recreation resources,facilities,and recreation opportunities that will be impacted,
displaced or lost by the proposed conversion.For proposals to partially convert a Section 6(f)park area,
the remaining 6(f)park land must remain recreation ally viable and not be impacted by the activities that
are precipitating the conversion.If it is anticipated that the precipitating activities impact the remaining
Section 6(f)area,the proposed area for the conversion should be expanded to encompass all impacted
park land.
c.Description of the community and population served by the park,including users of the park and uses.
d.For partial conversions,a revised 6(f)map clearly indicating both the portion that is being converted and
the portion remaining intact under Section 6(f).
6.For each proposed replacement site:
a.Specific geographic location on a map,9-digit zip code,and geographical relationship of converted and
replacement sites.If site will be added to an existing public park/outdoor recreation area,indicate on
map.
b.Description of the site's physical characteristics and resource attributes with number and types of
resources and features on the site,for example,15 acres wetland,2,000 feet beach front,50 acres forest,
scenic views,75 acres riparian,vacant lot,special habitat,any unique or special features,structures,
recreation amenities,historic/cultural resources,hazardous materials/contamination history,restrictions,
institutional controls,easements,rights-of-way,overhead/underground utilities including overhead wires,
towers,etc.
5
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 5
c.Identification of the owner of the replacement site and its recent history of use/function up to the present.
d.Detailed explanation of how the proposed replacement site is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and
location as the property being converted,including a description of the recreation needs that will be met
by the new replacement parks,populations to be served,and new outdoor recreation resources,facilities,
and opportunities to be provided.
e.Identification of owner and manager of the new replacement park?
f.Name of the new replacement park.If the replacement park is added to an existing public park
area,will the existing area be included within the 6(f)boundary?What is the name of the
existing public park area?
g.Timeframe for completing the new outdoor recreation area(s)to replace the recreation
opportunity lost per the terms of conversion approval and the date replacement park(s)will be
open to the public.
h.New Section 6(f)map for the new replacement park.
7.NEPA environmental review,including NHPA Section 106 review,for both the converted and
replacement sites in the same document to analyze how the converted park land and recreational
usefulness will be replaced.Except for "small"conversions (see LWCF Manual Chapter 8),
conversions usually require an EA.
Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 >-
C.Proposal for a Public Facility in a Section 6(f)Area
Prior to developing this proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete gUidance.In summary,NPS
must review and decide on requests to construct a public indoor and/or non-recreation facility within a Section 6(f)
area.In certain cases NPS may approve the construction of public facilities within a Section 6(f)area where it can
be shown that there will be a net gain in outdoor recreation benefits and enhancements for the entire park.In
most cases,development of a non-recreation public facility within a Section 6(f)area constitutes a conversion.For
NPS review,the State/sponsor must submit a proposal to NPS under a letter of transmittal from the SLO that:
1.Describes the purpose and all proposed uses of the pUblic facility such as types of programming,recreation
activities,and special events including intended users of the new facility and any agency,organization,or
other party to occupy the facility.Describe the interior and exterior of the facility,such as office space,
meeting rooms,food/beverage area,residential/lodging area,classrooms,gyms,etc.Explain how the facility
will be compatible with the outdoor recreation area.Explain how the facility and associated uses will
significantly support and enhance existing and planned outdoor recreation resources and uses of the site,and
how outdoor recreation use will remain the primary function of the site.(The public's outdoor recreation use
must continue to be greater than that expected for any indoor use,unless the site is a single facility,such as a
swimming pool,which Virtually occupies the entire site.)
2.Indicates the exact location of the proposed public facility and associated activities on the site's Section 6(f)
map.Explain the design and location alternatives considered for the public facility and why they were not
pursued.
3.Explains who will own and/or operate and maintain the facility?Attach any 3rd party leases and operation and
management agreements.When will the facility be open to the pUblic?Will the facility ever be used for
private functions and closed to the public?Explain any user or other fees that will be instituted,including the
fee structure.
4.Includes required documents as a result of a completed NEPA process (Steps 5 -7).
Proceed to Steps 5 through 1
6
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 6
A.Proposal for Temporary Non-Conforming Use
Prior to developing this proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.NPS must review and
decided on requests for temporary uses that do not meet the requirements of allowable activities within a Section
6(f)area.A temporary non-conforming use is limited to a period of six months (180 days)or less.Continued use
beyond six-months will not be considered temporary,and may result in a Section 6(f)(3)conversion of use requiring
the replacement of converted parkland.For NPS review,describe the temporary non-conforming use (activities
other than public outdoor recreation)in detail including the following information:
1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal.
2.Describe in detail the proposed temporary non-conforming use and all associated activities,why it is needed,
and alternative locations that were considered and why they were not pursued.
3.Explain length of time needed for the temporary non-conforming use and why.
4.Describe the size of the Section 6(f)area affected by the temporary non-conforming use activities and
expected impacts to pUblic outdoor recreation areas,facilities and opportunities.Explain efforts to keep the
size of the area impacted to a minimum.Indicate the location of the non-conforming use on the site's 6(f)map.
5.Describe any anticipated temporary/permanent impacts to the Section 6(f)area and how the sponsor will
mitigate them during and after the non-conforming use ceases.
6.Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal.
Proceed to Steps 5 through 7
B.Proposal for Significant Change in Use
Prior to developing the proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.NPS approval must
be obtained prior to any change from one eligible use to another when the proposed use would significantly
contravene the original plans or intent for the area outlined in the original LWCF application for federal assistance.
Consult with NPS for early determination on the need for a formal review.NPS approval is only required for
proposals that will significantly change the use of a LWCF-assisted site (e.g.,from passive to active recreation).
The proposal must include and address the following items:
1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal.
2.Description of the proposed changes and how they significantly contravene the original plans or intent of
LWCF agreements.
3.Explanation of the need for change in use and how the change is consistent with local plans and the SCORP.
4.Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal.
Proceed to Steps 5 through 1
C.Proposal for Sheltering Facilities
Prior to developing this proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.NPS must review
and decide on all proposals to shelter an existing outdoor recreation facility or construct a new sheltered recreation
facility within a Section 6(f)area regardless of funding source.The proposal must demonstrate that there is an
increased benefit to public recreation opportunity.Describe the sheltering proposal in detail,inclUding the following:
1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal.
2.Describe the proposed sheltered facility,how it would operate,how the sheltered facility will include recreation
uses that could typically occur outdoors,and how the primary purpose of the sheltered facility is recreation.
7
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 7
3.Explain how the sheltered facility would not substantially diminish the outdoor recreation values of the site
including how the sheltered facility will be compatible and significantly supportive of the outdoor recreation
resources present and/or planned.
4.Explain how the sheltered facility will benefit the total park's outdoor recreation use.
5.Describe efforts provided to the public to review the proposal to shelter the facility and has local support.
6.Document that the sheltered facility will be under the control and tenure of the pUblic agency which sponsors
and administers the original park area.
7.Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal.
Proceed to Steps 5 through 7
To avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary delays,describe any prior environmental review undertaken at any
time and still viable for this proposal or related efforts that could be useful for understanding potential environmental
impacts.Consider previous local,state,federal (e.g.HUD,EPA,USFWS,FHWA,DOT)and any other
environmental reviews.At a minimum,address the follOWing:
1.Date of environmental review(s),purpose for the environmental review(s)and for whom they were conducted.
2.Description of the proposed action and alternatives.
3.Who was involved in identifying resource impact issues and developing the proposal including the interested
and affected public,government agencies,and Indian tribes.
4.Environmental resources analyzed and determination of impacts for proposed actions and alternatives.
5.Any mitigation measures to be part of the proposed action.
6.Intergovernmental Review Process (Executive Order 12372):Does the State have an Intergovernmental
Review Process?Yes __No __.If yes,has the LWCF Program been selected for review under the
State Intergovernmental Review Process?Yes __No __.If yes,was this proposal reviewed by the
appropriate State,metropolitan,regional and local agencies,and if so,attach any information and comments
received about this proposal.If proposal was not reviewed,explain why not.
7.Public comment periods (how long,when in the process,who was invited to comment)and agency response.
8.Any formal decision and supporting reasons regarding degree of potential impacts to the human environment.
9.Was this proposed LWCF federal action and/or any other federal actions analyzed/reviewed in any of the
previous environmental reviews?If so,what was analyzed and what impacts were identified?Provide
specific environmental review document references.
Use resource impact information generated during previous environmental reviews described above and from
recently conducted site inspections to complete the Environmental Screening Form (ESF)portion of this PD/ESF
under Step 6.Your ESF responses should indicate your proposal's potential for impacting each resource as
determined in the previous environmental review(s),and include a reference to where the analysis can be found in
an earlier environmental review document.If the previous environmental review documents contain proposed
actions to mitigate impacts,briefly summarize the mitigation for each resource as appropriate.The appropriate
references for previous environmental review document(s)must be documented on the ESF,and the actual
document(s)along with this PD/ESF must be included in the submission for NPS review.
Proceed to Steps 6 through 7
8
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 8
This portion of the PD/ESF is a working tool used to identify the level of environmental documentation which must
accompany the proposal submission to the NPS.By completing the ESF,the project sponsor is providing support
for its recommendation in Step 7 that the proposal either:
1.meets criteria to be categorically excluded (CE)from further NEPA review and
no additional environmental documentation is necessary;or
2.requires further analysis through an environmental assessment (EA)or an environmental
impact statement (EIS).
An ESF alone does not constitute adequate environmental documentation unless a CE is recommended.If an EA
is required,the EA process and resulting documents must be included in the proposal submission to the NPS.If an
EIS may be required,the State must request NPS guidance on how to proceed.
The scope of the required environmental analysis will vary according to the type of LWCF proposal.For example,
the scope for a new LWCF project will differ from the scope for a conversion.Consult the LWCF Manual for
guidance on defining the scope or extent of environmental analysis needed for your LWCF proposal.As early as
possible in your planning process,consider how your proposal/project may have direct,indirect and cumulative
impacts on the human environment for your type of LWCF action so planners have an opportunity to design
alternatives to lessen impacts on resources,if appropriate.When used as a planning tool in this way,the ESF
responses may change as the proposal is revised until it is ready for submission for federal review.Initiating or
completing environmental analysis after a decision has been made is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the law
of the NEPA.
The ESF should be completed with input from resource experts and in consultation with relevant local,state,tribal
and federal governments,as applicable.The interested and affected public should be notified of the proposal and
be invited to participate in scoping out the proposal (see LWCF Manual Chapter 4).At a minimum,a site inspection
of the affected area must be conducted by individuals who are familiar with the type of affected resources,possess
the ability to identify potential resource impacts,and to know when to seek additional data when needed.
At the time of proposal submission to NPS for federal review,the completed ESF must justify the NEPA pathway
that was followed:CE recommendation,production of an EA,or production of an EIS.The resource topics and
issues identified on the ESF for this proposal must be presented and analyzed in an attached EAlEIS.Consult the
LWCF Manual for further guidance on LWCF and NEPA.
The ESF contains two parts that must be completed:
Part A.Environmental Resources Part B.Mandatory Criteria
Part A:For each environmental resource topic,choose an impact estimate level (none,negligible,minor,exceeds
minor)that describes the degree of potential negative impact for each listed resource that may occur directly,
indirectly and cumulatively as a result of federal approval of your proposal.For each impacted resource provide a
brief explanation of how the resource might be affected,how the impact level was determined,and why the chosen
impact level is appropriate.If an environmental review has already been conducted on your proposal and is still
viable,include the citation including any planned mitigation for each applicable resource,and choose an impact
level as mitigated.If the resource does not apply to your proposal,mark NA in the first column.Add any relevant
resources (see A.24 on the ESF)if not included in the list.
Use a separate sheet to briefly clarify how each resource could be adversely impacted:any direct.indirect.and
cumulative impacts that may occur;and any additional data that still needs to be determined.Also explain any
planned mitigation already addressed in previous environmental reviews.
Part B:This is a list of mandatory impact criteria that preclude the use of categorical exclusions.If you answer
"yes"or "maybe"for any of the mandatory criteria,you must develop an EA or EIS regardless of your answers in
Part A.Explain all "yes"and "maybe"answers on a separate sheet.
9
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 9
For conversions,complete one ESF for each of the converted and replacement sites.
1.Geological resources:soils,bedrock,
slo es,streambeds,landforms,etc.
2.Air quality
3.Sound (noise impacts)
4.Water quality/quantity
5.Stream flow characteristics
6.Marine/estuarine
7.Floodplainslwetlands
8.Land use/ownership patterns;
ro e values;communi Iivabili
9.Circulation,transportation
10.Plant/animal/fish species of special
concern and habitat;state/
federal listed or ro osed for Iistin
11.Unique ecosystems,such as
biosphere reserves,World Heritage
sites,old rowth forests,etc.
12.Unique or important wildlife/wildlife
habitat
13.Unique or important fish/habitat
14.Introduce or promote invasive
s ecies lant or animal
15.Recreation resources,land,parks,
open space,conservation areas,rec.
trails,facilities,services,opportunities,
public access,etc.Most conversions
exceed minor im acts.See Ste 3.8
16.Accessibility for populations with
disabilities
17.Overall aesthetics,special
characteristics/features
18.Historical/cultural resources,
including landscapes,ethnographic,
archeological,structures,etc.Attach
SHPOffHPO determination.
19.Socioeconomics,including
employment,occupation,income
chan es,tax base,infrastructure
20.Minority and low-income
o ulations
21.Energy resources (geothermal,
fossil fuels,etc.
22.Other agency or tribal land use
lans or olicies
23.Land/structures with history of
contamination/hazardous materials
even if remediated
24.Other important environmental
resources to address.
10
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 10
1.Have significant impacts on public health or safety?
2.Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic
characteristics as historic or cultural resources;park,recreation,or refuge lands,
wilderness areas;wild or scenic rivers;national natural landmarks;sole or
principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands;wetlands (E.O.11990);
flood lains E.O 11988 ;and other ecolo icall si nificant or critical areas.
3.Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts
concernin alternative uses of available resources NEPA section 102 2 E ?
4.Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or
involve uni ue or unknown environmental risks?
5.Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle
about future actions with otentiall si nificant environmental effects?
6.Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant,but
cumulativel si nificant,environmental effects?
7.Have significant impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places,as determined by either the bureau or
office.Attach SHPOITHPO Comments
8.Have significant impacts on species listed or proposed to be listed on the List
of Endangered or Threatened Species,or have significant impacts on designated
Critical Habitat for these s ecies.
9.Violate a federal law,or a state,local,or tribal law or requirement imposed for
the rotection of the environment?
10.Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority
o ulations Executive Order 12898 ?
11.Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by
Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity
of such sacred sites Executive Order 13007 ?
12.Contribute to the introduction,continued existence,or spread of noxious
weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area,or actions that
may promote the introduction,growth,or expansion of the range of such species
Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112 ?
The following individual(s) provided input in the completion of the environmental screening form.List all
reviewers including name,title,agency,field of expertise.Keep all environmental review records and data on this
proposal in state compliance file for any future program review and/or audit.The ESF may be completed as part of
a LWCF pre-award site inspection if conducted in time to contribute to the environmental review process for the
proposal.
1.
2.
3.
The following individuals conducted a site inspection to verify field conditions.
List name of inspector(s),title,agency,and daters)of inspection.
1.
2.
3.
State may require signature of
LWCF sub-recipient applicant here:D,ate _
11
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 11
First,consult the attached list of "Categorical Exclusions (CEs)for Which a Record is Needed."If you find your
action in the CE list and you have determined in Step 6A that impacts will be minor or less for each applicable
env!~""~mental resource on the ESF and you answered "no"to all of the "Mandatory Criteria"questions in Step 68,
the proposal qualifies for a CEo Complete the following "State LWCF Environmental Recommendations"box
indicating the CE recommendation.
If you find your action in the CE list and you have determined in Step 6A that impacts will be greater than minor or
that more data is needed for any of the resources and you answered "no"to all of the "Mandatory Criteria"
questions,your environmental review team may choose to do additional analysis to determine the context,
duration,and intensity of the impacts of your project or may wish to revise the proposal to minimize impacts to
meet the CE criteria.If impacts remain at the greater than minor level,the State/sponsor must prepare an EA for
the proposal.Complete the following "State Environmental Recommendations"box indicating the need for an EA.
If you do not find your action in the CE list,regardless of your answers in Step 6,you must prepare an EA or EIS.
Complete the following "State Environmental Recommendations"box indicating the need for an EA or EIS.
SlO/ASlO Original Signature:_::-:-=-~---Date:_
Typed Name,Title,Agency:
12
1010112008
ATTACHMENT - 12
National Environmental Policy Act
National Park Service-Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program
Categorical Exclusions for Which a Record is Needed
Note:Thefollowing are the NEPA Categorical Exclusions approvedfor u.s,(vith all NPS programs.Only
the unshaded categories apply to LWCF proposals.Before selecting a categorical exclusion (CE),
complete the PD/ESFfor the LWCF proposal to support the CE selection.
A.Actions related to general administration
(1)Changes or amendments to an approved action when such changes would cause no environmental
impact.LWCF actions that are covered include amendmentsfor:
-time extensions with no change in project scope or with a reduction
in project scope;
-deleting work and no other work is added back into the project scope;
-changing project cost with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope;
-making administrative changes that do not affect project scope.
(3)R.e-issuance/ren,cwal of permits,rights-of-way,or easements not involving new environmental
ilnpacts provided that the impacts of the original actions were eval uated in an en vironmental docuI11cnL
Is to ,ights,.of-\vay,vvhen su.ch conversions
,1,·",....,,:,11\1 initiate adverse environmental conditions,provided that
were evaluated in an ron mental document.
rt>issuanees,or minor modi concession contracrs or
permits that do not entaiJnew construction or any potential for new environmental impact as a result of
conCI:;SSlOn operations.
(6)Incidental business permits (formerly called commercial use licenses)involving no construction or
potential for new environmental irnpact
(7)Leasing of historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 18 and NPS-38,
(8)Modifications or revisions to existing regulations,or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS··
administered areas,provided the modifications,revisions,or new regulations do not:
(a)increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause
physical damage to it.
(b)introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature ~md characteristics of the area or
cause physical damage to it.
(c)conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses.
(d)cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants
LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions
10/0112008
ATTACHMENT - 13
(9)At the direction of the NPS responsible official,actions where NPS has concurrence or co-approval
with another bureau and the action is a CE for that bureau,and where NPS agrees that ther.e is no potential
for environmental impact.
(10)Routine transfers of jurisdiction between the NPS and the District of Columbia accomplished
through existing statutory authority,where no change of use in the land is anticipated upon transfer.
B.Plans,studies,and reports
(1)Changes or amendments to an approved plan,when such changes have no potentia.!
environmental impact
(2)Cultural resources maintenance guides,collection rnanagement plans,and historic furnishings
reports.
(3)Interpretive plans (interpretive prt)spectuses,audio··visual plans,museum exhibit plans"wayside
exhibit plans).
(4)l>lans,including prionties,justifications,and strategies,for non-manipulative research,monitoring,
inventorying,and information-gathering.
(5)Agreements between NPS offices for plans and studies.
(6)Authorization,funding,or approval for the preparation of statewide comprehensive outdoor
recreation plans (SCORPs).
(])Adoption or approval of academic or research surveys,.,>v_,u',-",n;;ports,and similar documents that
not contain and I not result in )\iPS reconunendations.
protection plans that propos!;~changl:;s to existing land or visitor use vvhen the changes have no
potentia!for environmental impact.
C.Actions related to development
(l)Land acquisition within established park boundaries,if future anticipated uses would have no
potential for environmental impact.
(2)Land exchanges that will not lead to anticipated changes in the use of land and that have no potential
for environmental impact.For LWCF,some small conversions may meet this criterion.See the LWCF
Manual Chapter 8 for further guidance.
(3)Routine maintenance and repairs to non-historic structures,facilities,utilities,grounds,and trails.
(4-)Routine maintenance and repairs to cultural resource sites,structures,utilities,and grounds if the
action falls under an approved Historic Structures Preservation Guide or Cyclic Maintenance Guide or if
the action would not adversely affect the cultural resource.
(5)Installation of LWCF eligible signs,displays,and kiosks.
LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions
2
10/0112008
ATTACHMENT - 14
(6)Installation of navigation aids.
(7)Experimental testing of short duration (no more than one season)of mass transit systems,and
changes in operation of existing systems,that have no potential for environmental impact.
(8)Replacement in kind of minor structures and facilities with little or no change in location,capacity,
or appearance--for example,comfort stations,pit toilets,fences,kiosks,signs and campfire circles.
(9)Repair,resurfacing,striping,installation of traffic control devices,and repair/replacement of
guardrails,culverts,signs,and other minor existing features on existing roads when no potential for
environmental impact exists.
(10)Changes in sanitary facilities operation resulting in no new environmental effects.
(11)Installation of wells,comfort stations,and pit or vault toilets in areas of existing use and in
developed areas.
(12)Minor trail relocation or development of compatible trail networks on logging roads or other
established routes.
(13)Upgrading or adding new overhead utility facilities on existing poles,or on replacement poles that do
not change existing pole line configurations.
Issuance of rights-of-way for overhead utility lines to an Individual building or well from an existing
installation \vdl not result visual intrusion and II involve no vegetation ether
than for placement of poles.
(1 Issuance rights-of-way lew minor overhead utility lines not involving placement poles or towers
and not involving vegetation management or visual intrusion in an area administered by NPS.
(16)Installation of underground utilities in areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance or
areas within an existing road prism or within an existing overhead utility right-of-way.
(17)Minor landscaping in areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance.
(18)Installation of fencing enclosures, exclosures,or boundary fencing posing no effect on wildlife
migrations.
(1)Minor changes in amounts or types of visitor use for the purpose of ensuring visitor safety or
resource protection in accordance with existing regulations.
(2)Minor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to visitor activities.
(3)Issuance of permits for demonstrations,gatherings,ceremonies,concerts,arts and crafts shows,and
so forth,entailing only short-term or readily remediable environmental disturbance.
LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions
3
10/0112008
ATTACHMENT - 15
(4)Designation of trai lside camping zones wi th minimal or no improvements.
Actions related to resource managemeKlt and protection
(1)Archeological surveys and permits involving only surface collection or small-scale test excavations.
(2)Restoration of non-controversial (based on internal scoping requirements in section 2.6)native
species into suitable habitats within their historic range.
(3)Removal of individual members of a non-threatened/endangered species or populations of pests and
ex.otic plants that pose an imminent danger to 'visitors or an immediate threat to park resources.
(4)Rernoval of non-historic rnaterials and structures in order to restore natural conditions when the
removal has no potential for environmental impacts,includi.ng impacts to cultural landscapes or
archeological resources.
(5)Development of standards for,and identification,nomination,certification,and determination ot:
eligibility of properties for listing in the National Register of Hi.storic Places,the National .Historic
Landmark and National Natural Landmark Programs,and biosphere reserves.
(6)Non-destmctive data collection,inventory (including aerial,and satellite surveying and
mapping),study,research,and monitoring activities (this is also a Departrnental CE).
(7)Designation if enviromnental study areas and research natural areas,including those closed
temporaxiJy or perrnanently to the public,unless the pott;:ntial for environmental (including
impact exists,
F.Actions related to grant programs
(1)Proposed actions essentially the same as those listed in paragraphs A-E above not shaded in gray.
(2)Grants for acquisition to areas that will continue in the same use or lower density use with no
additional disturbance to the natural setting or type of use.
(3)Grants for replacement or renovation of facilities at their same location without altering the kind and
amount of recreational,historical,or cultural resources of the area or the integrity of the existing setting.
(4)Grants for construction of facilities on lands acquired under a previous NPS or other federal grant,
provided that the development is in accord with plans submitted with the acquisition grant,and that
environmental documents have been completed on the impacts of the proposal funded by the original
grant.
(5)Grants for the construction of new facilities within an existing park or recreation area,provided that
the facilities will not:
(a)conflict with adjacent ownerships or land use,or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or
occupants,such as would happen if use were extended beyond daylight hours.
LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions
4
10/0112008
ATTACHMENT - 16
(b)introduce motorized recreation vehicles,including off-road vehicles,personal water craft,and
snowmobiles.
(c)introduce active recreation pursuits into a passive recreation area.
(d)increase public use or introduce non-compatible uses to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the property or causing physical damage to it.
(e)add or alter access to the park from the surrounding area.
(6)Grants for the restoration,rehabilitation,stabilization,preservation,and reconstruction (or the
authorization thereof)of properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National .of Historic
Places,at their same location,and provided that such actions:
(a)will not alter the integrity of the property or its setting
(b)wiH not increase public use of the area to the extent of compromisi ng the nature and character 0
the property.
L WCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions
5
10/0112008ATTACHMENT - 17
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Barbara Bronson Gray [bbgray@pontifexmarketing.com]
Sent:Wednesday,December 15,201012:45 PM
To:'Ara Mihranian'
Cc:laube@annenbergfoundation.org;Jaakola,Jackie;howardl@mindspring.com
Subject:Request for presentation time at the City Council Meeting 12/21/10
Hi Ara:
Just wanted to request that the Annenberg Foundation,the applicant,have 30 minutes to present at the City
Council meeting on December 21,2010.
Thank you,
Barbara
Barbara Bronson Gray
Pontifex Marketing and Communications
805.927.2276
pontifexmarketing.com
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 18
_~llW Q=-'~NN£NBERC cmJUND/lTION
BOARD Of TRUSTEES
December 14,2010
\""lIi,'\nnenberg
Ch"irm;l!l of the Boord.l'rc,idcllt "lid CEO
DIRECTORS
buren Don
Creg<lr}'A",,<nbcrg Wcing.men
Charles Anl1t"btrg \'{'dngantn
Mayor Tom Long
Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council:
In September,2008,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council authorized the Annenberg
Foundation,a 501 (c)(3)charitable foundation,to proceed with the entitlement phase
of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.Since then,we have,in good faith,
spent thousands of hours of staff and community time and millions of dollars to
envision a master plan for the development of a discovery park at Lower Point
Vicente.We are now faced with questions about appropriate use deed restrictions at
Lower Point Vicente,issues that we would like,working with the City,to resolve.To
that end,we ask you to temporarily put the planning process on hold and allow city
staff to continue to talk with the State Office of Grants and Services (OGALS),the
National Park Service (NPS)and the Annenberg Foundation to resolve questions that
relate to our project,Lower Point Vicente,and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center
(PVIC).
At the same time,we feel it would be helpful to the community to revisit the facts
related to the project.The community has been hearing things that are not true.We
would like to correct fallacies that have been promulgated in spoken testimony,letters
to the Council,and word of mouth within the community.
At its core,the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente is about master
planning a 26-acre community park and resource where visitors of all ages can
engage in passive recreation and learning.The park would build upon the work
already established at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center,be beautifully
landscaped,feature more than 100 new exhibits and programs,as well as foster an
appreciation for marine-life,terrestrial habitats and domestic animals.Moreover,the
project has the potential to serve as a model for effective pUblic/private partnerships.
•About the animals and their relationship to environmental responsibility:
It is not anathema to bring the study of domestic and wild animals into a
public park setting.Take,for example.the NPS and California Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR),which both have programs devoted to helping
visitors -adults and children -better understand the distinction between
wildlife and domesticated animals.They teach,for example,Why squirrels,
bears,bison and birds should not be fed by humans,and why we should not
Radnor,PA Los Angeles,CA .\'{Tashington,DC
2000 A\'enue of the Stars,Suite J000 Los Angeles,CA 90067
te!:310.209.4560 t;L'C 310.209.[631 w\\'w.3nnenbergfoundiltiol1.org
1
ATTACHMENT - 19
encroach on a sea lion's territory.Indeed,without a discussion of domestic
animals,the pUblic cannot fully grasp the unique qualities of wildlife."Wild"
can best be understood in comparison to what people already know in their
daily lives:companion animals.
The NPS and the OPR also recognize the importance of teaching the public to
respect wildlife and nature;for example,to refrain from standing too close to
wild animals and to avoid touching animals,throwing rocks or sticks to get
their attention,or feeding them.Such respect for wildlife and nature is in fact
inseparable from the proper treatment of domestic animals.
This educational focus is,in fact,so important to our society that it is
embedded in California Education Code section 233.5(a),which mandates
that "Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the
pupils ...the meaning of equality and human dignity,including the promotion of
harmonious relations,kindness toward domestic pets and the humane
treatment of living creatures."
Many states also have humane education curricular goals.In fact,pet
ownership in the home and in classrooms across the nation is seen as a way
to build students'character.Teaching empathy to children is a challenging but
essential task.Helping students connect pets to the living things that they will
encounter while hiking,bird watching and otherwise enjoying the outdoors is
an important path to creating environmentally responsible,caring citizens.
•About animal adoption:The project would have,within the context of proper
stewardship of all living things,an animal adoption program that emphasizes
how to effectively manage our relationship with domestic animals.The
project's programming related to domestic animals would be a paradigm shift
from what people have ever seen elsewhere.To call what we are proposing
an "animal shelter"would be like calling a presidential library "a newsstand."
The project would provide education about the holistic relationship of humans,
animals and the environment.It would represent a new national model for
creating a culture of understanding about how to most effectively care for the
land,the sea,wildlife and the animals we consider part of our families.
To achieve this educational mission,we don't need many dogs and cats.We
do,however,need enough of a variety to make the adoption aspect of the
programming effective.Thus we propose having 10 dog suites and 8 cat
suites.By using the term "suite"we refer to a commitment to help the animals
adjust or readjust to life as it will be in a home after they are adopted by a
family.This principle of gradual readjustment is also used with wild animals
when they are being prepared to return to their natural environments.
There would be a medica!care area for the animals and a state-of-the-art
surgical suite,designed to meet the needs of the animals before they are
adopted and help fulfill our mission of teaching.The medical area would be an
ideal place for high school and college students to intern as they prepare for
careers.There would be no crematorium.The pUblic would not be able to
drop off animals at the center.Local veterinarians understand our proposal
and are in support of our project.
2
ATTACHMENT - 20
•About the building:To preserve the natural qualities of this unique location,
the building elements of the project have been carefully designed to minimize
building footprints and blend into the existing landscape.The new interpretive
center would be set into the hillside and only 16 feet high above existing
grade,the "by right"standard.(This is significantly lower than is PVIC).There
would be a variety of green building and sustainable elements.The total
combined square footage of the new interpretive center and PVIC,together,
would comprise only 4%of the total area at Lower Point Vicente,far below
the maximum lot coverage of 10%allowed by the zoning designation of
"Open Space Recreation."We would have about 35,000 square feet of
program space,10,000 square feet of underground parking,and 5,000 square
feet of mechanical system space.
Much of the square footage of the new interpretive center was added to the
plans we initially created in response to community input.For example,the
multi-purpose theater was designed to allow community and civic groups to
meet,and the classrooms and exhibit space are geared to meet the needs of
visiting student groups and other visitors.Some additional square footage had
to be added when we decreased the building height to 16 feet.
•About ownership of the land:Aspersions that we are interested in this
project as a real-estate deal in which we would reap the profits.,of enhanced
land value are entirely false.The land would remain the City's.At no time has
this ever been in question.We would envision having an operating agreement
much like the one the Land Conservancy has With the City for the
management of the city-owned Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.Within the
context of resolving the total operating relationship,the likeliest approach is
that we would gift the building to the City and manage the operations and
programming,prOViding annual reports to the City.
•About access by the public to the new Interpretive center:The project is
designed to be entirely for public use.Just as in any park or City building,
there would be some rooms and offices that would not be appropriate for
routine pUblic access.Such space would be highly limited.Office space would
solely be devoted to supporting the operations and programming of the new
interpretive center.No one would live at the new interpretive center.
•About Improving and increasing public access and recreational use:The
entirety of the park would be devoted to supporting recreation,including
walking trails,picnic spots,socialization areas and places to enjoy the view
and the landscape.The project would transform a degraded and underutilized
site into a hub for outdoor recreation,supporting the use of Lower Point
Vicente and surrounding areas.The trail system now only serves the bluff
edge of the site,and thus significant portions of Lower Point Vicente are not
readily accessible to the public and are not suitable for outdoor recreation.
Inside the new interpretive center,too,there would be a range of recreational
components,such as interpretive e,xhibits and public space for relaxation,
social interaction,educational programming (in the classrooms and multi-
media theater).Both the classrooms and the multi-media theater have been
designed to facilitate indoor-outdoor programming.
3
ATTACHMENT - 21
•About land restoration:Restoration of Lower Point Vicente to park land is
the foundation of the project.Most of the project,except for the buildings and
other hardscaped areas,would be cleared and restored with native
vegetation.Areas near the coastal bluff edge of the site would be restored
with plants from the coastal bluff plant community.Inland areas of the site
would be restored with plants from the chaparral,grassland,and riparian plant
communities.
•About the rationale for building on Lower,not Upper,Point Vicente:This
is a unique opportunity to master plan the region's first recreation,education
and open space destination for families,educators and students.It would
provide the setting for an innovative interpretive program that promotes
outdoor recreational use by helping visitors understand the interconnected
marine and terrestrial ecosystems that surround the site.The coastal location
of the project is central to the success of the programming because it pfaces
visitors at the boundary between these two ecosystems.The discovery park
would increase the public use of Lower Point Vicente.
We hope this is helpful in bringing the community dialogue back to a discussion of
possibilities and potential,with an emphasis on a factual understanding of what we
propose.
Sln~~..'~
Leonard J.e (~
Executive irector
4
ATTACHMENT - 22
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:elaine [to.elaine@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20106:50 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:The Annenberg Project
I read that The Annenberg Project is up for review AGAIN next week.This would be such a benefit for the
community.Currently we have a "partially finished"Interpretive Center which feels incomplete;it looks like we
ran out of money.The Annenberg Project would be fully funded and finish off that whole area.Our community
would benefit from the educational aspects as well as the recreational opportunities.
As a property owner for the last 36 years,I have seen many changes to our Peninsula.The Annenberg Project is
a unique opportunity to enhance our city and the Peninsula.Everyone I speak to is for this project and don't know
where those letter writers (Peninsula News)come from but it seems the opposing minority is the most vocal.I
don't usually write letters but it seems that this Project is at the tipping point and I want you to know that the
majority on the Peninsula is for The Annenberg Project.We are trusting that you will be strong and stand up to
the very vocal opposing minority who want to keep the Peninsula "dirt".
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion.
Best regards,
Elaine Carlson
310-373-6632
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 23
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Jeanine Mauch [jeanine.acres@ca.rr.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20106:08 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:Annenberg Foundation Project
,~~§~~;~~~~~fR5:57PM
Subject:Annenberg Foundation Project
To-the-'RClA'tCho-P~Ver~CUy c01M'\.dl;
A~yowappv~the-meet"lA'11r ~weeJo v~dM1.frthe-A~~F~LO"YI/Pvojeec at"
Poit1.t"V~~I wo-tAldt Ukett"o-~~e;;Ul-~~ofthe-C01M'\.dl;t"o-tI'"y t"o-v~e-the
~~~by the-Nett"'WYl.alt Pcw4 CMtif.,the-St"at"e-pcw4 i.-rv order t"o-~the-pVojeec
baclv o-vv tl'"adv.
A~iN ~-LVWLe/educctA;or i.-rvthe-~ofe-rw&vonme¥\t"cW CMtif.,m.cwiAtl.et ~I ~
~iN mo-ve-w~v~Ge'fOr the-co-wtmU¥\ity thct¥vthe-VGKovery Pcw7vthcU;-the-
A~~F~LO"YI/pvop~t"o-cveccte-.The--fcu;.CI.M;y wo-tAldt iH\.cv~~WYl.alt
CMtif.,p~e-vecvecct'WYl.alt opp~~fOr peopLe.-of e;;Ul-~It"wo-tAldt pvovl-de-
e-Y\..r~fOr 'l.ect¥V\£-V~thcU;-no-~-~pV~CVWII~e-ver hope-t"o-cveccte-.It"
wo-tAldt pvov~iN v~fOr~t"o-'l.ect¥Y\lt"og.etheY ~the:Y fWljoy (NY\;ou:t'lA'11rt"o-OYU'l of
the-~fPeec~vl4t"~i.-rvthe-cwect/.AvuL-~,(;(;wo-tAldt Gv\t~wLtYvP~
Ver~I Vlt:erpve:t'we-C£Wtt"er ewtd/v~ore-the-rn.uch-~cuie<lt ~cW chct:pcwvcW
~y.
CIM'"V~,the-pvopevty wUtt;l,e,mo-ve-thct¥v (NY\;~w-,c;hokedt wLtYv L-Yw~e-pLcvvu:
fP~The-v~orett"'LO"YI/pvojeec £ilo-ne.,w~~at"e-the-V~LO"YI/of VUiLt""we-~
CMtif.,hUrd-popuW.:t-'vo-vw.
P~~e-your-KUPpor-t CMtif.,1'JILCike,"t;hW ~lA'11rpvojec:t"p~
7hcvvt1v yOU/.
J~lvIaucJv
V &veecor E me.y~C£Wtt"er for 1vI cwiAtl.et stuCUe1r ClA:For-t 1vI eteA vthuv
12115/2010
ATTACHMENT - 24
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Jean Strickland [jeansvein1@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20104:53 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
To the City Council,
I wanted to share my ongoing support of this project.I like the idea of animal care.I
like that the project will be close by to where I live.I like the thought that I and others
could be volunteers when I reach retirement age to help others understand the care of
animals.I believe that there is still widespread community support for this project.
Please keep the project moving through the entitlement process.The educational
value of this project is wonderful,and the land would be put to good use for all of our
community to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Jean Strickland
32506 Seahill Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 25
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:SARIZZI@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20104:22 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear Mayor Long and City Council Members:
I urge you to do whatever is necessary to continue to move the Annenberg Project through the planning
process successfully.After attending Planning Commission and City Council Meetings,I am convinced that
this project is more important than ever before.
After reviewing the details of the Annenberg Project,I am excited and looking forward to seeing the project
brought to completion on Lower Point Vicente.The Discovery Park will be a beautiful place for the entire
community to enjoy,and the new Interpretive Center will offer interesting and valuable educational
programming for people of all ages.The project is a perfect fit for Lower Point Vicente.With such limited land
available on the coast of California,the public access to this land will not only make Rancho Palos Verdes
stand out as a winner in the State of California,but it will provide valuable services,opportunities,and
education to the people of RPV as well as the general public.
I cannot imagine that the City Council and or the Planning Commission would rather this land to remain barren
and subject to the unknown public to roam its land,rather than to have constructive recreation and education
take place in this location.I personally stay away from this location as I fear for my personal safety because of
the surroundings of the current Interpretive Center.
While the City is considering this incredible opportunity from the Annenberg Foundation I ask that you also take
into consideration the sincerity and willingness for the Foundation to create an endowment to fund the future
maintenance of this park and facility.We should be honored to be considered for such a gift.
There is much to learn about the holistic relationship of humans,animals and the environment.The Annenberg
Project will truly turn Lower Point Vicente into a beautiful park with discovery at the basis of learning about the
world and its people.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Rizzi
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 26
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:George Neuner [neunerge@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,2010 4:15 PM
To:RPV City Council
Cc:Ara Mihranian;pc@rpv.com;Jackie
Subject:Annenberg Proposal for Lower Pt.Vicente
Dear Sirs:
As a docent for Los Serenos,I attended presentations by representatives of the Annenberg
Foundation for a new facility at lower Pt.Vicente.Although there was an attempt to sell the
facility as educational,it was obvious that the primary purpose is to shelter,care-for and offer
homeless cats and dogs for adoption.While this is a noble endeavor (as would be a rehab
center for homeless persons -half of whom are war veterans),such projects are not only in
violation of deed restrictions,but are totally inappropriate for this location aesthetically and
logically.
Currently the PVIC provides a small museum amidst acres of natural surroundings at a
spectacular ocean front location.When on docent duty,I have spoken with hundreds of
visitors,local and from distant cities and countries.They marvel that this beautiful section of
coastline has escaped development and remains a quiet,peaceful sanctuary with sweeping
ocean views.With so much of the natural PV coastline succumbing to development (Ocean
Trails golf course and home sites,Ocean Front Estates right next door,and the huge Terranea
development),it is vital to preserve what little undeveloped coastline remains.As I
remember,this is one of the primary reasons why RPV became a city.
The plans developed by Los Serenos docents called for minimal improvements to this site -
some outdoor historical exhibits to blend in with the environment and enhance the natural
history education mission of the existing museum.The Annenberg proposed facility would be
inconsistent with this mission.It would overwhelm the size of the current museum and,with
attendant roads and parking lot,would significantly impact the natural,serene environment
of this location.
The latest Annenberg building plans include some facilities (board room,executive office
suite,private elevator,etc.)that appear to be more to accommodate Annenberg Foundation
executives rather than animal shelter staff.This raises questions about the true reasons
why Annenberg wants to build on this beautiful coastline site.
The generosity of the Annenberg Foundation thus far for undeveloped land acquisition and
vision planning for our city is most commendable.Many RPV residents love their pet animals
as much as Wallis Annenberg and abhor the number of homeless animals put to sleep for lack
of adoption.But I'm sure other,more appropriate and less valuable,locations in the area can
be found for a companion animal center.The animal center built by the Annenberg
Foundation in San Diego is located in an industrial area.
The offer of the Annenberg Foundation to fund some planned outdoor exhibits at PVIC,in
conjunction with an animal center,has,I believe,influenced the judgment of some docents
12115/2010
ATTACHMENT - 27
Page 2 of2
and RPV residents,none of whom had ever before suggested an animal shelter as part of
PVIC.Councilman Long has expressed concern that RPV will develop the reputation for not
really wanting donations if we turn down the Annenberg offer.However,we have seen that
there is at least one other foundation willing to promote the PVIC mission of natural history
education without inappropriate conditions;i.e.,the donation of $180,000 to PVIC from the
El-Hefni Foundation.
This property will only grow in value.Let's be patient and in the meantime,keep this property
as natural,undeveloped open space.
I wrote to you last month to commend the vote to discontinue planning for this project.But it
appears that the project may not be dead yet and will be discussed at the city council meeting
on Dec 21.I urge you to preserve this most valuable ocean front site and not permit any
further major construction along the RPV coastline.
George Neuner
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 28
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Judy Herman [judyherman@cox.net]
Tuesday,December 14,20104:13 PM
PC@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Annenberg Project
It is clear that the Annenberg center proposed for Lower Point Vicente would take away,
rather than add to,opportunities for passive outdoor recreation.The proposal does not
conform to the letter or the spirit of the general plan,deed or program of utilization.
Please make that finding this evening.
Thank you.
Judith B.Herman
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 ATTACHMENT - 29
Page 1 of3
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,2010 3:31 PM
To:aram@rpv.com;Joel Rojas
Subject:Fwd:Annenberg Projects in Century City and Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:"Andrea Vona"<~YQn.~@pyplG,Q:rg>
Date:December 13,20103:32:47 PM PST
To:<~fw:,G.w:@ill!@gmail.com>,<Q~_@~com>,<pvpwatch@I2yPw:~tch.c_Q..m>,
<irrfQ@pvplG,m:g>,"'Tom Long'"<tQJ.PJQrrg@.I2illQ~YS:J:d~~,9.Q_m>,"'Douglas Stem'"
<Douglas.Stem@cox.net>,"'Irene Chansawang'"
<ichansawang@annenbergfoundation.org>,"IJ aakola,Jackie'"
<jtLakQlf!@5!l1l1enbergfoundation.org>
Subject:RE:Annenberg Projects in Century City and Santa Monica
Reply-To:<avona@I2vplc.org>
Hello Chris,
It was nice speaking with you a little bit ago.I am glad that I was able to share with you
that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy does not have a position on the
Annenberg project at Lower Point Vicente and that per our policy on land use,we don't
take a position on land use issues unless it is land we own,manage or hold a conservation
easement over.
Thank you for your interest and also for sharing the photos of the Annenberg project in
Santa Monica as well,it is a nice collage.
Sincerely,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
12115/2010
ATTACHMENT - 30
Page 2 of3
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
310-541-7613 X204
31 0-930-0583 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
From:Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.[mailto:cfw.cwanda@gmail.com]
sent:Monday,December 13,2010 10:17 AM
To:q;:@mY_,~Qm;PYPw9t~h@pYP1Ngtch,cQm;infQ@lLvp!~,_QI9;Tom Long;Douglas Stern;Irene
Chansawang;Jaakola,Jackie
Subject:Annenberg Projects in Century City and Santa Monica
Friends and Neighbors,
Here are some photos of fine work done by Annenberg in Santa Monica and Century City
(taken Saturday,12/4/2010,9-10 am).I was particularly impressed with 1)the care taken
with landscape design and maintenance;2)solid construction following intelligent and
creative design work;3)the high value of the real estate entrusted to Annenberg for
development.The Santa Monica property on the open market for private development (5
acres)might have gone for $20 million.The Century City property was smaller but right in
the "high rent"district of Century City.
I would encourage the City to ask the Staff to not "suspend planning"or have Annenberg
"slow down"until things re title and use issues are sorted out with the Interior Dept.
Instead,planning refinement should proceed in tandem with settlement of issues with
Interior (which should not be a large problem,judging from Tom's email addressing title
restrictions).
PVPLC should recognize that the "highest and best use"of the 5 acres or so Annenberg has
proposed to develop is some sort of small park with paths and views and limited buildings.
In my view,the highest and best land use is pretty much in line with what Annenberg has
planned.The "pets"part is a sort of hook to get the park area used (but not over-used)-and
is in line with what is done in the whale study center.I suspect a larger percentage ofthe
population in RPV is interested in cats and dogs as opposed to modem photos (the focus of
the Century City Annenberg project).
We should keep in mind that the Lower Vicente parcel is bounded on 1 side by the ocean,1
side by a 4 lane road,1 side by a housing development (with nice paths)and 1 side by the
interpretative center (with nice paths).So long as the path network is respected and
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 31
Page 3 of3
enhanced (and Annenberg plans to do that),and views are respected,the reasonably open
space is being well-preserved,in my view.
Let's not drive the Annenberg folks away,or needlessly delay their fine work (for public
benefit,at their expense).
Regards,
Chris Wilson
Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard,Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
310 3162500
fax:310 543 2526
cfw.cwanda@gmail.com
Notice:This message and any attachment(s)are confidential and may be privileged or
otherwise protected from disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient and have received
this email in error,please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any
attachment from your system.If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this
message or any attachment,disclose the contents to any other person,or take any action in
reliance on this message or any attachment.
Circular 230 Disclosure:To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing
tax practice,we inform you that any advice (including in any attachment)(1)was not
written and is not intended to be used,and cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding any
federal tax penalty that may be imposed on the taxpayer,and (2)may not be used in
connection with promoting,marketing or recommending to another person any transaction
or matter addressed herein.
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 32
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20103:20 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Silence Dogood [mailto:silencedogood402@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10, 2010 2:07 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;comments@palosverdes.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear Council members,
I attended a recent City Council meeting where the Annenberg project received a less than stellar
welcome.
It seems to me that the overwhelming objections to this project stems from the proposed location of the
coastal bluffs and not the project itself.
There was also talk of lead in the soil compounding the costs,traffic impacts,safety issues,etc.
If you want to avoid amending the General Plan and offending a large portion of your constituency,
there seems to me to be only one alternative.
Relocate the project to someplace else such as lower Hesse Park or Grandview Park,Ryan Park,or any
other open plot.
If you chose either of the two parks listed above,there would be the added benefit of not spending city
money to refit the park as the cost would be payed by the Annenberg project.
You might even work a dog park into the plan which would fit perfectly with the project.Any left over
land might even host a skate park (which is also on your things-to-do list).
I also see some land located behind PV city hall (maintenance yard).If the Annenberg people are
insisting on an ocean view,this would be another good location with easy access and no impact on the
coastal bluffs.
I am just spit-balling some ideas for you.
Silence Dogood
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 33
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20103:12 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Projects in Century City and Santa Monica
Attachments:12122010 annenberg center century city.jpg;12122010 annenberg center santa monica.jpg
From:Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.[mailto:cfw.cwanda@gmail.com]
sent:Monday,December 13, 2010 10:17 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com;info@pvplc.org;Tom Long;Douglas Stern;Irene Chansawang;
Jaakola,Jackie
Subject:Annenberg Projects in Century City and Santa Monica
Friends and Neighbors,
Here are some photos of fine work done by Annenberg in Santa Monica and Century City (taken
Saturday,12/412010,9-10 am).I was particularly impressed with 1)the care taken with landscape
design and maintenance;2)solid construction following intelligent and creative design work;3)the high
value of the real estate entrusted to Annenberg for development.The Santa Monica property on the
open market for private development (5 acres)might have gone for $20 million.The Century City
property was smaller but right in the "high rent"district of Century City.
I would encourage the City to ask the Staff to not "suspend planning"or have Annenberg "slow down"
until things re title and use issues are sorted out with the Interior Dept.Instead,planning refinement
should proceed in tandem with settlement of issues with Interior (which should not be a large problem,
judging from Tom's email addressing title restrictions).
PVPLC should recognize that the "highest and best use"of the 5 acres or so Annenberg has proposed to
develop is some sort of small park with paths and views and limited buildings.In my view,the highest
and best land use is pretty much in line with what Annenberg has planned.The "pets"part is a sort of
hook to get the park area used (but not over-used)-and is in line with what is done in the whale study
center.I suspect a larger percentage of the population in RPV is interested in cats and dogs as opposed
to modem photos (the focus of the Century City Annenberg project).
We should keep in mind that the Lower Vicente parcel is bounded on 1 side by the ocean,1 side by a 4
lane road,1 side by a housing development (with nice paths)and 1 side by the interpretative center (with
nice paths).So long as the path network is respected and enhanced (and Annenberg plans to do that),
and views are respected,the reasonably open space is being well-preserved,in my view.
Let's not drive the Annenberg folks away,or needlessly delay their fine work (for public benefit,at their
expense).
Regards,
Chris Wilson
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 34
Page 2 of2
Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard,Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
310 316 2500
fax:310 543 2526
cfw.cwanda@gmail.com
Notice:This message and any attachment(s)are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error,
please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system.If
you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment,disclose the
contents to any other person,or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment.
Circular 230 Disclosure:To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice,
we inform you that any advice (including in any attachment)(1)was not written and is not intended to
be used,and cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalty that may be imposed on
the taxpayer,and (2)may not be used in connection with promoting,marketing or recommending to
another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 35
ATTACHMENT - 36
ATTACHMENT - 37
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ara:
Anita Connors [davidanita@cox.net]
Tuesday,December 14,20103:11 PM
aram@rpv.com
Lower Pt.Vicente Site Improvement /Parking Lot Expansion Project
will the matter of the "license agreement"between the City and the Annenberg's contractor
regarding the above-referenced project go before the City Council in December?In light
of the recent events and City Council actions regarding the Annenberg Companion Animal
Center,has the site improvement /parking lot expansion project been delayed?It was my
understanding that this project is not contingent on the approval of the Companion Animal
Center.
I know how busy you must be,but I'd really appreciate a quick answer.
Thanks.
Anita Connors
1
ATTACHMENT - 38
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Vivien Yang [vivien.yang@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,201012:39 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:I do not support the A.Foundation due to the Animal/Dog Pound business in RPV-no no it will be
disaster due to noise and under funding of the nature!!let's put on hold unless the project disgard
the animal shelter totally*
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 39
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20101:44 PM
To:'Ara M'
Subject:FW:Annenberg CC Mtg.12/21
From:Joel Rojas [mailto:joelr@rpv.com]
sent:Tuesday,December 14,2010 1:44 PM
To:'sharon yarber'
Subject:RE:Annenberg CC Mtg.12/21
The CC can give procedural direction such as stating that a general plan amendment application is necessary or
preferred but cannot get into the merits of the project.
From:sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
sent:Tuesday,December 14,2010 12:50 PM
To:Joel Rojas
Subject:Re:Annenberg CC Mtg.12/21
Thank you,Joel.Can the CC find on the 21st that the project does not comply with the general plan
(another way of saying that a general plan amendment would be necessary),and would such a finding be
one on the merits of the project or a procedural direction?
Sharon
On Tue,Dec 14,2010 at 12:29 PM,Joel Rojas <jQ~lI:@mY,G.Qm>wrote:
Sharon
Please see my responses to your questions below.
Joel
From:sharon yarber [mailto:mQmQfygQQ@gmail,C:;:Qm]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14, 2010 11:36 AM
To:Joel Rojas;Ara M
Cc:Carolyn Lehr;pc@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg CC Mtg.12/21
Hi Joel and Ara,
A few things in the notice that went out about the CC mtg.on the 21 st,as well as the write up on the
website,trouble me and raise some questions.Please set me straight.
1.Did the Sub-committee (Stem and Campbell)and staff determine what "the processing options are
that now exist",and if so,what are those options?
The Sub-committee agreed that Staff should identify processing options for the entire City Council to consider.
The actual options will be identified and discussed in the forthcoming December 21 st staff report which will be
made available to the public later this week.
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 40
Page 2 of2
2.Why does the notice talk about how to "move forward"?What if there will be no movement,as in
direction to stop all action?Is that "moving forward"?
There are still applications on file with the City that must be processed one way or another.This is because
processing of the applications was not halted by the City Council on November 16th nor have the applications
been withdrawn by the applicant.Thus,Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on how to "move forward"
with these applications.You are correct that if the City Council directs to stop all action,that is not moving
forward.
3.Please clarify whether you were intentionally making a distinction between a public meeting and a
public hearing.If so,what is the distinction and what are we having on the 21 st?
There is a legal distinction between an agenda item being a noticed public hearing versus simply just an item of
regular business.Decisions on submitted applications must be made through noticed public hearings.Thus,
because the PC is the body considering the merits of the project,the PC considers the project applications
through a series of public hearings.The item on November 16th and the forthcoming item on December 21 st are
technically not noticed public hearings as the merits of the project applications are not being considered by the
City Council.The purpose of these items is to get procedural direction.As such,these items are placed on the
City Council's regular business portion of the agenda.However,for the purpose of public input,there is no
distinction as any member of the public has the right to speak on a regular business agenda item just like they
have a right to speak on a public hearing agenda item.
4.The notice and website write up state that "On October 12,2010 the Planning Commission agreed to
place its hearings on hold so that processing direction could be received from the City Council".I do not
think that is accurate at all.The Commission agreed to continue its hearing to December 14th.The
hearing is not on hold.It will be held tonight,and the Commission mayor may not continue it further,
but it is not "on hold".Greater care must be exercised in expressing actions taken by these bodies.
You are correct that the PC agreed not to place its "hearings"on hold but to place "acting on the applications"on
hold until some processing direction is received from the City Council.Consistent with that position,tonight Staff
is recommending that the PC continue the public hearing on the applications until January 25th .I'm sorry we
weren't clear about that in the message.
I look forward to your responses to the questions posed above.
Thank you.
Sharon
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 41
Page 1 of5
AraM
From:Teri Takaoka [terit@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20109:56 AM
To:'Ara M'
Subject:FW:Annenberg and FOIA
From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
Sent:Sunday,December 12,20109:11 AM
To:sharon yarber;Tom Long;cc@rpv.com
Cc:Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Re:Annenberg and FOIA
Sharon,It is disappointing that some people feel that their ends,whatever they may be,justify the means
and that the means include many misrepresentations.The distortions set forth below will be addressed if
the planning process moves forward.The use of the land as a private commercial farm is not a public
park use and was not appropriate for city park land.The fact that such inappropriate use of the land
predated the formation of the city makes no difference.I welcome a public dicussion of the issues and of
the vision all of us have for this city moving foward.Opposition to this project such as yours has been
characterized by inaccurate statements about the project which are difficult to counter because they are
part of a private word of mouth campaign that builds on distrust of government.(I still get people asking
if the project will house hundreds of animals and have a crematorium.)Moreover,change is something
about which people should be cautious.I too had doubts about the project until I better understood what
it was.Objecting to Annenberg because it is a private foundation makes no sense at all.If we wish to
advance the civic life ofthis community,the only hope of doing so is with public private partnerships
and outside funding.The open space preservation the city achieved is exactly that.It is a partnership
with a private institution that has easements over city land.It also involved funding (95%taxpayer
grants)from outside of the community.If dealing with private foundations is unacceptable then we
should end all plans to improve much of anything in the city and we should unravel the city's
relationship with PVPLC.In my view that would be unwise,but if the majority of the residents prefer it
that is a policy choice the city could make.I will oppose that choice.Finally,it is clear that Ms.Ciccoria
was pressuring me to withdraw my FOIA request.Thus I stand by what I said and I decline to withdraw
anything.While it may well be that we will never see all of the communications that I am trying to
obtain,I still think it is worthwhile trying to get them.It would be helpful to learn how NPS came to
have such misunderastandings of the project as it (and you)clearly have in calling the project a "dog
pound."Tom Long Mayor,RPV
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/11/2010 11 :20:06 PM
To:"Tom Long",cc@rpv.com
Cc:"Carolyn Lehr"
Subject:Annenberg and FOIA
Tom:
Your FOIA was made under color of authority of the City,period.It was not made in your individual capacity as a
resident.You did not have the concurrence of the rest of the Council but acted unilaterally,and you have been
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 42
Page 2 of5
appropriately challenged.
I have no fear,and I know of no one who does have any,of what the FOIA request will disclose.I think it will
merely reflect that the NPS deemed the PVIC an appropriate expansion of the interpretive structure originally
contemplated in the POU,and the further enlargement an expansion of that,both consistent with the intent behind
the grant.Nothing more and nothing less.I think you will find that no formal POU amendment was entered into
because no one thought one was necessary.You will not find some smoking gun.Indeed,the smoking guns are
in the documents already produced in response to a Public Document request filed by the attorney for a local
resident.More will no doubt be produced in response to my forthcoming Public Document Request.And I can't
wait until the depositions are taken!!!
I find it beyond belief that you would imply that there is something untoward going on because a resident
contacted the NPS to inquire if it was aware of the pending project (which is essentially,by the way,a dog and cat
pound.It is designed to accommodate animals that are up for adoption -kind of what a pound does).All the
garbage about the linkage between all living creatures,or whatever the latest spiel is these days,is so attenuated
it is laughable.Let's have some goats,peacocks,horses,pigs,raccoons,skunks and possums there while we're
at it.They are as much a part,if not more so,of the Peninsula and its unique history as cats and dogs are.
Frankly,as an elected official who should be concerned with government waste,you should be outraged that no
contact was made years ago by staff with the NPS to get a preliminary determination of the project's compliance
with the POU before wasting untold numbers of hours of costly staff time pursuing this ridiculous project that is not
even consistent with our own General Plan.Maybe we could cut staff size in half if we didn't engage in
nonsense.Don't pretend that David Siegenthaler (along with OGALS)has not made it manifestly clear that AS
THE PROJECT NOW EXISTS it does not comply.Yes,he will work with staff to continue to give feed back if the
project morphs into something that would comply,but obviously,the companion animal component would have to
go,and that is not going to happen.So continuing the process is a further waste of time and money.
I think what your ire is all about is that you and the other three who voted to allow the CUP process to commence
have been caught by NPS,the Coastal Commission,OGALS and the public,and your disregard of the deed
restrictions,POU provisions (which are pretty plain vanilla and don't require a law degree to comprehend)as well
as our local zoning ordinances and general plan have become an embarrassment to you,and rightfully so.
The fact that you are bending over backwards to fit a square peg into a round hole to accommodate the desires of
Wallis Annenberg,which desires are NOT needs or wants that have ever been expressed by the community you
serve,shows how beholden you are to her and her money and how out of touch you are with,and frankly
disrespectful of,your constituents.If your remaining tenures were longer I would launch a recall campaign against
you and Doug Stern.
I am appalled that you would constantly allege that agricultural use of the land,which pre-dated the acquisition of
the property by the City,and which lease was renewed by the City,and which use is consistent with the zoning,
was abuse of the land.How about "productive use"of the land?And now that our dilatory Council FINALLY saw
fit after ALL these years to end this egregious historical use of the land,how about they now make it the park that
it should have been during all those years of Council ineptitUde or malfeasance.
How about the City Council consider all of the objections that were interposed by residents during the Vision Plan
workshops?How about that now lots of people who are VERY clear that this facility will only house 20 animals
and will not contain a crematorium STILL think it does not comply with the POU,deed restrictions,land use or
general plan because it DOES NOT?How about the fact that the lure of the Annenberg money has caused
certain council members to lose all sense of propriety and virtually gift our public PARK to a private foundation for
an institutional use that is the fulfillment of a private "philanthropist's"vision?How about considering the flagrant
appearance of impropriety in adopting a vision plan paid for by Annenberg?
Are you aware that the seating of the amphitheater has to be designed to accommodate both groups of children
as well as "Wallis and a few of her friends"?I wonder if she is contemplating having private parties at the
facility.Are you aware that Wallis'executive suite and the board room need to be completed in the standard
expected of Wallis and the trustees?And by what right should a private foundation's trustee have a boardroom on
public property?Are you aware that there needs to be a separate elevator,finished to the standards of Wallis and
the trustees,that will be utilized exclusively by them to access their areas of the property?
Are you aware that on November 17th and 18th Annenberg caused the silhouette and the flags to be removed,
but left the flags strewn all about the property?I have three bags of flags that I gathered over three days from
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 43
Page 3 of5
November 23rd through November 25th.That display of disrespect for our gorgeous parkland should give you
some reason for pause as you consider the people to whom you want to entrust our land.
I think before you dig an even deeper hole for yourself,you might want to take a good,long look at all the minutes
of the project monthly meetings attended by both Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian for a few years now,and consult
with someone who may have a tad more objectivity than you to get an assessment of how your conduct appears
to the public.
I,for one,want a VERY open and public discussion about this project and its history,including the contents of
each and every single meeting,email,telephone discussion,whatever that has taken place between all of the
Council members and staff with Annenberg starting in January 2004.We'll see what my Public Document
Request will unearth.And let me anticipatorily caution you to refrain from chastising me for wasting staff time by
requiring them to comply with the request.I am entitled to the information,whether you consider it a waste of time
or not.
Finally,inasmuch as you have acknowledged that Eva did not demand that you withdraw your FOIA request,I
again suggest you make a public retraction of that false accusation.It is the ethical thing to do.
Sharon
Carolyn -please be sure this email exchange is in the public comments for the meeting on the 21st.Thank you.
On Sat,Dec 11,2010 at 12:35 PM,Tom Long <tomlong@palosverdes.com>wrote:
Sharon,I am entitled to make a FOIA request indicating who I am expecially when who I am ("one voting
member"of the RPV city council)directly relates to the FOIA request.In any event,the letter was clear that I was
not acting on behalf of the city council as a whole or the city itself.It is puzzling to me that people with law
degrees would be confused about this.And what possible difference does it make?The real issue here is that
some people seem to be very concerned that the NPS might produce documents.Why would anyone be
concerned?Why would people not want a public and open decision making process?Perhaps it has something to
do with the fact that the NPS executives in Washington thought the project was a dog pound and that some of my
neighbors thought the same thing and thought that the building would house 300 animals and a crematorium.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see how such misinformation emerged?Wouldn't learning how inaccurate information
is spread about proposed projects help us better understand our community?Tom Long
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/11/2010 12:02:32 PM
To:"Tom Long"
Subject:Re:Annenberg and FOIA
If your letter had been on Nossaman letterhead and you identified yourself as one partner of Nossaman,would
that make it manifestly clear that you were acting as an individual or would it likely be construed that you were
acting as a partner of Nossaman?Please!
On Sat,Dec 11,2010 at 11 :48 AM,Tom Long <tomlong@palosverdes.com>wrote:
Sharon,Please reread the FOIA request.It says I was making the request "as one voting member of the council"
not on behalf of the council as a whole or the city.Eva's question was answered on the face of the request itself.
Her question was just a pretext.I think few people would have interpreted Eva's communications to me any
differently than I did.They were clearly designed to pressure me into withdrawing the request and I think her
intent was clear from her communications.You don't refer to something as "inflammatory"unless you are
opposed to it.Referring to FOIA requests as inflammatory and precusors to litigation is not a statement of fact but
is simply nonsense and was clearly designed along with the communication to the council to try to supress the
FOIA request.Again,the communications from Eva had no logical purpose except to seek supression of the FOIA
request.I will continue to seek full public disclosure of NPS records notwithstanding past and future efforts that
may be made to withhold them.I stand by my earlier statements and by my efforts to assure a public and open
decision-making process.I have no idea what the NPS records will say if and when I get a complete set of them,
but having decisions made openly is important in any event.Tom Long Mayor,RPV
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/11/2010 11 :22:54 AM
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 44
Page 4 of5
To:"Tom Long",gg@[P'£,~OIJJ,"Carolyn Lehr"
Subject:Re:Annenberg and FOIA
Tom,
Your declination to provide the evidence I request is because it does not exist (as now confirmed by your below
email).Certainly it is not because there is any privilege to the communication.You have included in public
letters the affirmative statement that Eva demanded that you withdraw the FOIA request.You need to retract that
statement publicly,as now you are maintaining that she may have obliquely implied such a request.Your
personal interpretation of what she may have meant is not the equivalent of a statement of fact.Shame on you!
You certainly know better than that.
Actually,I have seen the communications between you and Eva and note that her inquiry of Council and you was
whether your request was being made as an individual,which clearly you have the right to do (and which you now
maintain you were doing)or whether you were acting on behalf of the City and with the support of the Mayor and
fellow Council members,given that the letter was sent on City letterhead and signed by you as Mayor Pro Tem.
Your FOIA request most certainly did NOT indicate on its face that it was your personal request;it was obviously
done under color of authority.Why?To encourage a more thorough and prompt response from NPS?
As a litigator,surely you recognize the accuracy of her simple comment that an FOIA request is frequently a
precursor to litigation and can have an inflammatory effect.That statement of fact from one attorney to another in
no way rises to the level of an implied request for withdrawal or implication of impropriety.She asked what you
sought to gain.
May I suggest you be more careful in your future attacks on residents and stick to the facts.
Carolyn -Please be sure this email goes in the Friday report and in the public correspondence section for the CC
meeting on the 21st.Thank you.
Tom - I will be looking forward to seeing a letter from you to the public that makes it clear you misspoke and
retracts your false accusation (because an actual demand for withdrawal of the FOIA request would suggest
impropriety on the part of Eva,which suggestion is false,misleading and designed to impugn her character).
Sharon
On Fri,Dec 10,2010 at 5:54 PM,Tom Long <tQmLQ.ng@pg'-Q.Sy.eI<;te~,CQm>wrote:
Sharon,I decline to provide my correspondence with Eva to you.She can do so.She did not say "please
withdraw the request."She was a little more oblique.She wrote to the council as a whole (even though my FOIA
request indicated on its face that it was just my own request)implying that the council should stop the request
(again she was not explicit).(That e-mail is public and in the hands of the city.)In correspondence with me she
referred to the FOIA request as "inflammatory"and a "precusor to litigation."It is neither of those things--but one
surely does not use such words without implying the request is improper and should be withdrawn.Believe me I
understood full well what Eva was communicating to me.I have spoken with others who have been subjected to
her intimidation tactics.If she as a "private person"as she claims to be wants to release her e-mails with me to
you she is free to do it.They will show what I set forth above.I took her comments to be an effort to pressure me
to withdraw the FOIA request.Maybe that wasn't her intent--but if so then her communications to me had no
logical purpose.Tom Long
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/10/2010 7:46:11 AM
To:"Tom Long"
Subject:
Dear Tom:
You have asserted in public writings that Eva Cicoria demanded that you withdraw the Freedom of Information
Act request that you submitted to NPS.
Please provide me with a copy of that demand.I am told by Eva that no such demand was made.
Sincerely,
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 45
Sharon Yarber
12/15/2010
Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENT - 46
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:CSchamp@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,20109:25 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:rgschamp@aol.com;pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg project
Roger and I are strongly opposed to the Annenberg project at Pt.Vicente.The untouched portions of the coast
are too precious and too few to be tailored.We need no more traffic nor traffic lights on PV Dr SouthlWest;
individuals and groups who/which are motivated to see the beauty of the coast and enjoy the PVIC are
tolerating and will tolerate the driving conditions to reach the area.
Carol and Roger Schamp
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 47
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:cicoriae@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,December 14,2010 8:24 AM
To:pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:Lower Pt Vicente
Attachments:annenberg_01 -Copy.jpg
Chairman Gerstner,Planning Commissioners,and Ara,
With your knowledge of the General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan,and Municipal Code,not to mention the
applicable Deed and Program of Utilization, there are multiple bases on which you can find tonight that the
Annenberg Foundation application before you is inappropriate for Lower Point Vicente.
City Council has given you the guidance you sought.May I suggest that you pick one or more of the available
reasons for such a finding and deny the application tonight.
Eva Cicoria
Rancho Palos Verdes resident,concerned citizen,and supporter of,and volunteer for,more than just one
organization on the Hill
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 48
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thank you/Joel.
Lenee
Lenee Bilski [lenee910@intergate.com]
Monday,December 13,201011:46 PM
Joel Rojas
aram@rpv.com;'Carolyn Lehr';pc@rpv.com
RE:Letters in re:Annenberg -Fw:Planning Commission Nov.9 item-Lower Pt.Vicente Public
Hearing
Quoting Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>:
>Lenee
>
>As I believe you know/there have been over 100 public comment letters
>on the Annenberg Project that have been received by the City for and
>against the project since the PC's October 12th meeting.We did not
>think that it was necessary to attach all of these comments to a
>2-page PC staff report that recommends continuance.As you request/
>we can certainly send out a listserve message that provides a link to
>where the public can find these letters.
>
>
>
>Joel
>
This message was sent using IMP/the Internet Messaging Program.
1 ATTACHMENT - 49
AraM
From:L.Bilski [ldb910@intergate.com]
Sent:Monday,December 13,2010 11:14 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Proposal for Lower Pt.Vicente,P.C.Dec.14th agenda
Dec.13,2010
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Regarding the Annenberg Proposal for Lower Pt.Vicente Parkland:
Please discuss this application at the Dec.14th meeting.
You are not obliged to follow staffs recommendation;there is no good reason to delay
the inevitable any longer by another Continuance.
Please vote to deny this application as presented now as it does not meet the
requirements for this restricted city-owned parkland.A city notice
says the purpose of a Dec.21 City Council agenda item is to provide
Staffwith direction on processing.However,if you the Planning
Commissioners will just deny the application now,there will be no
need for further processing and additional staff work on this application.
Given the facts presented thus far,it is evident that
this is the wrong project for this site.The majority of the
Commissioners and members of City Council have already voiced their
concerns that the proposal is contrary to the RPV General Plan.If you deny the proposed
project now,you will not have to consider the Grading and Coastal Permits.
Negative effects however are discussed below.
In my opinion,the proposed development is Not consistent with the RPV
Coastal Specific Plan for several reasons.
(Ref.RPV Coastal Specific Plan pgs.S2-8,9,11,15,16}
The major criteria of concern are:
enhancement of visual quality - a large building for the Annenberg
Foundation's Animal Care Center would Not enhance this natural open site
protection of visual corridors -there would be view obstruction from
many public viewpoints
attenuation of noise and light -increased use that another
building would generate would have a major impact
12/15/2010
Page 1 of2
ATTACHMENT - 50
Page 2 of2
a development's appearance from residential areas -the proposal
would substitute views of walls and hardscape for beautiful ocean views from residential areas
protection of the environment -no matter what,there is no doubt
that the environment would be significantly damaged by not only the grading and construction
activity but also the enormous amount of proposed hardscape and pseudo-asphalt for parking and
roadways
parking -pg.S2-9 states "It is recognized,however,[by the LA County Dept.of
Beaches],that the natural character of the area must be retained by
limiting the number of visitors.This will be done by limiting the
amount of parking ..."
"The ultimate goal is a relatively low level of development,
maintaining as far as possible the natural and aesthetic setting,
providing primarily picnic areas and parking to accommodate demand."
"A low-profile structure ...will serve as a an interpretive center for marine sciences."
The City agreed to specific restrictions when the property was acquired from
the County of Los Angeles,which received the property from the Federal government.
Based on these criteria above as well as other factors,the approximately 51,000 square-foot
Animal Care Center building,primarily for dogs and cats,is totally inconsistent with the Coastal
Specific Plan for this site.Another site should be selected for this proposal.
As for the Grading Permit's Finding #1,the huge amount of grading
cannot be found consistent with the primary use of the land as
outlined in the Coastal Plan and the General Plan.
Findings #3,4,7,8 -the huge amount of grading proposed would
drastically disturb the natural contours,disturb the wildlife and
birds (which would leave this area and may not return after
construction)and would create 73,000+square feet of roads and hardscape on
publicly-owned land that is supposed to be open space recreational for
passive recreation and not for institutional use as proposed.
For reasons including,but not limited to the above regarding the Coastal Permit and Grading Permit as
well as for the fact that this proposed project is not consistent with the RPV General Plan and does not
comply with the Deed and Program of Utilization and the Federal land use restrictions on the property,
please just deny the application now.
Thank you for your consideration.
L.Bilski
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 51
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,December 13,20104:28 PM
To:pc@rpv.com;Ara M;dlfriedson@gmail.com
Subject:The Annenberg Proposal
To Bill Gerstner,Chairman,and all Members of the Planning Commission and Ara Mihranian,Principal Planner
From Dena Friedson
On October 12,you could not make the necessary fmding to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the
Annenberg proposal on Lower Point Vicente.It was clear that the principal elements of the proposed domestic
animal center are not consistent with the City's General Plan.Also,they do not comply with the federal
government's deed restrictions identified in the Quitclaim Deed and the Program of Utilization and the promises in
the formal Application.Both the Program of Utilization and the Application are incorporated into the Quitclaim
Deed.
Soon after Rancho Palos Verdes became a city,Los Angeles County filed an application for ownership of this
former surplus military site.At this time,the deed restrictions were well known to both the County and the City
since the County had been leasing the property from the federal government for five years.
Before acquiring ownership, Rancho Palos Verdes leased Lower Point Vicente from the County.Mayor Marilyn
Ryan was required to sign an Agreement to honor in perpetuity the conditions defined in the contract.The
Quitclaim Deed to the County,the Lease Agreement to the City,and the Quitclaim Deed to the City all required
that Lower Point Vicente be used in perpetuity for passive outdoor recreation with special emphasis on pursuits
related to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean.Because of these deed restrictions --which matched the City's desire
to preserve open-space areas on the coastal bluff tops --the City's General Plan Map,General Plan text,the Zoning
Map,and Zoning Ordinance have always designated Lower Point Vicente as passive open space and open space
recreation.The Quitclaim Deed also specifies that the property be conveyed (if circumstances make it necessary)
to only another eligible governmental agency.
Until a few years ago,Lower Point Vicente has always been considered a gift of precious open-space parkland to
be maintained and protected by the City for the peaceful enjoyment of the general public.
In a letter dated August 22,2008,Wallis Annenberg asked the City Council to allow the Annenberg Foundation to
initiate a planning process.She wrote in her letter,"I understand that concept approval on September 2 would not
be approval to build;..."
You,as Planning Commissioners,have the authority to deny the Annenberg proposal now.The Assistant City
Attorney advised you on October 12 that "a basis for denying the project"is that an alternate site described in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report is environmentally superior.Such a location exists on ocean-view property
near the City Hall.The City purchased this flat approximately 8.5 acre area.It has no deed restrictions and is
zoned for institutional use.OR if the Annenbergs prefer,they could buy non-deed-restricted,appropriately-zoned
private property to fulfill their vision.Please save time and money and avoid future wasted efforts.Deny the
proposed project immediately.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 52
Page 1 of4
AraM
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,December 13,20102:17 PM
To:'Lenee Bilski';aram@rpv.com;'Carolyn Lehr'
Cc:pc@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Letters in re:Annenberg -Fw:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public
Hearing
Lenee
As I believe you know,there have been over 100 public comment letters on the Annenberg Project that have
been received by the City for and against the project since the PC's October 12th meeting.We did not think that it
was necessary to attach all of these comments to a 2-page PC staff report that recommends continuance.As you
request,we can certainly send out a Iistserve message that provides a link to where the public can find these
letters.
Joel
From:Lenee Bilski [mailto:lenee910@intergate.com]
Sent:Monday,December 13,2010 1:17 PM
To:aram@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr
Cc:Lenee Bilski
Subject:Letters in re:Annenberg -Fw:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
Dec.13,2010
Have not heard back regarding the omitted Public Comment Letters.On second thought I would like to
request another Listserver notice be sent today containing another Link to whatever letters pertaining to
Annenberg have been received by the city staff and/or planning commission between Oct.12 and Nov.
16,201 BECAUSE in the Nov.9th Staff Report it states:
"Public Comments Received to Date"
"Since the October 12th meeting,the City has received several written
comments from the public.Due to Staffs recommendation that the
public hearing be continued,with no discussion,from tonight's
meeting to the December 14th Planning Commission meeting,the comment
letters received thus far will be included as part of the December
14th Staff Report."
Another Listserv Notice seems the most efficient and fair way to correct this omission in my opinion.I
hope you agree.
Lenee Bilski
-----Forwarded message from lenee910@intergate.com -----
Date:Fri,10 Dec 2010 13:36:49 -0800
From:Lenee Bilski <lenee910@intergate.com>
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 53
Page 2 of4
Reply-To:Lenee Bilski <lenee910@intergate.com>
Subject:Fw:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
To:aram@rpv.com
Cc:Lenee Bilski <ldb91 O@intergate.com>
Ara,
When you sent me the message below regarding the Nov.9th P.C.mtg.,I assumed that you would
include my letter in the public correspondence on this item in the Dec.14th Staff Report,but I do not
see my letter among those on the Public Comments Link for the upcoming P.C.mtg.What happened?
Please ADD my letter and All other letters that came in regarding this item since the Oct.12th hearing
to the Public Comments Link fo all to read Now.
Obviously,this would not be "late"correspondence,so it needs to be added to the current link now.
Thank you.
Lenee Bilski
-----Original Message -----
From:Ara Mihranian
To:Lenee Bilski
Sent:Tuesday,November 02,20107:36 PM
Subject:Re:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
Hi Lenee,I want to let you know that as noted on the City's website (under the Annenberg homepage)
and based on a list-serve message sent out soon after the October 12th PC meeting,Staff will be
recommending that the November 9th Commission meeting on the Annenberg project be continued.At
this time,this item is recommended to be continued to December 14th.Ara
-----Original Message-----
From:"Lenee Bilski"
Sent 11/2/20104:10:45 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com,joelr@rpv.com
Subject:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
Nov.2,2010
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Regarding the Annenberg Propsoal for Lower Pt.Vicente Parkland:
The proposed development is Not consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan
(Ref.RPV Coastal Specific Plan pgs.S2-8,9,11, 15,16}
The major criteria of concern are:
enhancement of visual quality - a large building for the Annenberg
Foundation's Animal Care Center would Not enhance this site
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 54
protection of visual corridors -there Would be view obstruction from
many viewpoints
attentuation of noise and light -increased Use that another
building would generate is not consistent with the goals of the city
for this site
protection of the environment -no matter what,there is no doubt
that the environment Would be significantly damaged by not only the
construction activity but also the enormous amount of hardscape proposed
a development's appearance from residential areas -the proposal
would obstruct views and also present a view of walls and hardscape
that is not in keeping with this particular coastal parkland.
pg.9 states "It is recognized,however,[by the LA County Dept.of
Beaches],that the natural character of the area must be retained by
limiting the number of visitors.This will be done by limiting the
amount of parking ....
"The ultimate goal is a relatively low level of development,
maintaining as far as possible the natural and aesthetic setting,
providing primarily picnic areas and parking to accomodate demand."
"A low-profile structure ...will serve as a an interpretive center
for marine sciences."
The City agreed to restrictions when the property was acquired from
the County of Los Angeles,which received the property from the
Federal government.
Based on these criteria above as well as other factors,the 50,000+
SF Animal Care Center building primarily for dogs and cats is totally
inconsistent with the Coastal Specific Plan for this site.Another
site should be selected for this proposal.
As for the Grading Permit,the huge amount of grading (Finding #1)
cannot be found consistent with the primary use of the land as
outlined in the Coastal Plan and the General Plan.
Findings #3,4,7,8 -the huge amount of grading proposed would
drastically disturb the natural contours,disturb the wildlife and
birds (which would leave this area and may not return after
construction)and would create 73,000+SF of roads and hardscape on
publicly-owned land that is supposed to be open space recreational.
F or the reasons above as well as for the fact that this proposed
project is not consistent with the General Plan,please do not even
consider approving any permits for this proposal on this site.Such a
project is Not needed at this site.
Thank you for your consideration.
12/15/2010
Page 3 of4
ATTACHMENT - 55
L.Bilski
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
Version:8.5.449/Virus Database:271.1.1/3283 -Release Date:11/27/1007:34:00
-----End forwarded message -----
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
12/15/2010
Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT - 56
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Judy Willis Uudywillis3@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,December 13,20109:40 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
City Council:
I am writing once again to voice my strong support for the Annenberg Project at Lower San Vincente.I think it
would be a terrible loss to the community if this project does not proceed.This is a once in a lifetime,incredibly
generous gift.The Project will enhance the beauty of the area,create jobs and bring in many people who will
support local businesses.I can see no downside.Turning our backs on this gift would be incredibly short-sited.
frequently hike in that area and can only see the upside with the improvements that will be made.
I sincerely hope that you all will work hard to make sure that this Project goes forward.The biggest asset will be
the thousands of children who lives will be affected by the unique experience they will have by visiting the
Discovery Park.That benefit is too great to even try to value.
Thank you for your cooperation.
JUdy Willis
Palos Verdes Resident
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 57
Page 1 of3
AraM
From:Lenee Bilski [lenee910@intergate.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10,20101:37 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Cc:Lenee Bilski
Subject:Fw:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
Ara,
When you sent me the message below regarding the Nov.9th P.C.mtg.,I assumed that you
would include my letter in the public correspondence on this item in the Dec.14th Staff
Report,but I do not see my letter among those on the Public Comments Link for the upcoming
P.C.mtg.What happened?
Please ADD my letter and All other letters that came in regarding this item since the Oct.12th
hearing to the Public Comments Link fo all to read Now.
Obviously,this would not be "late"correspondence,so it needs to be added to the current link
now.
Thank you.
Lenee Bilski
To:1"enee Bilski
Sent:Tuesday,November 02,20107:36 PM
SUbject:Re:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
Hi Lenee,I want to let you know that as noted on the City's website (under the Annenberg homepage)
and based on a list-serve message sent out soon after the October 12th PC meeting,Staff will be
recommending that the November 9th Commission meeting on the Annenberg project be continued.At
this time,this item is recommended to be continued to December 14th.Ara
-----Original Message-----
From:"Lenee Bilski"
Sent 11/2/20104:10:45 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com,joelr@rpv.com
Subject:Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing
Nov.2,2010
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Regarding the Annenberg Propsoal for Lower Pt.Vicente Parkland:
The proposed development is Not consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan
(Ref.RPV Coastal Specific Plan pgs.S2-8,9,11,15,16}
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 58
The major criteria of concern are:
enhancement of visual quality - a large building for the Annenberg
Foundation's Animal Care Center would Not enhance this site
protection of visual corridors -there Would be view obstruction from
many viewpoints
attentuation of noise and light -increased Use that another
building would generate is not consistent with the goals of the city
for this site
protection of the environment -no matter what,there is no doubt
that the environment Would be significantly damaged by not only the
construction activity but also the enormous amount ofhardscape proposed
a development's appearance from residential areas -the proposal
would obstruct views and also present a view of walls and hardscape
that is not in keeping with this particular coastal parkland.
pg.9 states "It is recognized,however,[by the LA County Dept.of
Beaches],that the natural character of the area must be retained by
limiting the number of visitors.This will be done by limiting the
amount of parking ....
"The ultimate goal is a relatively low level of development,
maintaining as far as possible the natural and aesthetic setting,
providing primarily picnic areas and parking to accomodate demand."
"A low-profile structure ...will serve as a an interpretive center
for marine sciences."
The City agreed to restrictions when the property was acquired from
the County of Los Angeles,which received the property from the
Federal government.
Based on these criteria above as well as other factors,the 50,000+
SF Animal Care Center building primarily for dogs and cats is totally
inconsistent with the Coastal Specific Plan for this site.Another
site should be selected for this proposal.
As for the Grading Permit,the huge amount of grading (Finding #1)
cannot be found consistent with the primary use of the land as
outlined in the Coastal Plan and the General Plan.
Findings #3,4,7,8 -the huge amount of grading proposed would
drastically disturb the natural contours,disturb the wildlife and
birds (which would leave this area and may not return after
construction)and would create 73,000+SF of roads and hardscape on
publicly-owned land that is supposed to be open space recreational.
For the reasons above as well as for the fact that this proposed
project is not consistent with the General Plan,please do not even
12/15/2010
Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT - 59
consider approving any permits for this proposal on this site.Such a
project is Not needed at this site.
Thank you for your consideration.
L.Bilski
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVO -www.avg.com
Version:8.5.449/Virus Database:271.1.1/3283 -Release Date:11/27/1007:34:00
12/15/2010
Page 3 of3
ATTACHMENT - 60
Page 1 of3
AraM
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10,2010 10:20 AM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:Fwd:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12110/2010 10:11:56 AM
To:"Joel Rojas"
Subject:Re:Fwd:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
Thank you,Joel.I do think it is important that residents have an opportunity to see what other residents
are saying in order to be as informed as possible.That way they can take a more active role on the 14th,
the 21st and/or January 25th.
I appreciate your cooperation.
Sharon
On Fri,Dec 10,2010 at 10:01 AM,Joel Rojas <jQ~lr@mY,GQm>wrote:
Sharon You are correct that the Planning Commission is not required to accept Staffs
recommendation on December 14th.However,I should point out that Staffs recommendation for the
PC to continue its discussion of the item to January 25th in anticipation of the City Council providing
processing direction on December 21st is consistent with the PC's previous position on October 12th
to not take action on the project applications until the City Council provides direction on the
processing issues.After the November 16th City Council meeting,some emails have been received
which are directed at the Planning Commission and the application package that is still before it.
These emails were not attached to the December 14th PC Staff Report given Staffs recommendation
to continue discussion of the item to January 25th.Thus,Staff planned on attaching all of the emails
to the January 25th staff report.While Commissioners instantly receive all emails sent to them via the
PC email address,you raise a good point that the general public may not be aware of these emails.In
addition,there may be a couple of emails that Staffhas received which are directed at the PC which
were not sent to the PC email address.Therefore,we will be transmiting to the PC today all of the
emails received since November 16th that are directed at the PC and the applications that are still
before it.These emails will also be provided to alliistserve subscribers.Joel
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/9/2010 6:46:45 PM
To:"Ara M",pc@rpv.com,"Joel Rojas"
Subject:Fwd:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Ara:
I acknowledge that staffhas recommended the Commission continue the Annenberg matter to January
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 61
Page 2 of3
25th;however,since the Planning Commission is not required to accept staffs recommendation (it is,
after all,just a recommendation,not a directive)I request that you provide the Commissioners (and
consequently the public)prior to the publicly noticed hearing on December 14,2010 with copies
of ALL communications that have been received by staff and the Commissioners since the last
commission meeting.As you are well aware,there are many residents who do not agree with staffs
recommendation and are asking the Commissioners to make certain findings on the 14th,which is
totally within the realm of their powers to make.
Please publish all those emails and letters immediately.
Thank you.
Sharon Yarber
P.S.And make sure this email gets in the late correspondence as well,please!Thank you!
----------Forwarded message ----------
From:<myli~t~~:ry~r@my,GQm>
Date:Thu,Dec 9,2010 at 4:58 PM
Subject:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
To:ID-9mQfYJ!gQ_@~Q~,n~1
The Planning Commission will be asked by City Staff to continue the public hearing on the requested
planning applications for the Annenberg Project from its December 14th meeting to its January 25,
2011 meeting.This is to allow additional time to update the Commission on the Council's direction.
The City Council is scheduled to provide Staff with direction on matters relating to processing the
active planning applications at its upcoming December 21,2010 meeting.
Click here to view the December 14th Planning Commission Staff Report.
Inquiries should be directed to Ara Mihranian at 310-544-5228 or via email ataram@mv.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.palosverdes.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:http://www.palosverdes.com/rpvllistserve(
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:
comments@palosverdes.com
Don't miss out!
Click here to join PVNET's announcement mail list and be notified when special classes and events are offered.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 62
Page 3 of3
Summer Animation Classes [cUckfQrjnfQrm~tiQn]
Summer Digital Photography Classes lcJiclsfoLiJlfQrm~tiQnJ
Want a better job?Attend the Powerpoint class and gain an important skill [click for information]
Animation Club for Kids [cljcIsJQLinfQrm~tjQn]
FREE Computer Workshops for Seniors [cHckJQrjnfQII]1J~~ljQn]
Adobe Photoshop elements and Digital Photography class:[click for information]
For information,go to:bttp:l!ww.w,.R~IQ$\(~rd~$,cQm!eQl,J
Email:e_dYc~tiQn@p~IQ$V~Lcte$-,-CQm
Phone:31 0-544-5395 (leave a message for callback)
Thank you very much
This Listserv program is one of many services created,hosted,and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET,a
non profit 501c3 communityservice organization serving our communities by providing computer technology
support to the City,educational internships to kids,workforce training to adults,and free classes for seniors
since 1995.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 63
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10,201010:18 AM
To:sharon yarber;Joel Rojas
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Re:PVIC Parking Improvements
Sharon The truth is that Staff can only do so much and with the unexpected twist that the Anennberg
Project has taken (discussions with State and Federal representatives,taking processing items to the CC,
etc.)we have put the parking lot project on the back burner.After the December 21st CC meeting and
the holiday break,we'll go back to getting the parking lot project going again as the Annenberg
Foundation has given us no indication whatsoever that the project is not going forward.Joel br>
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12110/2010 9:19:31 AM
To:"Joel Rojas"
Subject:Re:PVIC Parking Improvements
Thank you,Joel.Ara represented to the Planning Commissioners at the August 24th meeting that the
Coast Guard Agreement was expected within a week.What seems to be the hold up?In whose court is
the ball at the moment?
Since commencement of the PVIC improvements was expected many months ago,surely the
construction management plan is nearing completion.When do you expect to submit it to the Council
for approval?
One has to wonder to what extent these two separate,independent,totally unrelated and not mutually
contingent projects are,in fact,inextricably intertwined!
Sharon
On Fri,Dec 10,2010 at 8:56 AM,Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>wrote:
Sharon Ara is still pursuing the parking permit from the coast guard.I'll ask him to update us on that.
We still plan on taking the license agreement to the City Council for approval once the coast guard
agreemnet is received and construction management plan is approved by the City.Joel per
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12110/2010 8:41 :45 AM
To:"Ara M","Joel Rojas"
Subject:PVIC Parking Improvements
Hello Ara and Joel,
What is the status of the agreement with the Coast Guard?It was expected to be completed months
ago.Is anyone diligently pursuing it,and if so,who?
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 64
Page 2 of2
Also,would you please confirm that the license agreement between Annenberg and the City for the
construction of the PVlC parking expansion project approved back in February is indefmitely
removed from the Council agendas?
Thank you,
Sharon
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 65
Page 1 of3
AraM
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10,2010 10:02 AM
To:sharon yarber
Cc:pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Fwd:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
Sharon You are correct that the Planning Commission is not required to accept Staffs recommendation
on December 14th.However,I should point out that Staffs recommendation for the PC to continue its
discussion of the item to January 25th in anticipation of the City Council providing processing direction
on December 21st is consistent with the PC's previous position on October 12th to not take action on the
project applications until the City Council provides direction on the processing issues.After the
November 16th City Council meeting,some emails have been received which are directed at the
Planning Commission and the application package that is still before it.These emails were not attached
to the December 14th PC Staff Report given Staffs recommendation to continue discussion of the item
to January 25th.Thus,Staff planned on attaching all of the emails to the January 25th staff report.While
Commissioners instantly receive all emails sent to them via the PC email address,you raise a good point
that the general public may not be aware of these emails.In addition,there may be a couple of emails
that Staff has received which are directed at the PC which were not sent to the PC email address.
Therefore,we will be transmiting to the PC today all of the emails received since November 16th that
are directed at the PC and the applications that are still before it.These emails will also be provided to
alliistserve subscribers.Joel
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/9/2010 6:46:45 PM
To:"Ara M",pc@rpv.com,"Joel Rojas"
Subject:Fwd:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Ara:
I acknowledge that staff has recommended the Commission continue the Annenberg matter to January
25th;however,since the Planning Commission is not required to accept staffs recommendation (it is,
after all,just a recommendation,not a directive)I request that you provide the Commissioners (and
consequently the public)prior to the publicly noticed hearing on December 14,2010 with copies of ALL
communications that have been received by staff and the Commissioners since the last commission
meeting.As you are well aware,there are many residents who do not agree with staffs recommendation
and are asking the Commissioners to make certain findings on the 14th,which is totally within the realm
of their powers to make.
Please publish all those emails and letters immediately.
Thank you.
Sharon Yarber
P.S.And make sure this email gets in the late correspondence as well,please!Thank you!
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 66
Page 2 of3
----------Forwarded message ----------
From:<myli$l$~rv~r@my,l;Qm>
Date:Thu,Dec 9,2010 at 4:58 PM
Subject:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
To:mQmQfyf!gQ@l;QX,I}~t
The Planning Commission will be asked by City Staff to continue the public hearing on the requested
planning applications for the Annenberg Project from its December 14th meeting to its January 25,2011
meeting.This is to allow additional time to update the Commission on the Council's direction.The City
Council is scheduled to provide Staff with direction on matters relating to processing the active planning
applications at its upcoming December 21,2010 meeting.
Clkkh~r~to view the December 14th Planning Commission Staff Report.
Inquiries should be directed to Ara Mihranian at 310-544-5228 or via email ataram@mv.com.
-----__.-__.___---_..__._-_._.__.__._.-
BREAKING NEWS
City staff occasionally posts other important non-emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's
website located at:http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakingnews
Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article
is posted to the City's website.You can join at:http:lLwww,p~IQ$Y~ni§.?.'-.QQmLmYLU~it$§ry§r
Please do not reply directly to this message.The correct contact for each Listserv message topic is included in
the message.We welcome your comments and suggestions,please send them to:comment$@pc;!JQ..$Yerd~$,c.Qm
Don't miss out!
Glickh~re to join PVNET's announcement mail list and be notified when special classes and events are offered.
Summer Animation Classes [cUcKforJJJformatiol1]
Summer Digital Photography Classes [cnckJQrjnfQrm~ti.Qn]
Want a better job?Attend the Powerpoint class and gain an important skill [click for information]
Animation Club for Kids [cHckJQrjl1fQrm~tion]
FREE Computer Workshops for Seniors [click for information]
Adobe Photoshop elements and Digital Photography class:[cljGkfoLinfQrm~tiooJ
For information,go to:http://www.palosverdes.com/edu
Email:§dl.Lc<;lliOO@pc;llosverdes.cQm
Phone:31 0-544-5395 (leave a message for callback)
Thank you very much
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 67
Page 3 of3
This Listserv program is one of many services created,hosted,and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET,a non
profit 501c3 communityservice organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to
the City,educational internships to kids,workforce training to adults,and free classes for seniors since 1995.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 68
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10,20108:56 AM
To:sharon yarber;Ara M;Joel Rojas
Subject:Re:PVIC Parking Improvements
Sharon Ara is still pursuing the parking permit from the coast guard.I'll ask him to update us on that.
We still plan on taking the license agreement to the City Council for approval once the coast guard
agreemnet is received and construction management plan is approved by the City.Joel per
-----Original Message-----
From:"sharon yarber"
Sent 12/10/2010 8:41:45 AM
To:"Ara M","Joel Rojas"
Subject:PVIC Parking Improvements
Hello Ara and Joel,
What is the status of the agreement with the Coast Guard?It was expected to be completed months ago.
Is anyone diligently pursuing it,and if so,who?
Also,would you please confirm that the license agreement between Annenberg and the City for the
construction of the PVIC parking expansion project approved back in February is indefinitely removed
from the Council agendas?
Thank you,
Sharon
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 69
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday,December 10,2010 8:42 AM
To:Ara M;Joel Rojas
Subject:PVIC Parking Improvements
Hello Ara and Joel,
What is the status of the agreement with the Coast Guard?It was expected to be completed months ago.
Is anyone diligently pursuing it,and if so,who?
Also,would you please confirm that the license agreement between Annenberg and the City for the
construction of the pVle parking expansion project approved back in February is indefmitely removed
from the Council agendas?
Thank you,
Sharon
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 70
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 09,201010:20 PM
To:Ara M;dlfriedson@gmail.com
Subject:Proposed Annenberg Project --December 14 Planning Commission Meeting
To Ara from Dena --Please let the public see all the communications that have been sent to you
regarding the Annenberg Project since the October 12 Planning Commission meeting and also a draft of
the minutes.This information could be sent as a list-server.Some people may want to speak at the
Commission meeting this coming Tuesday.Have you had any discussions with the NPS?The
Commissioners may want to know this information too.Thank you.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 71
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 09,20106:47 PM
To:Ara M;pc@rpv.com;Joel Rojas
Subject:Fwd:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Ara:
I acknowledge that staff has recommended the Commission continue the Annenberg matter to January
25th;however,since the Planning Commission is not required to accept staffs recommendation (it is,
after all,just a recommendation,not a directive)I request that you provide the Commissioners (and
consequently the public)prior to the publicly noticed hearing on December 14,2010 with copies of ALL
communications that have been received by staff and the Commissioners since the last commission
meeting.As you are well aware,there are many residents who do not agree with staffs recommendation
and are asking the Commissioners to make certain findings on the 14th,which is totally within the realm
of their powers to make.
Please publish all those emails and letters immediately.
Thank you.
Sharon Yarber
P.S.And make sure this email gets in the late correspondence as well,please!Thank you!
----------Forwarded message ----------
From:<rpvlistserver@rpv.com>
Date:Thu,Dec 9,2010 at 4:58 PM
Subject:Annenberg Project -December 14th Planning Commission Meeting
To:momofyago@cox.net
The Planning Commission will be asked by City Staff to continue the public hearing on the requested
planning applications for the Annenberg Project from its December 14th meeting to its January 25,2011
meeting.This is to allow additional time to update the Commission on the Council's direction.The City
Council is scheduled to provide Staff with direction on matters relating to processing the active planning
applications at its upcoming December 21,2010 meeting.
CUGkh~J:~to view the December 14th Planning Commission Staff Report.
Inquiries should be directed to Ara Mihranian at 310-544-5228 or via email ataram@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:h:ttp:/fWIJI.f\N.paJQ$VeIde$.cQmfrpvlbreakingnJ~w$
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 72
Page 2 of2
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:http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/listserver
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:GQmments@p~lo$ver<:les.GQm
Don't miss out!
Click here to join PVNET's announcement mail list and be notified when special classes and events are offered.
Summer Animation Classes [click for information]
Summer Digital Photography Classes [click for information]
Want a better job?Attend the Powerpoint class and gain an important skill [cJi.GkJQLinfQrm~tjon]
Animation Club for Kids [click for information]
FREE Computer Workshops for Seniors [GJJcKfQLiDfQrm~tiQn]
Adobe Photoshop elements and Digital Photography class:[click for information]
For information,go to:tlttP~!!VJlWW,p~!Q-sver.<;tes.,GQ!J1ie-,:i..u
Email:education@palosverdes.com
Phone:31 0-544-5395 (leave a message for callback)
Thank you very much
This Listserv program is one of many services created,hosted,and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET,a non
profit 501c3 communityservice organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to
the City,educational internships to kids,workforce training to adults,and free classes for seniors since 1995.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 73
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Vic &Sil Quiarte [vicsilq@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 09,20108:28 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:'Ara M';citymanager@rpv.com
Subject:OPEN SPACE
Here we go again.The opponents of the Annenberg Project for Lower Point
Vicente now argue against the proposed enhancement of Abalone Cove if the City
is awarded the grant the City applied for to construct a new building at Abcove.
They again claim "open space"will be lost.No,like the Annenberg project,open
space will be enhanced.Some day the so called open space advocates will
recognize that the coast does not just belong to them,it is the property of ALL RPV
residents who also have a voice in how best to utilize "open space".The
improvements at Abcove is desperately needed.The trails would be made safer for
children and adults.Parking would be enhanced,Rest rooms installed,and space
would be available for Sheriff Deputies as well as Park Rangers and to top it off an
indoor nature center would be available to serve students who are unable to get
down to the tide pools.And,best of all,the view will be preserved and a park will
be available for visitors to enjoy instead of weeds and invasive plants.Sirs,we
elected you to serve All the public not just a special interest group.
In addition to the above the "open space"advocates have begun a plan that if the
City does get the award of the grant they would like to see the building placed at
Lower Point Vicente.First they want Lower Point Vicente clear of the Annenberg
Project now it is fine with them to place the Abcove building there.Can you justify
their use of a "forked tongue"?I learned of this move from Planning Commissioner
Jim Knight.You might check with him about the credibility of what I have stated
here.Sirs,we elected you to be protectors of our City.I am asking you to proceed
with the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and the facility at Abalone
Cove.I appreciate the work you do for THE WHOLE CITY.Thank you,
Vic Quirarte
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 74
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Wednesday,December 08,2010 2:27 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:the RPV holiday story
From:Valerie Blitz [mailto:verikon@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,December 07,2010 3:18 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Subject:the RPV holiday story
Dear Councilmen,
Well,we find ourselves meeting
again at Christmas time,so here's a
little holiday story .....
Once upon a time there were
townspeople in a city by the sea
fortunate to have three wise
men they could rely upon and
look up to as demonstrated by
the decisions they had already
made that protected the City's
precious gift of LPV parkland
in accordance with the General
Plan,the deed restrictions,and
the POU.The townspeople
were also grateful for the
oversight of a National Park
Service,and its messenger sent
to safeguard the land in the
form of David,or,shall we say
for the story's sake,(P)
archangel David,("attuned to
the earth.who will never
start a fight,but will always
finish it."),who had written a
well-reasoned and insightful
evaluation of a proposed
takeover scheme.
12/15/2010
Page 1 of3
ATTACHMENT - 75
12/15/2010
And then there was the Grinch who stole
Christmas.From his perch atop City Hall,
made from old army barracks and trailers
which he was maneuvering to replace with
brand new pricey digs,the Grinch could hear
the festivities and good cheer that was taking
place down in the city by the sea.The
Grinch made plans with a rich and powerful
clan hailing from the distant land of
Annenbergia and greedy for oceanfront
property,to descend upon the town and,by
means of attempted takeover,made every
effort to deprive the town folk oftheir
Christmas gift,LPV-by-the Sea,a magical
place of paths and picnic places,sun and sea,
wind and whales,pelicans and plants,a park
that was the people's to begin with,and thus
made every effort to prevent Christmas from
coming.
However,the Grinch and his relentless
cohorts had unfortunately not yet learned that
in the end,that despite their battle to steal the
townfolks'Christmas present,Christmas
would come just the same.They did
not realize that Christmas is more than just
gifts and presents,that there are principles
and laws,and the integrity and wisdom of the
three wise men who had travelled that
difficult high road protecting the public by
understanding and respecting those principles
and laws,despite Grinch's undue
pressure.The Grinch had even attempted to
manipulate ParkAngel David,who stood firm
in his unbiased mission to protect the land as
deeded.Sadly,because the Grinch and his
wealthy allies fought on to take over the little
peoples'gift,and because the Grinch was
disrespectful of many of the townfolk,he
was not warmly welcomed back into the
community,and in fact,in the RPV version
of the story,the Grinch was asked to step
down,and the clan came to be known as
the Ban-nenbergs.
And,in the hands of leadership that did what was right in the face of
temptation,the community was liberated,strengthened and thrived so
that the townfolk in the city by the sea could live happily ever after.
Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT - 76
12/15/2010
Respected members of the Council,
Let's end this year's RPV story happily,leave old defeated
agendas behind and move into the New Year with high
hopes,new ideas,and fresh energy.There are so many
bright and talented townspeople locally and beyond,with
what it takes to bring new life and prosperity to the City.
Wishing all of you Happy Holidays....
Cordially,
Valerie Blitz
Page 3 of3
ATTACHMENT - 77
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Vic &Sil Quiarte [vicsilq@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,December 07,2010 9:32 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:'Ara M';citymanager@rpv.com
Subject:ANNENBERG PROJECT
Sirs,
I have been concerned recently as to who really has the best interests of the
City the community as a whole or a group of environmentalists who claim that "open
space"is theirs to determine what is right for the city of RPV.I am as 'ardent an
environmentalist as anyone but I don't chain myself to trees or sit on flag poles to
make a point.The proponents of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente are
very concerned about the ecology of our city and have said so to you and anyone
else who will listen.We envision a more beautiful and useful venue for our
residents.Lower Point Vicemte Park has existed for eons and not one finger of the
opponents has been lifted to do anything at the park until the Annenberg
Foundation indicated they would like to build an Educational building there and
include a small Companion Animal element.It was only then that folks came out of
the shadows to protest and proclaim the area as "open space"and "their"
coastline.They protested when Ken Zuckerman was going to build a golf course
on the coast.Today those folk look down at a beautiful green course and,ironically,
their home values have risen.The same is true of the Terranea Resort,coastline
beautification.Now we hear protest about Lower Point Vicente,probably the ugliest
piece of property on the coast.As I said before,I have friends on the opponent side
but I intend to keep friendships after all is said and done.I hope that the Project will
be built at Lower Point Vicente and I trust you will make your decision for what is
best for our city.The coast belongs to all the residents not just to a special interest
group.Let the project be built at Lower Point Vicente.
Vic Quirarte
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 78
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Jones [Iori@ultramercial.com]
Monday,December 06,2010 7:02 PM
aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Annenberg Project??
To:The members of the Planning Commission,
I was surprised to see the proposed Annenberg Project listed on the agenda for your next
meeting.This project does not comply with the deed that states this parkland is for
PASSIVE RECREATION PURSUITS CLOSELY ORIENTED TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.(The
additional parking for the PVIC is not necessary at the moment -that particular puzzle
piece only fits if the Annenberg plan is attached)
Please stop spending residents/taxpayers money to discuss a project that is not consistent
with the POU,General Plan,and most importantly,the deed.Please stop moving forward on
all applications and processing requests on a project that would have to be drastically
revised to fit the requirements needed to build at Lower Point Vicente.
Thoughts for your consideration:
The public doesn't need ...
*Pet Adoption at LPV -adoption days are already held at Hesse Park
and at almost every pet store on every corner in every city on the weekends.
*Animal Care Facility at LPV -The Point Vincente Animal Hospital is
right across the street from the proposed project -serving hundreds of animals a week.
(Why is the city considering the Annenberg foundation's request to build an entire new
animal hospital that will serve ONLY 20 adoptable pets?)
*Dog and cat themed 'suites'.(Really?)The Annenberg foundation
wants to bus in children who may not live nearly as well as the animals they are visiting.
I recently talked to a docent who was invited to visit the Annenberg Animal facility in
San Diego.She said the animals all had bunkbeds and TV's in their rooms.(Is this the
kind of message RPV wants to offer to children?)
The public might want ....
*Two state-of-the-art classrooms that open out to a patio area,
perfect for art projects and outdoor education.
*An auditorium with flexible seating space equipped for web
conferencing and community meetings,with an ocean view window.
*A 'living room'with a digital touch screen.
These are great ideas,but they do not comply with the deed that states this parkland is
for PASSIVE RECREATION PURSUITS CLOSELY ORIENTED TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.
What the Annenberg foundation would get ....
*An executive suite,private bath,and board room for the trustees.
This institutional use of Lower Point Vicente definitely does not comply with the deed
that states this public parkland must be utilized for PASSIVE RECREATION PURSUITS CLOSELY
ORIENTED TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.
Sincerely,
1 ATTACHMENT - 79
Lori Jones
2 ATTACHMENT - 80
December 6th
,2010
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
c/o Stepfan Wolowicz,Brian Campbell,Thomas Long,Anthony Misetich,Douglas Stem,
Joel Rojas,Ara Mihranian
Honorable Mr.Long and councils,
I respect highly of you on your sincere interests and dedication to this city ofRPV
to bring this LPV to life.
After attending Nov.16th hearing I was amazed and saw that the city ofRPV has a bright
future.
I have not heard of any city councils stay up till 2 to 3 o'clock in the morning to discuss
matters for the city.
I also wanted to thank you Mr.Long for giving us an opportunity and challenge for the
development of LPV.
Without your bright and strong envision for this left out land of LPV,we would not come
this far and get this much involved.
After much discussion,I learned that LPV is a special place.LPV is not only for the
residents ofRPV,PV in general,or citizens of USA,it is for human beings of all nations.
LPV has been a hidden treasure.Now is the time to let world know about this hidden
jewel.
We can bring this hidden treasure to life at a city level,state level,national level or global
level depending on the direction the residents ofRPV or council desires or wishes to go.
If you are open to any ofthese options,the citizens ofRPV would like to put our energy
into this to give you a presentation instead of spending our time and efforts to prove that
the Annenberg Foundation project is not fitting here.
This LPV has been treasured globally.More recently it has been deeply appreciated
globally by our Terranea visitors.
As you know our light house is one of the most photographed light house in the world.
Recreation is not only external which involves your physical body.
I think there is an internal recreation also.Likewise,our souls need exercise.This way
we will have a balanced body inside and outside holistically.
In these busy,busy days life,sometimes we need a place where it is quiet,relaxing,fresh,
serene place where we can just sit down,see and touch the nature,hear birds singing,
ATTACHMENT - 81
smell the fragrance of flowers and the ocean.Our soul will get boosted and we can go
back to our busy daily life again.
We had a hearing on Nov.16th and will have again on Dec.21 st on this Annenberg matter,
as everyday working citizen,can not do 4 things in this busy time ofthe season.
1.Get ready for hearing on Dec 21 st for Annenberg Matter
2.Get ready for Christmas for the family and needed human beings
3.Work every day
4.Get ready for positive plans for the LPV.
Before you go further with the Annenberg project,would you please give us a time to
prepare something presentable to the councils sometime in January 2011?
Also,please give us a direction of whether city vision is to develop this LPV for local
RPV residents enjoyment or global peoples enjoyment.
Sue Ham
RPV Resident
ATTACHMENT - 82
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:sjshultz3@aol.com
Sent:Monday,December 06,20108:51 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Cc:Sjshultz3@aol.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear RPV Representative,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the City Council for their recent decision to put the Annenberg Project
on hold.There are too many questions and non-compliant components to continue pushing ahead.It's like fitting
a square peg into a round hole-this is just the wrong project at the wrong place!
I ask that you continue on this positive path and direct Staff to stop spending anymore time or money on this
project.If the Council and the Annenberg Foundation wish to pursue this project further,then a new site,such as
Upper Point Vicente,should be more closely investigated and a fUlly compliant project should be designed.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Susan Shultz
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 83
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,December 06,20108:25 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
SUbject:FW:annenberg project
From:charlotte ginsburg [mailto:ladytoscano@gmail.com]
sent:Saturday,December 04,2010 2:23 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:annenberg project
December 4,2010
City Council,
Allen and are very much in favor of the Annenberg project at Point Vincente.We really appreciate
such a wonderful building in Palos Verdes.It would bring prestige and artful planning to our
community.Charlotte and Allen Ginsburg i
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 84
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Poonam Dhawan [poonam_dhawan@hotmail.com]
Sent:Sunday,December 05,201012:32 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com;jackie (annenberg project)
Subject:Uln Support of The annenberg project
This is to show my full and wholehearted support of the Annenberg Project.I find the project completely
consistent with every plan policy in both the City's General as well as Coast Vision Plan.I feel that the project
would provide passive r~creation and education opportunities which is consistent with the mission of PVIC.The
suggested mitigation measures are reasonable and would be of value to the community
I strongly feel that the proposed recreational and educational amenities,both outdoor and indoor,
would be welcome,positive contributions to the community.The project is right-sized for its mission and
for the depth and scope of educational,recreational and community offerings proposed.In addition there
is the added advantage that the project being a philanthropic gift to the community,operations and
maintenance would be underwritten by the Foundation as well.The project would,therefore,be a
valuable asset to the community.
Thanking you
Sincerely
Poonam Dhawan
Los Verdes Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 85
Page I of I
AraM
From:carol jensen [horselady23230@yahoo.com]
Sent:Sunday,December OS,2010 11:15 AM
To:pc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg
While I strongly believe that this function is not needed in our area,ifyou insist that it is needed the
location is irrelevant.There is no need to spoil the natural beauty of the proposed site.The function can
be performed elsewhere,perhaps adjacent to the present RPV City Hall.
Carol Sefchek
1211512010 ATTACHMENT - 86
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:charlotte ginsburg [Iadytoscano@gmail.com]
Sent:Saturday,December 04,20102:19 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Ara
Allen and I are very much in favor of the Annenberg project at Point Vincente.We would appreciate
such a wonder place being in Ranche Palos Verdes.Charlotte and Allen Ginsburg December 4,2010
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 87
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:rebisimon [rebisimon@aol.com]
Sent:Friday,December 03,20105:00 PM
To:pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:THE ANNENBERG PROJECT
Dear members of the Planning Commission,
As a long time resident of RPV,I urge you to deny the Annenberg Foundation's plan
for the Lower Point Vicente in your December 14 meeting.The denial is the only
way to go as the project is in clear violation of the deed,the general plan,and the
open space appeal to our residents.Thank you
R.Simon
RPV
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 88
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 03,20102:36 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Anneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
From:roger mills [mailto:roger_mills@cox.net]
Sent:Friday,December 03,2010 2:26 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Anneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
How many times are going to have to attend council meetings to opposed the use of
Lower Point Vicente for concrete jungles.There must be another place on this
Peninsula for the dog &cat hospital and training center.What about the area behind
the computer annex?Since Lower Point Vicente is about the only open space we have left besides
along the .8 mile of moving PV Drive South.
It seems that the council made a ruling,why is it being brought up again?
Roger Mills
3603 Vigilance Dr.
310-377-6226
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 89
AraM
From:BJGleghorn@aol.com
Sent:Friday,December 03,20101:16 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Cc:pc@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com
Subject:Thanks for preserving our park land.
To:The Mayor and Members of the City Council
We thank the members of the City Council for voting to preserve our
park land for the people and their activities related to the
ocean.We thank them for upholding the General Plan,so laboriously
established when the City was forming itself.Thanks,too,for
understanding and respecting the deed restrictions and the Program of
Utilization as defined by the Federal Government.By doing this,you
have prevented further time,effort and money being wasted by
discussing this location for the Annenberg Proposal.Your actions
and those of the members of the Planning Commission have shown
integrity and a true respect for law and the wishes of your
constituents.
Respectfully,
Barbara and George Gleghorn
12/15/2010
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT - 90
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Friday,December 03,2010 1:03 PM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:NO on ANNEN BERGE
-----Original Message-----
From:Jerold Sicherman [mailto:jis72@cox.net]
Sent:Friday,December 03,2010 12:54 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:NO on ANNENBERGE
Remember,no is no on Annenberge.
You guys blew it.There probably is/was a compromise possible.To start with how about no
dogs,and how about a structure that is compatible with the environment.
Jerry
1
ATTACHMENT - 91
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 03,20101:00 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:FW:questions regarding "what processing alternatives now exist"for Annenberg Project
From:Joel Rojas [mailto:joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 03,2010 1:00 PM
To:'katie traeger'
Subject:RE:questions regarding "what processing alternatives now exist"for Annenberg Project
Katie
We have been getting similar questions and so a Iistserv message was just sent out explaining the situation with
the current applications.If you are not a Iistserve subscriber,I encourage you to log onto the City's website
www.palosverdes.com/IQY:and subscribe.Below is the message that was sent.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Joel
A discussion of the processing issues related to the proposed Annenberg Project was brought to the City
Council at its November 16,2010 meeting with the following basic Staff recommendation:
1)Affirm that a formal determination request as to the proposed project's consistency with the Program
of Utilization should be submitted to the OGALS and NPS at the conclusion of the City's entitlement
process;and
2)Affirm that a General Plan Amendment application is not necessary to be processed for the proposed
project;and,
3)Direct the Planning Commission to continue processing the currently requested entitlement
applications for the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.
After hearing a considerable amount of public testimony on the issue,a motion in support of Staff's
recommendation failed on a vote of 2 to 3 with Mayor Wolowicz,Councilman Campbell and
Councilman Misetich dissenting.However,no other motions were made and no other direction was
given to Staff and!or the applicant regarding the processing of the application.While staff acknowledged
at the conclusion of the Council's action that no additional direction was needed,after further
consideration Staff realized that there are processing questions given that the current application
package is still in place and on hold with the Planning Commission.As such,Staff met with the
Annenberg Project ad hoc sub-committee made up of Councilman Stern and Councilman Campbell to
discuss the situation.The Sub-committee and staff agreed that the best course of action was to identify
the processing options that now exist given the Council's action on November 16th and to obtain
direction from the entire City Council on how to proceed from this point forward.
As such,an item will be placed on the City Council's December 21,2010 agenda for Staff to obtain
further direction from the City Council on this matter.The intent of placing this item on the agenda is
not for the City Council to reconsider its decision made on November 16th but to provide Staff with
direction on how to move forward given the processing alternatives that now exist given the City
Council's action on November 16th.
The submitted applications for the Annenberg project are still on file as the application package is before
the Planning Commission.On October 12,2010,the Planning Commission agreed to place its hearings
on hold so processing direction could be received by the City Council.As such,the public hearing on
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 92
Page 2 of2
the applications was continued to November 9,2010.On November 9,2010 the hearing was continued
without discussion to December 14,2010 in anticipation of receiving processing direction from the City
Council on November 16,2010.Now that Staff is seeking further direction from the City Council on
December 21,2010,on December 14,2010 Staff will be recommending that the Planning Commission
continue the hearing without discussion to January 25,2011.
From:katie traeger [mailto:ktraeger@earthlink.net]
Sent:Friday,December 03,201012:45 PM
To:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:questions regarding "what processing alternatives now exist"for Annenberg Project
From:katie traeger [mailto:ktraeger@earthlink.net]
sent:Friday,December 03,2010 12:44 PM
To:'joel@rpv.com'
Subject:question regarding "what processing alternatives now exist"for Annenberg Project
Dear Joel:
Since Ara is has been out for two days this week,would you or someone else in Planning mind e-mailing me the
answers to the 2 questions below,sometime today?
Thank you for your help.
Katie Traeger
From:katie traeger [mailto:ktraeger@earthlink.net]
sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 1:06 PM
To:'aram@rpv.com'
Subject:question regarding "what processing alternatives now exist"for Annenberg Project
Dear Ara:
The RPV city Annenberg Project page says,re the Dec.21 City Council meeting,that the Planning Dept.will seek
direction from the City Council "on how to move forward given the processing alternatives that now exist given
the City Council's actions on Nov.16."
Could you clarify for me
1)exactly what those "processing alternatives"are,and
2)exactly how the Annenberg Proposal,in its current form,is still an "active"planning application.
Without understanding these two things,I cannot understand where or what the proposal is at the moment.
Thank you for your help.
Katie Traeger
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 93
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert King [robtking@cox.net)
Friday,December 03,201012:39 PM
pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Vote NO on Annenberg
To the RPV Planning Commissioners:
I urge you to reject the application for the Annenberg project at your upcoming meeting ..
It is now evident that this project does not comply with the requirements of the RPV
general plan and of the land use restrictions of the property deed.Thus,discontinuance
of further planning action on this application is warranted.
Additionally,the community has expressed neither want or need for an animal care and
adoption facility at this location.I do not want to see us give away a prime piece of our
public parkland to outside moneyed interests to satisfy their private desires.
Please vote NO on further consideration of the Annenberg project.
Robert E King,resident,RPV
1 ATTACHMENT - 94
Annenberg Project
AraM
From:SAil bee [SAllbee@remaxpv.com]
Sent:Friday,December 03,2010 11 :45 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Page 1 of 1
I do not live in RPV,but am a resident ofRHE and I fully endorse the Annenberg Project as a very worthy Hill project.It
fits right in with our beautiful,natural area and tries to educate those visiting why we need to keep it that way and to protect
our land and our wildlife.Please approve this wonderful project.Thank you.Sandra Allbee,19 Dorado Place,RHE
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 95
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Friday,December 03,2010 8:37 AM
'AraM'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Annenberg Project
-----Original Message-----
From:Cinthia Joyce [mailto:cinthiajoyce@verizon.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 7:00 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear Members of City Council,
I would like to express my 0plnlon that the Annenberg Project should go forward and
be welcomed by the city council.The long term benefits for the people of the city of
Rolling Hills will far outweigh any inconveniences for a few residents.It will provide
jobs,enhance property values and make Palos Verdes all the more exciting to live in.A
gift of this magnitude will probably not be offered again.
This project will be beautiful,respectful of people and the environment.Its
educational value in teaching about animals both wild and domestic as well as sharing the
spectacular view of the coastline with others for posterity is not to be underestimated.
It will be a gathering place for families and a place to bring visitors with pride.
This project will preserve our view of the coastline because we know what to expect in
terms of land use,the sod roof and gardens will be modest yet inviting,and the
magnificent sky and cliffs will always be in view for all to enjoy forever.
with sincere thanks for listening,
Cinthia Joyce
www.CinthiaJoyce.com
1 ATTACHMENT - 96
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Nancy De Long [pvnancy@cox.net]
Sent:Friday,December 03,20106:02 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Commission,
Just want you to know there are still plenty of us out here who say NO to the Annenberg Project.It
does not conform to NP standards and the current center does a fine job of interpreting gray whale
migration and the sea.We do not need this edifice which only serves the Annenbergs.A huge
building to help interpret nature is ludicrous and dogs and cats don't need a view.
Now we watch the rich,power brokers at work.I liked the name Ocean Trails which is now
Trump National Gulf Course.I like Pt.Vicente.I will hate the Annenberg Site or whatever they will
call it.
Stand firm those of you who care about the character of our city and our precious open
space.Those of you who don'L take a hike.
Nancy DeLong
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 97
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Vivien Yang [vivien.yang@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,201011:46 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Cc:'Vivien Yang'
Subject:Annenbergfoundation Project*
This is a nonprofit foundation leading to the improvement of the huge project under a team of developer who
the people of Palos Verdes have little control and information of the development;lots of open space for
domestic animals on the hill;any further dog/cat animal shelter or park is not desirable due to out of control
smell and noise in the proposed area leading to future problems city cannot control;at this point my decision is
95%oppose of the project unless something come about that the project has no animal research/shelter put in
writing,may be a library/museum in the local area may be an asset to the community!!PLEASE PUT A BLOCK TO
THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME!!!Vivien Yang ~916 Silver Spur Road #103,R.H.E.CA 90274 310462-7008 mobile
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 98
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matthew Golding [mattdawn@cox.net]
Thursday,December 02,2010 7:22 PM
cc@rpv.com
aram@rpv.com
Annenberg project
To whom it may concern,
As a 45 year resident of RPV I wanted to share my disappointment at the cities desires to
develop the lower Point Vicente site with the proposed Annenberg facility.Over the past
40 years I have been involved with a variety of attempts to develop this area for human
use,unsuccessfully.This plan is so disappointing on so many different levels.Please
note,my family and I are adamantly opposed to this project.We have supported this city
and paid taxes here since its inception.Please hear our voices and don't disappoint us.
No on the Annenberg project!! !
Dawn Golding
1 ATTACHMENT - 99
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Maureen Duffy [mduffy@duffy2.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20107:09 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Dog and Cat Care Facility
December 2,2010
To:The Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From:Maureen O.Duffy
Re:No to the Annenberg Dog and Cat Care and Adoption Facility on Lower Point Vicente!
I want to go on record that I believe that the Annenberg Dog and Cat Care and Adoption Facility may
be a good thing in some other more commercial space;but not on our Peninsula's beautiful Lower Point
Vicente!
-
I can picture such a facility in Torrance,CA but not on our beautiful coastline when there are so many
areas wide open due to the downturn in the economy.Why would we want to allow such an
unnecessary defacing of our beloved Peninsula coastline!
Please permanently disallow this development during your upcoming meetings and pronouncements in
December.
I oppose the permanent scar that the Annenberg Dog and Cat Care and Adoption Facility
would create on our beloved and beautiful Palos Verdes Peninsula coastline!
Sincerely,
Maureen O.Duffy
Maureen O.Dufiy
4049 Via Pima
Palos Verdes PeninSUla,CA 90274
1-310-373-0019 tel.
md uffy@duffy2.com
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 100
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cinthia Joyce [cinthiajoyce@verizon.net]
Thursday,December 02,20107:00 PM
cc@rpv.com
Annenberg Project
Dear Members of City Council,
I would like to express my opinion that the Annenberg Project should go forward and
be welcomed by the city council.The long term benefits for the people of the city of
Rolling Hills will far outweigh any inconveniences for a few residents.It will provide
jobs,enhance property values and make Palos Verdes all the more exciting to live in.A
gift of this magnitude will probably not be offered again.
This project will be beautiful,respectful of people and the environment.Its
educational value in teaching about animals both wild and domestic as well as sharing the
spectacular view of the coastline with others for posterity is not to be underestimated.
It will be a gathering place for families and a place to bring visitors with pride.
This project will preserve our view of the coastline because we know what to expect in
terms of land use,the sod roof and gardens will be modest yet inviting,and the
magnificent sky and cliffs will always be in view for all to enjoy forever.
with sincere thanks for listening,
Cinthia Joyce
www.CinthiaJoyce.com
1 ATTACHMENT - 101
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20106:05 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg Plan
From:Kryyth@aol.com [mailto:Kryyth@aol.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 6:01 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Subject:re:Annenberg Plan
To the Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes -
It is my understanding that the Annenberg Conditional Use Permit Application is still pending.On November
16th,the Council voted 3-2 to reject the staff's recommendation to allow the project to continue through the
planning process.I understand that this brought about some confusion about what the Council intended to do
next.
I am aware through the Daily Breeze and other sources that The City Council will clarify their prior decision at
their meeting on December 21.
Is it true that on December 14th the application will once again be before the Planning Commission?
This seems the appropriate time to make a ruUng that the proposed project does not comply with the City's
general plan for Outdoor Recreation,and certainly does not conform to any attributes related to the Pacific
Ocean.
Please consider resolving this matter at the December 14 meeting by finding that the project does not comply
with the general plan and deny the CUP application.
Thank You,
Kathy Ryyth
Redondo Beach,CA
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 102
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Kryyth@aol.com
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20106:02 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:re:Annenberg Plan
To the Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes-
It is my understanding that the Annenberg Conditional Use Permit Application is still pending.On November
16th,the Council voted 3-2 to reject the staffs recommendation to allow the project to continue through the
planning process.I understand that this brought about some confusion about what the Council intended to do
next.
I am aware through the Daily Breeze and other sources that The City Council will clarify their prior decision at
their meeting on December 21.
Is it true that on December 14th the application will once again be before the Planning Commission?
This seems the appropriate time to make a ruling that the proposed project does not comply with the City's
general plan for Outdoor Recreation,and certainly does not conform to any attributes related to the Pacific
Ocean.
Please consider resolving this matter at the December 14 meeting by finding that the project does not comply
with the general plan and deny the CUP application.
Thank You,
Kathy Ryyth
Redondo Beach,CA
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 103
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Andrea Sala [asala@csudh.edu]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20105:46 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members,
I don't envy your position and the large decision you need to make on the Annenberg project.I know it must be
difficult to weigh the comments and concerns of your constituency,but I must admit I was so disappointed by
the vote at the last City Council meeting regarding the project and really surprised by your decision.There are
so many people who are in favor of this project,but as they say,the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
As a long time Palos Verdes resident,I am very supportive of this project.I was saddened to hear many of the
comments at the last meeting,including the misinformation and vicious nature of some of the residents of our
Peninsula.It is like the game of telephone,when finally at the end of the game,the misconceptions and
confusion become reality when really the starting message is simple:the project is the right project and needs
to be at lower Point Vicente.
How can you deny that the plans will enhance the piece of land at lower Point Vicente that is currently an ugly
eye-sore?It will create an educational and environmental destination for students,parents,visitors and friends
who will come from near and far.The plans complement the existing Interpretive Center and preserve the
loveliness of the natural environment,while finally beautifying those acres of coastal property.I hope you'll
agree that the Annenberg Project will be ten times more attractive than the large homes that are on the
adjacent lots.
I have worked in the field of philanthropy for over 15 years.To be the recipient of a gift from The Annenberg
Foundation is an honor.The fact that they want to create such an opportunity in our community is a gift to us
all,particularly in light of the fact that there will be no expense by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes now or in the
future for this project.The Annenberg Foundation is world-class.It is the pinnacle of philanthropic
organizations.To deny this project is denying our entire community an incredible opportunity.
Please reconsider your vote and continue with the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.It will truly be
your legacy.
Thank you for taking the time to read my message,and all other messages you receive.Happy Holidays!
Andrea Sala
310.243.3183
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 104
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Linda Retz [Iretz@ljratty.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20103:15 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Support of Annenberg Project
Gentlemen:
I am a staunch supporter of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and extremely concerned
about preserving our gorgeous natural environment.The two things are NOT inconsistent,in my opinion.I firmly
believe that the Annenberg Foundation will help preserve our beautiful natural environment.Were it not for
the Annenberg Foundation's matching grant to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy several years ago,
we would not have as much open space in Rancho Palos Verdes and no expense has been spared in designing
the Project in such a way that it will preserve and restore the site's natural beauty.
The Annenberg Project will provide a recreational respite from the problems that plague our world,giving us a
window into the world of the Tongva Indians that inhabited the Peninsula before us and helping us learn to live in
harmony with other creatures that inhabit the Peninsula.Furthermore,the footprint of the Project will be tiny in
relation to the housing projects and resort surrounding it.
Whatever the outcome,I ask that you encourage people testifying at these hearings to be truthful in their remarks
and respectful in their demeanor.Given the number of gross exaggerations and false information reported by
some of the Project's opponents at the last hearing,I also ask that you give the Foundation an opportunity to set
the record straight on what the Project is really about.
IJnda J.Retz,Attomey at Law
21535 Hawthorne Boulevard
Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
t:310.944.9700
f:310.944.9722
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail and any attachments to it may contain confidential communications between a lawyer and her client.If you
are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached
to this e-mail is STRICTLY PROHIBITEO.If you have received this e-mail in error,please immediately notify us by reply e-mail or by telephone at
(310)944-9700 and destroy this e-mail and any attachments without reading or saving them in any manner.Thank you.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 105
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:AI or Marsha Mashouf [almashouf@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20102:54 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg support
Dear Sir,We are long time residents of RPV and wish to add our names in support of the wonderful
Annenberg gift to our community.Please support this issue with vigor as it will be a fabulous
addition to our community.AI and Marsha Mashouf 5901 Clint Place RPV
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 106
Page I of2
Ara M
From:dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20102:15 PM
To:sharon yarber
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Ara M;Joel Rojas;Carolyn Lehr;Carol W.Lynch
Subject:Re:PVIC Parking
To Sharon and All from Dena --Sharon,you laid out the facts perfectly.We should all take note and
support this position if and when it may become an agenda item.As I said in my e-mail.itis never to
late to revise a decision based on new and/or corrected information.
On Thu,Dec 2,2010 at 12:10 PM,sharon yarber <mQ.J:.nQf.y~gQ_@gm~il&Q:[J]>wrote:
Honorable Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council:
I am not sure yet if the license (or construction management agreement,or whatever it may be called)
between the City and the Annenberg Foundation for construction of the PVIC parking improvements
will be an agenda item on December 7th or not,but it will no doubt be an agenda item at some point
in the future,given that Annenberg has irrevocably agreed to perform and pay for that construction as
a gift to the City,without regard to the ultimate outcome of the approval process in connection with
the proposed Companion Animal Care and Adoption Facility.
I am writing to request that,whenever it is on the agenda,you refrain from taking any action in
connection with such parking improvements until a final decision has been made with respect to the
other project.The configuration of the parking as it was approved in 1998 was dramatically different
from the latest proposed and approved plan.Staff has confirmed that Annenberg suggested the
revisions to the layout,and caused its architect to draw the plans that were approved by the Planning
Commission in February of this year.
Once you take a look at the revised plans,it will be quite apparent that the reconfiguration was done
in such a manner as to dovetail with the Anneneberg project.As you may know,Commissioner
Tetreault asked for the parking agenda item to be continued until the following meeting as he could
not be in attendance,but that request was not granted.Several commissioners were concerned about
the obvious nexus between the revised parking plans and the proposed Annenberg project.Further,a
concern about a possible CEQ A violation (a prohibited splitting of a project into two approvals)was
raised by counsel for a neighbor,Sue Ham.Based upon staffs advising that the City Attorney had
been consulted on the CEQA issue and had opined that there was no such violation,as the parking
expansion,albeit in the original configuration,had been approved in 1998,the revised parking could
be separately approved,and so it was.
Inasmuch as the originally approved onsite spaces were in the total number of 207 (66 existing and
139 new)and the new plan only adds 35 spaces onsite,it seems that the former determination of the
number of onsite spaces needed was grossly overstated.Without the Annenberg project,perhaps a re-
examination can be done to evaluate the actual number of spaces needed,and another revised plan can
be drawn that is located in the originally contemplated area (which location did not bisect the property
with a large driveway and turn around as the new one does.
Please refrain from taking action now and reevaluate later the actual parking needs in light of the
results of whatever final determinations are made with respect to development at Lower Point
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 107
Page 2 of2
Vicente.There is no rush to complete this parking -it's waited since 1998!
Further,NPS may need to weigh in on this in light of the controversy surrounding the proposed
project.May I recommend consultation with NPS before proceeding?
Thank you,
Sharon Yarber
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 108
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:John Duffy [jduffy@duffy2.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 1:47 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Re:I applaud the judgment you made on Nov 16th regarding the Annenberg Facility!
To:
John F.Duffy
4049 Via Pima,Palos Verdes Peninsula,CA 90274-1459
1-310-373-0019 jduffy@duffy2.com
The Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The Annenberg Dog and Cat Care and Adoption Facility on Lower Point Vicente
I applaud the judgment you made during the City Council meeting on November 16th in
your 3-2
vote to reject staff's recommendation to allow the project to continue through the planning
process!
I understand that this is only a first step.
I ask The Commission on December,14th to make a permanent ruling
that the proposed project does not comply with the City's general plan.
The plan designates the property Recreational-Passive,which is defined in the Zoning Code to
mean Outdoor recreation or with Rancho Palos Verdes's zoning ordinances,which designate the
property Open Space Recreational which means Outdoor recreation under RPV's Zoning Code.
How could anyone believe that a 51,000 square foot building,largely devoted to cats and dogs,
and an additional 73,000 square feet of hardscape (plazas,walls and walkways)complies with
Rancho Palos Verdes's general plan?
As one of the many opponents to the Annenberg Dog and Cat Facility at Lower Point Vicente;I
firmly believe that it does not now comply nor can it ever be deemed to comply with the general
plan!
I just want the best for the Peninsula and to preserve such an important and beautiful area for
families for many years to come.
Thank you for the time you took to consider my point of view.
Sincerely yours,
-John F.Duffy
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 109
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Thursday,December 02,2010 1:44 PM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Annenerg Project Support
-----Original Message-----
From:Jennifer Cody [mailto:jennifercody@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 1:17 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenerg Project Support
I support the Annenberg Project and urge the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to approve and
move forward with the proposed enhancements to Lower Point Vicente.
Jennifer Cody
Attorney at Law
3308 Via la Selva
Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274
Telephone:(310)714-6319
Fax:(310)373-0167
1
ATTACHMENT - 110
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Jennifer Cody Uennifercody@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 1:18 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:Annenerg Project Support
Begin forwarded message:
From:Jennifer Cody <jenDjfer.G.Q.QY@CQX,net>
Date:December 2,20101:17:10 PM PST
To:CC@rp\l,.GQill
Subject:Annenerg Project Support
I support the Annenberg Project and urge the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to approve and
move forward with the proposed enhancements to Lower Point Vicente.
Jennifer Cody
Attorney at Law
3308 Via la Selva
Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274
Telephone:(310)714-6319
Fax:(310)373-0167
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 111
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:marina matovic Oezevica@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20101:16 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
To the RPV Planning Commission,
I wish to express my support for the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.
It is a wonderful gift to our community and to our children.I urge you to support the project and
give your approval at the upcoming meeting on Dec 21st,2010.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marina Matovic
Broker Associate
DRE Broker License 01319246
AZUSA REALTY
3858 Carson Street,Suite 125
Torrance,CA 90503
310.941.1347
jg~e_vJci:1.@$bCglf;tbi:1J.ngt
Marina Matovic
Broker Associate
DRE Broker License 01319246
AZUSA REAL TY
3858 Carson Street,Suite 125
Torrance,CA 90503
310.941.1347
mgvJCi:1@$bcglQ-'1al.net
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 112
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Jean Strickland Ueansvein1@msn.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,2010 1:08 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
December 2,2010
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
I am in support of the Annenberg Project.It is a unique,and creative way to teach students and
adults about animal care.I think that this is important for everyone to experience as a
community.I believe that this Project is appropriate in size for it's proposed location.What an
honor to have this foundation provide the funding for this worthy project.Please go forward with
this Project.
Jean Strickland
310 377-2661
32506 Seahill Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
12/1512010 ATTACHMENT - 113
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Evan Money [evanmoneycan@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20101:07 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Subject:A better RPV
Dear City Council,
As a proud resident of RPV,I urge you to support the Annenberg Project.As a Southern California native,I
dreamed of one day raising a family in RPV.The Interpretive Center is a perfect example of why RPV is the
greatest city in the world.The Glass Church and the Interpretive Center are the two things we show everyone
who comes to visit us.The Annenberg Project is a classic win-win for the community and it will insure a better
RPV for our children.
I urge you to move this project forward.Thank you.
Evan Money
The #1 Online Life Coach
(310)750-6219
1-877-WOW-EVAN
"Yww,ljft:!~Q~~bt:!"'9JI,G.QJn
WW"Y,Uft:!~Q~<:_h_4§9_d_,<:~m
Take ACTION and the world is yours!
Evan Money,a California Corporation
Evan Money President
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 114
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:katie traeger [ktraeger@earthlink.net]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,20101:06 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:question regarding "what processing alternatives now exist"for Annenberg Project
Dear Ara:
The Dec.21 City Council meeting description on the RPV city Annenberg Project page says that the Planning
Dept.will seek direction from the City Council ({on how to move forward given the processing alternatives that
now exist given the City Council's actions on Nov.16.II
Could you clarify for me
1)exactly what those ({processing alternatives{{are,and
2)exactly how the Annenberg Proposal,in its current form,is still an "active"planning application.
Without understanding these two things,I cannot understand where or what the proposal is at the moment.
Thank you for your help.
Katie Traeger
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 115
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,December 02,201012:10 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Ara M;Joel Rojas;Carolyn Lehr;Carol W.Lynch
Subject:PVIC Parking
Honorable Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council:
I am not sure yet if the license (or construction management agreement,or whatever it may be called)between
the City and the Annenberg Foundation for construction ofthe PVIC parking improvements will be an agenda
item on December 7th or not,but it will no doubt be an agenda item at some point in the future,given that
Annenberg has irrevocably agreed to perform and pay for that construction as a gift to the City,without regard
to the ultimate outcome of the approval process in connection with the proposed Companion Animal Care and
Adoption Facility.
I am writing to request that,whenever it is on the agenda,you refrain from taking any action in connection
with such parking improvements until a final decision has been made with respect to the other project.The
configuration ofthe parking as it was approved in 1998 was dramatically different from the latest proposed and
approved plan.Staffhas confirmed that Annenberg suggested the revisions to the layout,and caused its
architect to draw the plans that were approved by the Planning Commission in February of this year.
Once you take a look at the revised plans,it will be quite apparent that the reconfiguration was done in such a
manner as to dovetail with the Anneneberg project.As you may know,Commissioner Tetreault asked for the
parking agenda item to be continued until the following meeting as he could not be in attendance,but that
request was not granted.Several commissioners were concerned about the obvious nexus between the revised
parking plans and the proposed Annenberg project.Further,a concern about a possible CEQA violation (a
prohibited splitting of a project into two approvals)was raised by counsel for a neighbor,Sue Ham.Based
upon staffs advising that the City Attorney had been consulted on the CEQA issue and had opined that there
was no such violation,as the parking expansion,albeit in the original configuration,had been approved in
1998,the revised parking could be separately approved,and so it was.
Inasmuch as the originally approved onsite spaces were in the total number of207 (66 existing and 139 new)
and the new plan only adds 35 spaces onsite,it seems that the former determination ofthe number of onsite
spaces needed was grossly overstated.Without the Annenberg project,perhaps a re-examination can be done to
evaluate the actual number of spaces needed,and another revised plan can be drawn that is located in the
originally contemplated area (which location did not bisect the property with a large driveway and turn around
as the new one does.
Please refrain from taking action now and reevaluate later the actual parking needs in light ofthe results of
whatever final determinations are made with respect to development at Lower Point Vicente.There is no rush
to complete this parking -it's waited since 1998!
Further,NPS may need to weigh in on this in light of the controversy surrounding the proposed project.May I
recommend consultation with NPS before proceeding?
Thank you,
Sharon Yarber
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 116
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Claire Gutschow [clairegutschow@gmail.com]
Thursday,December 02,2010 11 :31 AM
pc@rpv.com
aram@rpv.com
Please deny Annenberg application
To the Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
We believe that the proposed Annenberg project does NOT comply with our City's general
plan which plan designates the property Recreational -Passive,(which is defined in the
Zoning Code to mean OUTDOOR recreation)or with our zoning ordinances,which designate the
property Open Space Recreational (which means OUTDOOR recreation under our Zoning Code).
We opponents do not find that a 51,000 square foot building largely devoted to cats and
dogs,together with 73,000 square feet of hardscape (plazas,walls,walkways)comply with
our general plan.
And we do not want to see it ruining our gorgeous coastal bluff views.
Please DENY the CUP application.
Kind regards,
Claire Gutschow
1
ATTACHMENT - 117
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Joel Rojas Doelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 30,201010:30 PM
To:Bjhilde@aol.com
Cc:aram@rpv.com
Subject:RE:ANNENBERG FIASCO
Barry
The only action the City Council took on November 16th is to not support the application processing method
recommended by Staff.The current applications were not rescinded by the City Council nor withdrawn by the
applicant.Therefore,since the applications are still on file and the other application processing alternatives
identified by Staff in the November 16th staff report were not discussed on November 16th ,further direction from
the City Council on how to proceed will be sought on December 21 st.
Joel
From:Bjhilde@aol.com [mailto:Bjhilde@aol.com]
sent:Tuesday,November 30,2010 5:22 PM
To:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Cc:CC@rpv.com
Subject:ANNEN BERG FIASCO
Hi Ara,
Perhaps I should be more sensitive or at least show some respect for a "Dead"project,but I thought that
I understood the CC to tacitly say "that Planning was NOT directed to proceed on Annenberg's
proposal."Don't these words carry the same effect as "directed NOT to proceed"?Did the 3-2 majority have to
stand up and shout "STOP WORK to be understood?In any event,the use of money to study Annenberg's
proposal is a waste of taxpayer funds,and if I'm not mistaken,planning costs are one of the largest
expenditures (if not THE largest)in the budget.It may be an interesting project to toil away on,but if it's never
to be without a General Plan revision,then no more funds should be expended on it.
Thanks
Barry Hildebrand
3560 Vigilance Drive
RPV,CA 90275
310-377-0051
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 118
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 30,201010:19 PM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:FW:PC Mtg.of 12/14/Annenberg
From:EZStevens [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
sent:Tuesday,November 30,2010 7:47 PM
To:pc@rpv.com;dehr@rpv.com
Cc:RPV Planning;'Clark';Douglas Stern (Douglas.Stern@cox.net]);'Peter';'Steve';Tom';Greg Pfost;
tomlong@palosverdes.com;Mayor Pro Tern:;dennism@rpv.com;Brian Campbell;Asst;Anthony Misetich;Asst.
City Manager Carolynn Petru:
Subject:PC Mtg.of 12j14jAnnenberg
Subject:PC Mtg.of 12/14/Annenberg
To:~rpv.com,Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>
Dear Commissioners:
On December 14,the matter of the Annenberg CUP application will once again be before you.I trust
you have all had the opportunity to watch the video of the City Council meeting of November 16th.
While much discussion went on about the planning process and how projects get tweaked and revised
during the process,which supported the arguments of Mayor Pro Tern Long and Councilman Stern that
the process should continue,they failed to address the very simple fact that no amount of tweaking will
change this animal care and adoption facility into something that will conform to our General Plan,
much less the POU and deed restrictions,unless,of course,the animal care and adoption facility is
removed from the project.There is no application pending before you that does not contain the animal
care facility component.
Has there ever been in the history of the Planning Commission a project that started out as a house but,
through revisions,ended up something other than a house?Sure,you might have changed the height,the
setback,the width,the color,the materials to be used,the architectural components,the square footage,
etc.,but it still ended up a house,didn't it?
Have you ever morphed/tweaked a gas station into a house,or vice versa?
I suppose you could tweak this project into another PVIC that does not have medical facilities or
adoption suites,or companion animal housing,and then MAYBE it would be compliant,but since the
first day this project was suggested by Wallis Annenberg to Barbara Dye before the application for the
grant to fund the Annenberg Coast Vision Plan was even submitted,the animal care facility was
contemplated.The overriding goal of the Foundation is,as Ms.Annenberg has stated in her own words,
to create the Mayo Clinic for companion animals (dogs and cats).There is simply no way Annenberg
plans to delete that aspect of the project,but if they do,you will then have something to consider
approvmg.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 119
Page 2 of2
You cannot change the footprint,the square footage,the height,setbacks or anything else about the
Annenberg building and the institutional uses it includes,and make it a building that will comply with
the general plan.Period.There is really nothing to discuss.The CUP application for the project as it is
now before you MUST be denied as it is clearly not compatible with the general plan (Passive
recreational).The issue of POU consistency is not before you.
I realize from comments made by Commissioner Emenhiser at the meeting of November 23rd that this
matter may once again be continued.Instead of continuing this matter and postponing the inevitable,I
urge you to do the right thing on the 14th.Make the irrefutable finding that the project as now presented
does not comply with the general plan,and let Annenberg go back and prepare another proposal that
deletes all of the non-compliant components or select an alternative,appropriate site for this project..
Very truly yours,
Edward Z Stevens
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 120
Page 1 of3
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 30,20103:51 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:PVP Watch Newsletter
From:Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.[mailto:cfw.cwanda@gmail.com]
sent:Tuesday,November 30,20102:17 PM
To:pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com;jjaakola@annenbergfoundation.org;Tom Long;Douglas Stern;cc@rpv.com
Subject:Re:PVP Watch Newsletter
Mr.R,
The bulk of the Annenberg concept is focused on use of open space,giving good access by paths to a set
of ocean side bluffs that are pretty astounding (and not available for private uses).Annenberg is
essentially offering to build a park and "living room/family room/den"for the community,with $35 mm
of Annenberg funds.Why should we prefer that the money go to Beverly Hills or Orange County or
Malib~or some other upscale community with available land?
Tom Long was right to get a bit agitated about slamming the door (or appearing to slam the door)on
what looks like the largest gift ever offered to RPV,in my view.In my view his prompt action and
careful guidance over the years makes him the best choice for RPV Mayor at this time by a wide margin.
MM (which has managed to get lots of tuition funds from my account for my son -and has done great
work with the money)already has very good design and construction plans laid out for extensive
improvements to its property.The MM site (even without the dorms)is not big enough for both the
Annenberg RPV facility and the MM facility improvement.
Regards,
Chris Wilson
On Tue,Nov 30,2010 at 12:46 PM,<p.Y.Qw<:!-l~b@p.YPw<:!-l~bA::QJn>wrote:
How about putting Annenberg at MM?
>Mr.R,
>
>Your comment writers are looking a bit nutty,and you still cherry pick
>the
>comments you publish.
>
>Have you seen the Annenberg facility in Santa Monica?
>
>Why is it ok to have dorms for 250 at MM but no Annenberg facility in RPV?
>PVP Watch seems inconsistent,and nipping at non-existent deed issues as
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 121
>opposed to core "highest and best use"evaluations.
>
>An abandoned farm is not the highest and best use of the land in question.
>If not the Annenber RPV facility,what are you and your "hair on fire"
>supporters suggesting?When?With whose $35 mm?
>
>Regards,
>Chris Wilson
>
>On Sun,Nov 28,2010 at 2:38 PM,<pypwatch@pvpwatch.com>wrote:
>
»Attached is PVP Watch Newsletter -November 27th
>
>
>
>
>--
>Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.
>21515 Hawthorne Boulevard,Suite 200
>Torrance,California 90503
>310 316 2500
>fax:310 543 2526
>cfw.cwanda@gmail.com
>
>Notice:This message and any attachment(s)are confidential and may be
>privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you are not the
>intended recipient and have received this email in error,please telephone
>or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your
>system.If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this
>message
>or any attachment,disclose the contents to any other person,or take any
>action in reliance on this message or any attachment.
>
>Circular 230 Disclosure:To assure compliance with Treasury Department
>rules
>governing tax practice,we inform you that any advice (including in any
>attachment)(1)was not written and is not intended to be used,and cannot
>be used,for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalty that may be
>imposed on the taxpayer,and (2)may not be used in connection with
>promoting,marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or
>matter addressed herein.
>
Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard,Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
3103162500
12/15/2010
Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT - 122
Page 3 of3
fax:310 543 2526
~:fur.Gw@d~@gm~il,~Qm
Notice:This message and any attachment(s)are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error,
please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system.If
you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment,disclose the
contents to any other person,or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment.
Circular 230 Disclosure:To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice,
we inform you that any advice (including in any attachment)(1)was not written and is not intended to
be used,and cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalty that may be imposed on
the taxpayer,and (2)may not be used in connection with promoting,marketing or recommending to
another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 123
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 30,201012:13 PM
To:'Ara M'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Proposal Structure
From:Iindorfer [mailto:lindorfer1@cox.net]
sent:Tuesday,November 30,201011:08 AM
To:pc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Proposal Structure
The staff report to the city council meeting of Nov.16,2010 points out that under the RPV
General plan,the site is designated
recreational-passive,with the note that a prior Planning Commission resolution P.C.
Resolution No.98-30 "implies"that structures used for educational rather than active
purposes are consistent with the General Plan.It is evident that the major portion of the
proposed structure is for adoption and medical treatment of companion animals.As such,
it is not recreational,not passive,and not educational,therefore not consistent with the
General Plan.I urge you to reject the proposal unless the RPV General Plan is amended
or the proposal is revised to remove the non-conforming animal aspects.
Sincerely,
Joe Lindorfer
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 124
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 30,201010:21 AM
To:Joel Rojas;Ara M
Subject:Fwd:PC Mtg.of 12/14/Annenberg
Here is a copy of my letter to the PC of yesterday that I failed to send to you,though I copied Caolyn
Lehr.
----------Forwarded message ----------
From:sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Date:Mon,Nov 29,2010 at 7:40 PM
Subject:PC Mtg.of 12/14/Annenberg
To:pc@rpv.com,Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>
Dear Commissioners:
On December 14,the matter of the Annenberg CUP application will once again be before you.I trust
you have all had the opportunity to watch the video of the City Council meeting of November 16th.
While much discussion went on about the planning process and how projects get tweaked and revised
during the process,which supported the arguments of Mayor Pro Tern Long and Councilman Stern that
the process should continue,they failed to address the very simple fact that no amount of tweaking will
change this animal care and adoption facility into something that will conform to our General Plan,
much less the POU and deed restrictions,unless,of course,the animal care and adoption facility is
removed from the project.There is no application pending before you that does not contain the animal
care facility component.
Has there ever been in the history of the Planning Commission a project that started out as a house but,
through revisions,ended up something other than a house?Sure,you might have changed the height,the
setback,the width,the color,the materials to be used,the architectural components,the square footage,
etc.,but it still ended up a house,didn't it?
Have you ever morphed/tweaked a gas station into a house,or vice versa?
I suppose you could tweak this project into another PVIC that does not have medical facilities or
adoption suites,or companion animal housing,and then MAYBE it would be compliant,but since the
first day this project was suggested by Wallis Annenberg to Barbara Dye before the application for the
grant to fund the Annenberg Coast Vision Plan was even submitted,the animal care facility was
contemplated.The overriding goal ofthe Foundation is,as Ms.Annenberg has stated in her own words,
to create the Mayo Clinic for companion animals (dogs and cats).There is simply no way Annenberg
plans to delete that aspect of the project,but if they do,you will then have something to consider
approvmg.
You cannot change the footprint,the square footage,the height,setbacks or anything else about the
Annenberg building and the institutional uses it includes,and make it a building that will comply with
the general plan.Period.There is really nothing to discuss.The CUP application for the project as it is
now before you MUST be denied as it is clearly not compatible with the general plan (Passive
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 125
Page 2 of2
recreational).The issue ofPOU consistency is not before you.
I realize from comments made by Commissioner Emenhiser at the meeting of November 23rd that this
matter may once again be continued.Instead of continuing this matter and postponing the inevitable,I
urge you to do the right thing on the 14th.Make the irrefutable finding that the project as now presented
does not comply with the general plan,and let Annenberg go back and prepare another proposal that
deletes all of the non-compliant components or select an alternative,appropriate site for this project..
Very truly yours,
Sharon Yarber
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 126
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,201012:03 PM
To:'Joel Rojas'
Cc:'Ara M'
Subject:FW:Civility in discourse
Attachments:Ltr.to Commisioners 12-3-06.doc
From:jim_knight@juno.com [mailto:jim_knight@juno.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,2010 10:54 AM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Civility in discourse
Tom
You had sent me an e-mail regarding the recent developments on the Annenberg project
and the issues you raise deserve a full and open debate.But I have concerns as to the manner
in which you have singled out one person,Eva Ciccoria,as a part of your arguments in that
debate.
When I was Chair of the Planning Commission,there was one Commissioner who
sometimes would severely challenge someone at the podium.After one case in which a young
woman was observably traumatized by the exchange,I sent out a memo to all Commissioners
in which I reminded all Commissioners of our responsibilities as public representatives.
Attached is that memo.
I don't feel any position of any representative on any matter should be silenced.But in
the discourse of an issue,all public representatives have a duty to show respect for public
input.We are blessed with a talented and bright constituency who take an active role in our
municipal governance.We need to encourage that input;not intimidate it.It is precisely that
public discourse that keeps our democracy alive.If there are issues of disagreement,or
misinformation,then it is our duty as public figures to clearly,fully,and respectfully explain
those discrepancies to the public so that issues can move along in positive direction.
Tom,you are an bright man and have shown leadership in many matters in the past.I
look forward to a continuation in that capacity while at the same time keeping a civility to the
discourse with the public.
Best regards,
Jim Knight
cc:City Council
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.67%!
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
See Refinance Rates.com
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 127
My Fellow Commissioners
I have received feedback on several occasions that public speakers feel
intimidated from presenting their views at our meetings.One of my duties as Chair is to
help facilitate the tone of our meetings and,if we are creating a tone that in any way is
unsettling to the public,I would like to find a way to correct it.In order to facilitate a
friendlier ambiance for our public,I am requesting that we adhere to the following simple
guidelines:
-Public input should be accepted as information,or opinion,and questions should
be directed at clarifying that information or opinion.
-If you have a strong opinion that is contrary to any member of the public,I
would ask that you not confront the public with your opinion during the public hearing.
Once the public hearing is closed,we are all free to express our opinions in deliberations
and we can articulate how those opinions may differ from what has either been submitted
in written form or said in the public hearing.
Coming forth to speak at a public meeting can be a very challenging task for
some.We not only need to create an atmosphere where a particular speaker feels
comfortable in presenting their arguments either for or against a particular agenda item
(or on any non-agendized issue raised in public comments)but we need to show the
viewing public in general that we,not only listen to,but welcome all input.
Occasionally a member ofthe public is so passionate on a subject,or adamantly
presenting one special interest,it seems as though they are challenging us as
commissioners.It can become tempting to engage an immediate argument,or state a
rhetorical question,but I ask that you to instead take note to express you contrary opinion
in deliberations.Aside from intimidating speakers,we should not create the impression
that we have decided a matter before deliberations.
I do not wish to silence any commissioner.I merely ask that we create a
respectful tone to help facilitate a welcoming atmosphere for the public.If you wish to
clarify the speaker's point while they are at the podium,you can respectfully ask them to
repeat their position relative to a particular backdrop of information.
I would greatly appreciate we all follow these simple guidelines in order to
maintain a professional,friendly disposition at our meetings.
Your Chair,
Jim Knight
ATTACHMENT - 128
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,201011:58 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:ANNENBERG
From:Vic &Sil Quiarte [mailto:vicsilq@cox.net]
sent:Monday,November 29,2010 10:44 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:citymanager@rpv.com
Subject:ANNENBERG
PVPWATCH giving RPV Council kudos,well at least 3 of you,how can that be?Oh
my,the sky is falling.I really don't want to sound sarcastic but it is what it is.When
this Council was elected I was elated,a group of men who could work together.I
guess I was wrong.I have spent roughly 8 years working on Ad Hoc committees for
RPV and we were not always together in our discussions but we were cordial and
heard each others side.Not so with this Council as there was no valid discussion
about the Annenberg Project at the Nov,16 meeting.As I left that meeting I was
confused as to what happened.It was later that it hit me,3 members had voted to
dump the project.I would like to know what your reasons were in voting the way
you did.
About 6 years ago when I was President of Los Serenos,Council approved the
concept of the "Outdoor History Museum"all I had to do was come up with the
money.When the Annenberg Foundation made known that it wanted to build an
Educational Center at Lower Point Vicente I pleaded and begged them to include
the outdoor facility.They said they would.I had found the money after 15 years of
dreaming about the new venue.Coincilmen Stern.Long,and Wolowicz were 3 of
the 5 who voted in favor.Now,with the Nov.16 vote you have dashed that dream,
that reality that was about to happen.The Outpost building that was needed and
the fact that school kids would be able to visit two sites on one school trip saving
school costs will never happen.If just one of you three would change your position
to allow the process through the planning process the final decision may be the
same but at least all arguments would be heard.I still don't know why you each
voted the way you did.There may be a valid reason but I cannot think of one.
Therefore I would like to know what your rationale was. I think you owe me that
much.Thanks for your time.
Vic Quirarte
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 129
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,201010:50 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
Attachments:_Certification_.txt
From:BOB BUSH [mailto:bob.bush@verizon.net]
sent:Wednesday,November 24,201011:52 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Members,City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Councilmembers:
We strongly favor the Annenberg project and continuing the partnership between the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and the Annenberg Foundation,which has resulted in numerous benefits to our community.
The Annenberg Foundation contributed more than $1 million to acquire open space for our conservancy.It is
disheartening to learn the wife of the PVPLC president now is fighting the Annenberg Project.
Please vote at the Nov.30 City Council meeting to reconsider the recent Council action so the Annenberg Project
can be restarted and the planning process can move forward.
Bob and JUdy Bush
6030 Montemalaga Drive
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 130
Annenberg project
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,201010:49 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg project
From:Susan Chang [mailto:sured@cox.net]
sent:Wednesday,November 24,2010 12:24 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg project
Page 1 of 1
For the benefit of all the children on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and visitors from everywhere to the coastal
waters,please reconsider the Annenberg project and vote to approve it as a generous gift to the community for
generations.
Bob and Susan Chang
Palos Verdes Estates
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 131
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,20109:18 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:letter from PVPLC
Attachments:RPV 11.24.1 O.pdf
From:Andrea Vona [mailto:avona@pvplc.org]
sent:Wednesday,November 24,2010 4:54 PM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:letter from PVPLC
Councilmember Long,
Please see the attached letter.This letter is in response to your recent letter about the City Council's
decision regarding the Annenberg proposal.Since your original communication was also seen by the
other Council members,we are taking the liberty of copying them here.We also ask that you post
this letter on your webpage and notify your email recipients that the letter is available.Please let me
know if you require a different format for the letter to be posted.
Best wishes for a lovely Thanksgiving.
Sincerely,
Andrea Von a
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
3 10-541-7613 X204
31 0-930-0583 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 132
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,20109:18 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:letter from PVPLC
Attachments:RPV 11.24.10.pdf
From:Andrea Vona [mailto:avona@pvplc.org]
sent:Wednesday,November 24,2010 4:54 PM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:letter from PVPLC
Councilmember Long,
Please see the attached letter.This letter is in response to your recent letter about the City Council's
decision regarding the Annenberg proposal.Since your original communication was also seen by the
other Council members,we are taking the liberty of copying them here.We also ask that you post
this letter on your webpage and notify your email recipients that the letter is available.Please let me
know if you reqUire a different format for the letter to be posted.
Best wishes for a lovely Thanksgiving.
Sincerely,
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
310-541-7613 X204
31 0-930-0583 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 133
PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL
November 23,2010
Hon.Tom Long,Mayor Pro Tern
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mayor Pro Tern Long:
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC)is grateful to you and the RPV City
Council for your leadership and support in working with the PVPLC and the community to fulfill
the dream of preserving open space on the Peninsula.Given your long history with our
organization,we would like to clarify some of the comments that we feel are misleading with
regard to the PVPLC in your recent letter mailed to your email list about the City Council's
decision regarding the Annenberg proposal for the Lower Pt.Vicente Property.
The PVPLC's mission has been and continues to be to acquire and preserve open space on the
Peninsula through consensual acquisition and obtaining voluntary easements.Thanks to support
by elected officials (yourself included),volunteers and donors,the PVPLC has been effective in
fulfilling that mission,not only in Rancho Palos Verdes,but in the cities of Rolling Hills Estates
and the San Pedro area of Los Angeles,as well.The PVPLC will never seek to secure land by
advocating against projects.As a case in point,the Lower Point Vicente property is City-owned
property that is not in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and the PVPLC has no position on its
disposition and no goal to preserve it as open space.Any other future projects,such as park
improvements at Abalone Cove,will be evaluated solely against the criteria of impacting land or
easements owned by the PVPLC before the Board determines if taking a position is required.
Board members acting in their personal capacities,or their family or friends,might take positions
on projects in the City.As a grass roots organization,we encourage every member of the public,
including those close to us,to be involved in the community and to stand up for their beliefs.
Throughout,our dedicated Board of Directors takes care to keep the PVPLC focused on carrying
forward our work consistent with our core mission and beliefs,but the PVPLC would never
attempt to abridge the right of anyone,including spouses of its board members,to give voice to
differing opinions.
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD #207.ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7613 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
ATTACHMENT - 134
Beyond acquisition,(for which we have raised more than $6 million in cash and assisted in
generating millions more in bond funding),the PVPLC believes that open space lands exist for
the benefit of the whole community-not just those who enjoy the natural vistas.To promote
benefits for areas where open space is preserved,the PVPLC protects the voluntary easements
entrusted to it,restores and preserves native habitat,and connects our community to the land
through educational,leadership and recreational opportunities.To this end,the PVPLC has:
•Authored and secured the Habitat Conservation Fund grant for $190,500 which was
recently awarded to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for trail improvements and
associated habitat restoration projects in Portuguese Bend.
•Authored with support from City staff,the recently awarded grant application to the
Coastal Conservancy for $496,050 for implementation of the Coastal Trail.This grant
was awarded directly to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
•Begun a 21 acre habitat restoration project,above and beyond the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP)requirements,at Three Sisters funded by Los Angeles World
Airports.(no City of Rancho Palos Verdes money required).
•Secured funding for an additional nine acres of habitat enhancement,above and beyond
the NCCP requirements,and additional rare bird surveys in the Portuguese Bend Reserve
(no City of Rancho Palos Verdes money required).
•Served on the Advisory Cabinet for the project at Lower Point Vicente.
•Through its own grant funding,expanded its elementary school education programs to 23
schools in the Peninsula and South Los Angeles areas,providing state curriculum-based
science education and experiences to more than 3,200 students,parents and teachers per
year in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and other preserves we manage.
•Provided public nature walks,for the past twenty years,to various.open space areas
throughout the Peninsula,including the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
Of course,the PVPLC is only part of the picture when it comes to the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve.That land is owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,and the PVPLC has enjoyed a
productive relationship with the City since the acquisition of properties forming toda)!'s
Preserve.Today,the NCCP and other agreements categorize responsibilities for the Preserve
based on who is most suited to do what.The PVPLC's principal roles relate to habitat
restoration,species monitoring,reporting and community reviews.
For the City's part,it has the power to make and enforce laws,and so accordingly,since the
inception ofthe NCCP,its responsibilities include making and enforcing the rules of the
Preserve.The City hired the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority to help with this
responsibility,just as it contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff for law enforcement in
other parts of the City.This division of responsibility had nothing to do with resources or
ability.
Thank you again for your years of dedication to our City.We look forward to continuing to
work with you in your mayoral capacity and with the City for many years to come.
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD #207.ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
ATTACHMENT - 135
Sincerely,
Bill Ailor,Founder,President 1988-2006
Henry Jurgens,President,2006-2010
Ken Swenson,President,2010 to present
cc:Hon.Stefan Wolowicz,Mayor
Hon.Douglas Stem,Council Member
Hon.Anthony Misetich,Council Member
Hon.Brian Campbell,Council Member
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD #207.ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
ATTACHMENT - 136
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 29,20109:11 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday,November 26,20109:46 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Gentlemen:
If you'll recall,there was a poll taken about 10(?)years ago asking the residents of RPV what was most
important to them and a majority responded with 'open space'.I think if you took that poll again today
it wouldn't change.Over the last few years more open space has been added and acquired,more trails
designated to all users throughout Portuguese Bend Preserve,not without some squabbling among the
users,but completed and voted upon,presently being enjoyed.
Why would the council act defiantly against the residents'wishes and push this project onto the public?
The public has spoken,the Council has voted.As the Beatles'said:
'Let It Be'.
I believe the City Staff can still work a solution with Annenberg in finding a more suitable site for the
wonderful concept of the animal center.I've said this before and I'll say it again,I would be the first to
donate to a fund that would jump start a fundraising effort to build a civic center which would
include the 52,000 square foot (over an acre)of building the Annenberg project seeks right where city
hall exists.
We need your three votes to remain unchanged.Please.
Madeline Ryan
"May the Trails be with you"...Madeline
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 137
Page 1 of2
Ara M
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:43 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Support For Annenberg Pt.Vicente Project
From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
sent:Friday,November 19,2010 6:05 PM
To:NOEL PARK
Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Support For Annenberg pt.Vicente Project
Dear Noel,
I appreciate the supportive comments.I think this is about all we can do at this point unless there are
some people out there who can talk some common sense into the other 3.
I won't sugar coat this.The project is likely dead.As is the prospect of our city ever having a public-
private partnership in our lifetimes.When the council voted in 2008 to allow the application to proceed,
that vote meant that we felt the project was worth going through the full planning process.It also meant
we felt the project was consistent with the general plan because we did not ask for a general plan
amendment.
Even though the National Park Service representative tempered his comments,and even though the deed
restrictions do not say what people think they say,and even though the NPS indicated it would really be
best to apply for determinations on the deed restrictions (which can also be amended)with a complete
project that has gone through the entire planning process,the council oddly decided to abort that
process.
The council members had each told Annenberg they supported the project and wanted it to go through
the full planning process before the meeting.3 of them then blindsided the foundation by voting as they
did.
The concerns raised by the opponents of the project are exactly the kinds of concerns addressed in a
planning process.I won't address the merits in detail but I will say that the opponents are misinformed.
To not even give Annenberg a chance to address them in a full planning process after years of work and
millions of dollars being spent is not businesslike.Other private donors were in the audience watching.
Those other donors and anyone else who does their homework and understands how our community
works will never want to work with us.
We may get a few minor improvements to parks here and there but get used to our "civic center"of a
used army barracks and rusted trailers because it is all there is likely to be in your lifetime and mine.
The community does not support improvements in civic life and so seems destined to the decay that
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 138
Page 2 of2
communities that have such a negative attitude frequently suffer.
I am embarrassed to be an RPV resident and councilmember this week.Maybe things will get better.I
doubt it.
Staff please include this exchange in a Friday report.
Tom Long
-----Original Message-----
From:"NOEL PARK"<noel@jdcorvette.com>
Sent 11/19/2010 5:33:52 PM
To:cc@rpv.com,"'Carolyn Lehr'"<clehr@rpv.com>,jrojas@rpv.com
Subject:Support For Annenberg Pt.Vicente Project
6715 EI rodeo Road
RPV,CA 90275
(310)377-4035 home
(562)201-2128 cell
I am saddened to see that this project seems to have been delayed.I think that it is a worthy project,and I hope
that you will find the means to allow it to go forward.
In my opinion,the Annenberg foundation has been a good and generous neighbor and supporter to our City.I
believe that this relationship should be preserved and nurtured by whatever means possible.I sincerely hope that
you will find a way to work collaboratively with the Annenberg folks to find a way to meet their needs along with
those of the City.I hope that you will make every effort to reach out to them at this difficult time to make sure that
they understand that they are valued and respected members of our community,and that we will strive to work
with them to arrive at a mutually satisfactory and beneficial conclusion.
I know that you all have our community's best interest at heart.I am confident that this will all work out for the
best.
Very best regards,
Noel Park
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 139
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:42 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg FYI
Attachments:Annenberg_2_Dear RPV Residents.doc
From:Tom Long [mailto:tom_longrpv@msn.com]
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 11:22 AM
To:carolyn Lehr;carolynn Petru
Subject:Annenberg FYI
This was sent out to my e-mail list.
Tom Long
12115/2010
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT - 140
Dear RPV Residents,
The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg Project bears
some additional discussion because of the consequences it may bring.I have
had additional time to garner some facts about what happened and they present
a picture that should be made public.The decision was singularly the worst I
have seen in my seven years on council because of the substance but even
more importantly the process behind the decision.The city's decision was the
product of a 3-2 vote on November 16th that can be reconsidered if one of those
in the majority (Wolowicz,Misetich,or Campbell)chooses to support
reconsideration.I urge you to write to the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to
do so and to do it at our next meeting on November 30th.
In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stern in favor and
Wolowicz dissenting)to proceed with the planning application for the Annenberg
Project.At the time the council determined that the project would not require a
general plan amendment.The project continued to move forward to the point
that a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial hearing was held before the planning
commission a few months ago.
Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably Eva
Ciccoria,contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service (NPS)to
lobby against the project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife of Palos Verdes Land
Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is also actively lobbying the
State of California to block grant applications for other park improvements in the
city.Siegenthaler was told that the Annenberg Project was a "dog pound"and
relayed that misrepresentation of the project to his superiors in Washington D.C.
Without contacting either the Annenberg Foundation or other supporters of the
project or any elected officials,Siegenthaler attended planning commission
meetings where he spoke mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not
all,members of the planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting that the
project violated deed and program of utilization (POU)restrictions but also
admitting that he really did not have complete information about the project.His
letters also failed to explain the process for getting an official determination from
the NPS or for seeking amendments to restrictions if needed.Siegenthaler's
letters were a premature judgment on the project based on misrepresentations.
Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to obtain
Siegenthaler's files to try to learn more.Interestingly Ms.Ciccoria learned of my
FOIA request before I got a letter from the NPS acknowledging receipt of the
request.Ciccoria contacted me to complain about the request and to demand
that I withdraw it.She cannot articulate any good reason,however,for her desire
to conceal the NPS files from the public.I have received only a limited partial
response to my request.If and when I get a complete response I will post the
results on my webpage.
ATTACHMENT - 141
In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring its
proposed project through the planning process.Over the two years since the
council's 2008 vote to permit the application to proceed,the project was further
modified to address concerns.Over the course of the past few months
Annenberg's representatives met with each councilmember and was assured of
support by each.Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the foundation that
he was "100%in support"of allowing the application to proceed.
In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project opponents
continued to misrepresent the project describing it as a "huge development,"a
"dog pound"and an "animal hospital."The former commercial farm and
untended fields where the project would be located were falsely described by
opponents as "pristine open space."The proposed building footprint on 3%of
the land was described as "dense development"and all of the non-building
features of the project and many of its other aspects were simply ignored.
Opponents of the project mischaracterized Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as
the deed restrictions and the POU.The deed was misrepresented as requiring
"open space passive recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase "open
space"or the word "passive"anywhere.
The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.
Siegenthaler's letters.Understandably the planning commission felt that it
needed guidance from the city council as to how to proceed in light of the letters.
At the council hearing on November 16th Ciccoria and others falsely
characterized the letters as a final decision of the NPS that demonstrated that the
actions of the council allowing the project to proceed were "illegal."Ciccoria was
again resorting to misrepresentation.Mr.Siegenthaler explained that his letters
were preliminary and did not represent a final NPS decision.He clearly indicated
that such decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a determination.
Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the determination based on a
project that had gone through the entire planning process.The process also
includes the ability to seek amendments to the restrictions if necessary.
Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th ,it should
have been easy for the council to send the project back to the planning
commission with instructions to continue the process.Siegenthaler had clearly
indicated that NPS was willing to work with Annenberg and with the staff.
Nothing about the project had changed to justify reconsidering the council's 2008
determination that the project was worth considering in the planning process.
And no council member identified any new information that justified reversing his
earlier declaration of support of the project.
Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers voted to abort
the planning process.One of the three,Councilman Campbell,continued to say
he supported the project.Councilman Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their
ATTACHMENT - 142
votes largely unexplained.After 4 years of work and after clear earlier
indications that it felt the project should get a full hearing in the planning process,
the council abruptly ended the process without a coherent explanation.In light of
this,a number of people understandably have expressed the view to me that the
trustworthiness of RPV's council is questionable.
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project,all of the
residents of RPV should be appalled by the process used to kill the project.
Much of the process was hidden from public view and left totally unexplained.
Much of it was based on misinformation that the Annenberg Foundation was not
given an opportunity to fully answer through public exposure of that
misinformation and through the public hearings of the planning process.
We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled,even
more than just the rejection of the project,will have serious ramifications for RPV.
Major private donors were in the audience on November 16th watching how our
city council handles donors.One was heard to remark "I don't need to go
through something like this."Another donor has withdrawn some funds that were
on deposit with the city for possible civic center improvements-interestingly
redirecting them to PVPLC.Of course PVPLC has taken no official position on
the Annenberg Project or any other land use matter in RPV.But its President
previously joined his wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the city's
application for a grant to provide park improvements at Abalone Cove.That
lobbying too was characterized by misrepresentations.
Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area)is in the city's Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve,eliminating sources of funding for improvements on public park
land may be seen by some as a way to further expand "open space
preservation."Of course what the city really needs is help protecting and
maintaining the open space it has,not converting its parks into yet more open
space.RPV has had to turn to others,notably the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program,because of the inability of the
PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help the city needs.Hopefully the energies
of those now attacking the city's parks can be redirected to constructively helping
PVPLC fulfill its original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and
charitable foundations and other agencies,those hopes are now likely dashed for
decades to come.While open space preservation has been successful and likely
will be for some time to come,efforts to improve the city's parks,educational
opportunities and its civic life in general are sure to suffer.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT - 143
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2010 4:42 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg decision
From:GROAT99@aol.com [mailto:GROAT99@aol.com]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 11:29 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg decision
Please reconsider the decision regarding the Annenberg Project.Clearly,the project violates the lawfully
intended use of that particular parcel of land,according to the National Park Service.
Candice Groat
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 144
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:42 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
From:GROAT99@aol.com [mailto:GROAT99@aol.com]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 11:32 AM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com;cc@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
I'm sorry,I am opposed to the project and I think I misread your email.
Candice Groat
In a message dated 11/20/2010 11 :23:52 AM.Pacific Standard Time,tomlong@palosverdes.com writes:
I cc@rpv.com asking
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 145
Page 1 of4
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:42 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:SubjectTom Long emails Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
From:Christine Lesniak [mailto:Chris@slaglevideo.com]
sent:Saturday,November 20,201011:46 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Subject:Tom Long emails Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Mr.Long and City Council,
The people voted on this and it was decided.
Was does there need to be any further discussion?
Please pass that on to your constituents and quit wasting our tax dollars discussing it.
Thank You,
Christine Lesniak
On Nov 20,2010,at 12:11 PM,tomlong@palosverdes.com wrote:
Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Message:
Dear RPV Residents,
The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg Project bears some
additional discussion because of the consequences it may bring.I have had additional time
to gamer some facts about what happened and they present a picture that should be made
public.The decision was singularly the worst I have seen in my seven years on council
because of the substance but even more importantly the process behind the decision.The
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 146
Page 2 of4
city's decision was the product ofa 3-2 vote on November 16th that can be reconsidered if
one of those in the majority (Wolowicz,Misetich,or Campbell)chooses to support
reconsideration.I urge you to write to the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to do so and
to do it at our next meeting on November 30th.
In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stern in favor and Wolowicz
dissenting)to proceed with the planning application for the Annenberg Project.At the time
the council determined that the project would not require a general plan amendment.The
project continued to move forward to the point that a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial
hearing was held before the planning commission a few months ago.
Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably Eva Ciccoria,
contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service (NPS)to lobby against the
project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife of Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken
Swenson,is also actively lobbying the State of California to block grant applications for
other park improvements in the city.Siegenthaler was told that the Annenberg Project was
a "dog pound"and relayed that misrepresentation of the project to his superiors in
Washington D.C.Without contacting either the Annenberg Foundation or other supporters
of the project or any elected officials,Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings
where he spoke mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not all,members of the
planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting that the project violated deed and
program of utilization (POD)restrictions but also admitting that he really did not have
complete information about the project. His letters also failed to explain the process for
getting an official determination from the NPS or for seeking amendments to restrictions if
needed.Siegenthaler's letters were a premature judgment on the project based on
misrepresentations.Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
I made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to obtain Siegenthaler's
files to try to learn more.Interestingly Ms.Ciccoria learned of my FOIA request before I
got a letter from the NPS acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me to
complain about the request and to demand that I withdraw it.She cannot articulate any
good reason,however,for her desire to conceal the NPS files from the public.I have
received only a limited partial response to my request.If and when I get a complete
response I will post the results on my webpage.
In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring its proposed
project through the planning process.Over the two years since the council's 2008 vote to
permit the application to proceed,the project was further modified to address
concerns.Over the course of the past few months Annenberg's representatives met with
each councilmember and was assured of support by each.Most significantly Mayor
Wolowicz assured the foundation that he was "100%in support"of allowing the
application to proceed.
In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project opponents continued to
misrepresent the project describing it as a "huge development,"a "dog pound"and
an "animal hospital."The former commercial farm and untended fields where the project
would be located were falsely described by opponents as "pristine open space."The
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 147
Page 3 of4
proposed building footprint on 3%of the land was described as "dense development"and
all of the non-building features of the project and many of its other aspects were simply
ignored.Opponents ofthe project mischaracterized Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as the
deed restrictions and the POU.The deed was misrepresented as requiring "open space
passive recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase "open space"or the
word "passive"anywhere.
The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.Siegenthaler's
letters.Understandably the planning commission felt that it needed guidance from the city
council as to how to proceed in light of the letters.At the council hearing on November
16th Ciccoria and others falsely characterized the letters as a fmal decision of the NPS that
demonstrated that the actions of the council allowing the project to proceed
were "illegal."Ciccoria was again resorting to misrepresentation.Mr.Siegenthaler
explained that his letters were preliminary and did not represent a final NPS decision.He
clearly indicated that such decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a
determination.Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the determination based
on a project that had gone through the entire planning process.The process also includes
the ability to seek amendments to the restrictions if necessary.
Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it should have been
easy for the council to send the project back to the planning commission with instructions
to continue the process.Siegenthaler had clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work
with Annenberg and with the staff.Nothing about the project had changed to justify
reconsidering the council's 2008 determination that the project was worth considering in
the planning process.And no council member identified any new information that justified
reversing his earlier declaration of support of the project.
Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers voted to abort the
planning process.One of the three,Councilman Campbell,continued to say he supported
the project.Councilman Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their votes largely
unexplained.After 4 years of work and after clear earlier indications that it felt the project
should get a full hearing in the planning process,the council abruptly ended the process
without a coherent explanation.In light of this,a number of people understandably have
expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness ofRPV's council is questionable.
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project,all of the residents of
RPV should be appalled by the process used to kill the project.Much of the process was
hidden from public view and left totally unexplained.Much of it was based on
misinformation that the Annenberg Foundation was not given an opportunity to fully
answer through public exposure of that misinformation and through the public hearings of
the planning process.
We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled,even more than
just the rejection of the project,will have serious ramifications for RPV.Major private
donors were in the audience on November 16th watching how our city council handles
donors.One was heard to remark "I don't need to go through something like
this."Another donor has withdrawn some funds that were on deposit with the city for
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 148
Page 4 of4
possible civic center improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC.Of course
PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project or any other land use
matter in RPV.But its President previously joined his wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally
lobbying against the city's application for a grant to provide park improvements at Abalone
Cove.That lobbying too was characterized by misrepresentations.
Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area) is in the city's Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve,eliminating sources of funding for improvements on public park land may be
seen by some as a way to further expand "open space preservation."Of course what the
city really needs is help protecting and maintaining the open space it has,not converting its
parks into yet more open space.RPV has had to turn to others,notably the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program,because of the inability of the
PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help the city needs.Hopefully the energies of those
now attacking the city's parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its
original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and charitable
foundations and other agencies,those hopes are now likely dashed for decades to come.
While open space preservation has been successful and likely will be for some time to
come,efforts to improve the city's parks,educational opportunities and its.civic life in
general are sure to suffer.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 149
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:41 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg project
From:EBPIGGY@aol.com [mailto:EBPIGGY@aol.com]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 1:01 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg project
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to please reconsider your Tues.decision on the Annenberg project in Lower Pt.Vicente.
My property looks down on the proposed sight and I have been eagerly awaiting the start of it.I did not
realize the city would change their mind.
I think it would be wonderful place to volunteer.I was really looking forward to the animal section.
I feel it would be a great addition to our city and increase property values along with it.
Thank you for your time.Please don't let a few selfish people spoil it for the rest of us.
Edith Balog
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 150
Page 1 of5
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:41 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 1:24 PM
To:M and 0 Richardson
Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Don,I did not say PVPLC had taken any position--in fact I pointed out that it had not.I simply
said something that is true.People closely associated with PVPLC are doing things very harmful to the
city and to causes I am trying to advance.They are entitled to advance their causes--although it would
be nice if they could be accurate with the facts.But a lot of energy is being spent trying to convert the
city's parks into open space nature preserve.That is unfortunate.As I said,I wish people would
constructively help PVPLC with its original mission.As a small foundation it needs that help.Surely
there is much more that could be done if more resources were available.For example,native plant
restoration in the Preserve is on a very long timetable and should be on a much shorter one.I can't
imagine that you would suggest that PVPLC has optimal resources now and needs nothing more.I am
sure if we put our minds to it we could come up with many more examples of things that could be
improved.It should not be surprising to the PVPLC and its supporters that when people closely
associated with it seek to disrupt important policies those officials are trying to achieve that there will be
consequences.To suggest that the motive for the consequences is personal animus misses the point.My
point is that resources which could be constructively helping PVPLC are being directed elsewhere
toward very destructive ends and I think it is reasonable for me to make that point.I continue to support
PVPLC and hope that it and its supporters will constructively advance its original mission to preserve
and maintain open space.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
-----Original Message-----
From:"M and D Richardson"
Sent 11120/2010 12:59:47 PM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Mayor Pro Tern Long,
I understand your disappointment and find much of your argument
persuasive.
I believe your attack on the PVPLC,however,is completely
unwarranted,particularly when your only specific criticism is the
suggestion that they are failing to fulfill their mission by not
providing Ranger services.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 151
A couple of quick facts:The current provider is MRCA,not the Santa
Monica Mountain Conservancy as you inaccurately state.MRCA manages
and provides ranger services for a total of 60,000 acres,and area
over 40 times the size ofthe PV preserve.To my knowledge,at no
time in the long process of developing and assisting in the
acquisition of the preserve did PVPLC represent itself as a provider
of ranger services.As you provide no other example of how PVPLC
"clearly needs ...help",I am led to the conclusion that your
disparagement of the organization -left as it was to the end of your
note -stems primarily from personal animus toward Ms.Ciccoria,who
as you note has no official capacity with PVPLC.
I urge you to reconsider your attack on PVPLC.It consists of nothing
more than the same sort of misrepresentation you attribute to the
Annenberg Project opponents.For the time being,it has cost you my
support in this matter.
Respectfully,
Don Richardson
On Nov 20,2010,at 12:12 PM,tomlong@palosverdes.com wrote:
>
>
>From:tomlong@palosverdes.com
>
>Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
>
>
>Message:
>
.>Dear RPV Residents,
>
>The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg
>Project bears some additional discussion because of the
>consequences it may bring.I have had additional time to garner
>some facts about what happened and they present a picture that
>should be made public.The decision was singularly the worst I
>have seen in my seven years on council because of the substance but
>even more importantly the process behind the decision.The city's
>decision was the product of a 3-2 vote on November 16th that can be
>reconsidered if one of those in the majority (Wolowicz,Misetich,
>or Campbell)chooses to support reconsideration.I urge you to
>write to the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to do so and to do
>it at our next meeting on November 30th.
>
>In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stem
>in favor and Wolowicz dissenting)to proceed with the planning
1211512010
Page 20f5
ATTACHMENT - 152
>application for the Annenberg Project.At the time the council
>determined that the project would not require a general plan
>amendment.The project continued to move forward to the point that
>a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial hearing was held before the
>planning commission a few months ago.
>
>Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably
>Eva Ciccoria,contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park
>Service (NPS)to lobby against the project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife
>of Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is
>also actively lobbying the State of California to block grant
>applications for other park improvements in the city.Siegenthaler
>was told that the Annenberg Project was a "dog pound"and relayed
>that misrepresentation of the project to his superiors in
>Washington D.C.Without contacting either the Annenberg Foundation
>or other supporters of the project or any elected officials,
>Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he spoke
>mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not all,members
>of the planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting that the
>project violated deed and program of utilization (POD)restrictions
>but also admitting that he really did not have complete information
>about the project.His letters also failed to explain the process
>for getting an official determination from the NPS or for seeking
>amendments to restrictions if needed.Siegenthaler's letters were
>a premature judgment on the project based on misrepresentations.
>Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
>
>I made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to
>obtain Siegenthaler's files to try to learn more.Interestingly
>Ms.Ciccoria learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter from
>the NPS acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me
>to complain about the request and to demand that I withdraw it.
>She cannot articulate any good reason,however,for her desire to
>conceal the NPS files from the public.I have received only a
>limited partial response to my request.If and when I get a
>complete response I will post the results on my webpage.
>
>In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to
>bring its proposed project through the planning process.Over the
>two years since the council's 2008 vote to permit the application
>to proceed,the project was further modified to address concerns.
>Over the course of the past few months Annenberg's representatives
>met with each councilmember and was assured of support by each.
>Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the foundation that he
>was"100%in support"of allowing the application to proceed.
>
>In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project
>opponents continued to misrepresent the project describing it as a "
>huge development,"a "dog pound"and an "animal hospital."The
>former commercial farm and untended fields where the project would
>be located were falsely described by opponents as "pristine open
12/15/2010
Page 3 of5
ATTACHMENT - 153
>space."The proposed building footprint on 3%of the land was
>described as "dense development"and all of the non-building
>features of the project and many of its other aspects were simply
>ignored.Opponents of the project mischaracterized Mr.
>Siegenthaler's letters as well as the deed restrictions and the
>POU.The deed was misrepresented as requiring "open space passive
>recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase "open space"
>or the word "passive"anywhere.
>
>The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.
>Siegenthaler's letters.Understandably the planning commission
>felt that it needed guidance from the city council as to how to
>proceed in light of the letters.At the council hearing on
>November 16th Ciccoria and others falsely characterized the letters
>as a final decision of the NPS that demonstrated that the actions
>of the council allowing the project to proceed were "illegal."
>Ciccoria was again resorting to misrepresentation.Mr.
>Siegenthaler explained that his letters were preliminary and did
>not represent a final NPS decision.He clearly indicated that such
>decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a
>determination.Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have
>the determination based on a project that had gone through the
>entire planning process.The process also includes the ability to
>seek amendments to the restrictions if necessary.
>
>Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it
>should have been easy for the council to send the project back to
>the planning commission with instructions to continue the process.
>Siegenthaler had clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work
>with Annenberg and with the staff.Nothing about the project had
>changed to justify reconsidering the council's 2008 determination
>that the project was worth considering in the planning process.
>And no council member identified any new information that justified
>reversing his earlier declaration of support of the project.
>
>Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers
>voted to abort the planning process.One of the three,Councilman
>Campbell,continued to say he supported the project.Councilman
>Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained.
>After 4 years of work and after clear earlier indications that it
>felt the project should get a full hearing in the planning process,
>the council abruptly ended the process without a coherent
>explanation.In light of this,a number of people understandably
>have expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness ofRPV's
>council is questionable.
>
>Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg
>Project,all of the residents ofRPV should be appalled by the
>process used to kill the project.Much of the process was hidden
>from public view and left totally unexplained.Much of it was
>based on misinformation that the Annenberg Foundation was not given
12/15/2010
Page 40f5
ATTACHMENT - 154
>an opportunity to fully answer through public exposure of that
>misinformation and through the public hearings of the planning
>process.
>
>We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was
>handled,even more than just the rejection of the project,will
>have serious ramifications for RPV.Major private donors were in
>the audience on November 16th watching how our city council handles
>donors.One was heard to remark "I don't need to go through
>something like this."Another donor has withdrawn some funds that
>were on deposit with the city for possible civic center
>improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC.Of course
>PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project or
>any other land use matter in RPV.But its President previously
>joined his wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the
>city's application for a grant to provide park improvements at
>Abalone Cove.That lobbying too was characterized by
>misrepresentations.
>
>Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area)is in the city's
>Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,eliminating sources of funding for
>improvements on public park land may be seen by some as a way to
>further expand "open space preservation."Of course what the city
>really needs is help protecting and maintaining the open space it
>has,not converting its parks into yet more open space.RPV has
>had to turn to others,notably the Santa Monica Mountains
>Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program, because of the
>inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help the city
>needs.Hopefully the energies of those now attacking the city's
>parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its
>original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
>
>Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV
>and charitable foundations and other agencies,those hopes are now
>likely dashed for decades to come.While open space preservation
>has been successful and likely will be for some time to come,
>efforts to improve the city's parks,educational opportunities and
>its civic life in general are sure to suffer.
>
>Tom Long
>Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
>
>
>
12115/2010
Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENT - 155
Page 1 of4
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2010 4:41 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
From:Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.[mailto:cfw.cwanda@gmail.com]
sent:Saturday,November 20,20101:42 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com;info@pvplc.org
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Tom,
I have discussed my concerns with the Annenberg office (which is next to mine),reviewed their design
and proposal,and agree strongly that reconsideration is in order on November 30.Annenberg has done
great things for Santa Monica -look at the Annenberg facility on the beach below the bluffs.$35 mm
well spent with good construction and good work of architects would be a huge plus for that area of
RPV.
All the City needs to do,in my view,is ask Annenberg to make the project mostly about a nice place for
seniors,adults,and youth to gather,and incidentally (15%)a spot to adopt pets,help pets,honor pets.
The uses are not inconsistent,in my view.Most of the improvements planned (grounds,ground floor of
facility)are about space for people,not pets.
The center is already 85%about a place to gather people,even those without pets.I have no pets and
would feel more than welcome using the facilities they have planned.Annenberg could make clear that
the use of the property would be 85%consistent with what use one can see in places like Santa Monica.
Yoga,pilates,book clubs,Bible study classes,PVP Watch meetings,conservation group meetings,
Sierra Club meetings,running groups,scout meetings,study groups,etc.would be as welcome in
Annenberg RPV as in Annenberg Santa Monica.
Who has a higher or better use of the property?I am not seeing anyone proposing to clear out the old
farming vegetation and do anything interesting with the property.
PVP Watch and the PV land conservation zealots need to be exposed as potentially driving away a huge
opportunity for RPV,misleading the Interior Dept,and misrepresenting facts to RPV.
Good to see you are on this issue in a positive way.Let me know if there is more I can help with.
Regards,
Chris Wilson
On Sat,Nov 20,2010 at 12:11 PM,<tomlong@palosverdes.com>wrote:
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 156
Page 2 of4
Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Message:
Dear RPV Residents,
The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg Project bears some additional
discussion because of the consequences it may bring.I have had additional time to garner some facts
about what happened and they present a picture that should be made public.The decision was
singularly the worst I have seen in my seven years on council because of the substance but even more
importantly the process behind the decision.The city's decision was the product ofa 3-2 vote on
November 16th that can be reconsidered if one of those in the majority (Wolowicz,Misetich,or
Campbell)chooses to support reconsideration.I urge you to write to the council at cc@rpv.com asking
them to do so and to do it at our next meeting on November 30th.
In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stern in favor and Wolowicz dissenting)
to proceed with the planning application for the Annenberg Project.At the time the council determined
that the project would not require a general plan amendment.The project continued to move forward to
the point that a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial hearing was held before the planning commission
a few months ago.
Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably Eva Ciccoria,contacted David
Siegenthaler of the National Park Service (NPS)to lobby against the project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife of
Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is also actively lobbying the State of
California to block grant applications for other park improvements in the city.Siegenthaler was told
that the Annenberg Project was a "dog pound"and relayed that misrepresentation of the project to his
superiors in Washington D.C.Without contacting either the Annenberg Foundation or other supporters
of the project or any elected officials,Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he
spoke mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not all,members of the planning commission.
He wrote letters suggesting that the project violated deed and program of utilization (POD)restrictions
but also admitting that he really did not have complete information about the project.His letters also
failed to explain the process for getting an official determination from the NPS or for seeking
amendments to restrictions if needed.Siegenthaler's letters were a premature judgment on the project
based on misrepresentations.Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
I made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to obtain Siegenthaler's files to try to
learn more.Interestingly Ms.Ciccoria learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter from the NPS
acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me to complain about the request and to
demand that I withdraw it.She cannot articulate any good reason,however,for her desire to conceal the
NPS files from the public.I have received only a limited partial response to my request.If and when I
get a complete response I will post the results on my webpage.
In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring its proposed project through the
planning process.Over the two years since the council's 2008 vote to permit the application to proceed,
the project was further modified to address concerns.Over the course of the past few months
Annenberg's representatives met with each councilmember and was assured of support by each.Most
significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the foundation that he was "100%in support"of allowing the
application to proceed.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 157
Page 3 of4
In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project opponents continued to misrepresent
the project describing it as a "huge development,"a "dog pound"and an "animal hospital."The former
commercial farm and untended fields where the project would be located were falsely described by
opponents as "pristine open space."The proposed building footprint on 3%of the land was described as
"dense development"and all of the non-building features of the project and many of its other aspects
were simply ignored.Opponents of the project mischaracterized Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as the
deed restrictions and the POU.The deed was misrepresented as requiring "open space passive
recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase "open space"or the word "passive"anywhere.
The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.Siegenthaler's letters.
Understandably the planning commission felt that it needed guidance from the city council as to how to
proceed in light of the letters.At the council hearing on November 16th Ciccoria and others falsely
characterized the letters as a final decision of the NPS that demonstrated that the actions of the council
allowing the project to proceed were "illegal."Ciccoria was again resorting to misrepresentation.Mr.
Siegenthaler explained that his letters were preliminary and did not represent a final NPS decision.He
clearly indicated that such decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a determination.
Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the determination based on a project that had gone
through the entire planning process.The process also includes the ability to seek amendments to the
restrictions if necessary.
Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it should have been easy for the
council to send the project back to the planning commission with instructions to continue the process.
Siegenthaler had clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work with Annenberg and with the staff.
Nothing about the project had changed to justify reconsidering the council's 2008 determination that the
project was worth considering in the planning process.And no council member identified any new
information that justified reversing his earlier declaration of support of the project.
Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers voted to abort the planning process.
One of the three,Councilman Campbell,continued to say he supported the project.Councilman
Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained.After 4 years of work and after clear
earlier indications that it felt the project should get a full hearing in the planning process,the council
abruptly ended the process without a coherent explanation.In light of this,a number of people
understandably have expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness ofRPV's council is questionable.
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project,all of the residents ofRPV should
be appalled by the process used to kill the project.Much of the process was hidden from public view
and left totally unexplained.Much of it was based on misinformation that the Annenberg Foundation
was not given an opportunity to fully answer through public exposure of that misinformation and
through the public hearings of the planning process.
We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled,even more than just the
rejection of the project,will have serious ramifications for RPV.Major private donors were in the
audience on November 16th watching how our city council handles donors.One was heard to remark "I
don't need to go through something like this."Another donor has withdrawn some funds that were on
deposit with the city for possible civic center improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC.
Of course PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project or any other land use matter
in RPV.But its President previously joined his wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the
city's application for a grant to provide park improvements at Abalone Cove.That lobbying too was
characterized by misrepresentations.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 158
Page 40f4
Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area) is in the city's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,
eliminating sources of funding for improvements on public park land may be seen by some as a way to
further expand "open space preservation."Of course what the city really needs is help protecting and
maintaining the open space it has,not converting its parks into yet more open space.RPV has had to
turn to others,notably the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program,
because of the inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help the city needs.Hopefully the
energies of those now attacking the city's parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC
fulfill its original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and charitable foundations and
other agencies,those hopes are now likely dashed for decades to come.While open space preservation
has been successful and likely will be for some time to come,efforts to improve the city's parks,
educational opportunities and its civic life in general are sure to suffer.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
Christopher F.Wilson,Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard,Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
3103162500
fax:310 543 2526
9J}Y,~Wm1<:ll!@grrH!iL9Qm
Notice:This message and any attachment(s)are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error,
please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system.If
you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment,disclose the
contents to any other person,or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment.
Circular 230 Disclosure:To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice,
we inform you that any advice (including in any attachment)(1)was not written and is not intended to
be used,and cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalty that may be imposed on
the taxpayer,and (2)may not be used in connection with promoting,marketing or recommending to
another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 159
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:41 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg project
From:Eric Randall [mailto:pvrandall@gmail.com]
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 1:43 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg project
Hi,
As one of the founders of RPV I support stopping the Annenberg poject a currently proposed.If
Annenberg were to change to be sensitive to the location and feature aquatic animals rather than
terrestrial ones I would support the project.It shows that RPV is not for sale.Good for you!
Eric Randall
Eric Randall,MBA,SRES,ABR
Real Estate Broker -Peninsula Sotheby's International Realty
Mobile:310.962.8538
Fax:310.544.6353
Email:eric@ericrandall.com
:W:WW,PfllQsY~rd~_s=sQJJJhhflyhmll.~~,_G..Q
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 160
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:40 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:LETTER TO ED.--ANNENBERG
From:Vic &Sil Quiarte [mailto:vicsilq@cox.net)
sent:Saturday,November 20,20102:04 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:citymanager@rpv.com
Subject:FW:LETTER TO ED.--ANNENBERG
From:Vic &Sil Quiarte [mailto:vicsilq@cox.net)
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 1:25 PM
To:'Ashley Ratcliff
Cc:'citymanager@rpv.com'
Subject:LETTER TO ED.--ANNENBERG
Sirs,
On Nov.16 you vote4d 3 to 2 to reject Staff recommendations regarding the
Annenberg Project for Lower Point Vicente.In so doing you blindsided the
Foundation as well as all the folks who were proponents and City Staff.The
Councilmen responsible for the poorly thought out vote are,as you know,Mayor
Wolowicz ,and Councilmen Campbell and Misetich all nice people but lacking
enough background to make the quick decision they did.For example,did you
know that Upper Point Vicente is under the same restrictions as Lower Point
Vicente?Therefore the building cannot be built there because the Foundation
would have to go thru the same loops.Further,The toxic pcb problems would have
to be mitigated to build any thing up there and that would cost millions more.The
best thing that you can do is to revisit the item by agendizing the action at the next
Council meeting but that must take action by one of the three who voted against the
project.I hope one of you "man's up"to do the right thing. A couple of weeks ago
three Councilmen had the "lame duck"tag but it seems to me that now there are 5
"lame ducks".
Vic Quirarte
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 161
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:40 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Mike Koerner [mailto:mkoerner@cox.net]
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 3:02 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Honorable councilmen,
I would like to thank you for opposing this project,which I consider silly and pointless.I would rather have a field
of weeds then see my city land put to such an inane use.If we can't find something worthwhile to do with the
land,let's leave it empty for future generations consider.
In opposing this project we also avoided the attendant increase in traffic across the south side of the hill which is
already massively impacted by the Terranea Resort.
Just because someone has money doesn't mean they have a lick of sense,or that as a city we should stoop to
their whims.
Mike Koerner
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 162
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:40 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Jacki Bacharach [mailto:jackibach@cox.net]
sent:Saturday,November 20,20103:30 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';Tom Long;Steve Wolowicz;Brian Campbell;'Anthony Misetich';Douglas W.Stern
Subject:Annenberg Project
I was appalled to read in the newspapers that the Annenberg Project was halted at the November
16 City Council meeting.The Annenberg Foundation has worked for the last several years to
accommodate the council's and the community's concerns and using an ambiguous interpretation from
the National Park Service which wasn't verified by city staffis not the way to make a final
determination.
I strongly urge the council to re-consider their action of November 16 at the November 30 meeting and
request the city staff to work with all agencies and the Annenberg Foundation to secure all necessary
support to move forward.Only if that effort is unsuccessful should the council consider stopping this
project.
The existing site could be greatly enhanced with the amenities proposed.It is a sad commentary that
those that want to stop this project are focusing on some notion of the status quo in which no one is
using that part of the site instead of the possibilities that this project affords the community.
There was controversy when we considered building the Point Vicente Interpretive Center which has
greatly enriched our city.If we had listened to the opposition,it would not be here today and we would
all be poorer for it.
Please re-consider your previous action.
Sincerely,
Jacki Bacharach
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 163
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:40 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Animal Shelter and or Animal/Mammal Researh/Study Center*is not suitable at any location
linking to the propose "Annenberg Foundation Project"!
From:Vivien Yang [mailto:vivien.yang@cox.net]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 3:42 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Animal Shelter and or Animal/Mammal Researh/Study Center*is not suitable at any location linking to
the propose "Annenberg Foundation Project"!
Dear Councilmen and City Manager of RPV,CA.
We must send out more reading material and have proposed project available for all RPV residents/home
owners to educate and read may be via the Daily Breeze so everyone understands the project!This is the same
thing as the Marymount Expansion project"we are going thru.a similar situation again with projects and
development in the area ...I have talked with many folks,they are against the project!!Most people,when they
hear dog park,they get excited!!It can lead to problems on Hawthorne Blvd.!vy/MBA/Resident of RPV 310 377-
7272(office).
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 164
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carofynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:39 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg
From:Dick Hayes [mailto:polyrich1@cox.net]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,20104:35 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg
Please do not reconsider your decision to kill the Annenberg project.You did the right thing
and represented the majority of residents.Never mind whether T.Long disagrees with the
outcome or the process.
Dick Hayes
RPV
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 165
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:39 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg
From:William 0 Simpson [mailto:Rc3dflyer@cox.net]
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 4:47 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg
When the Pt.Vicente property was given to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes it seems to me that the intent was
that the property be used by the public in perpetuity.Would the donor be happy if some of the property was given
to a private corporation?I don't think so.-Bill Simpson
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 166
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:38 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Please do not reconsider Annenburg project during Nov.30th City Council Meeting
From:April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 4:59 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Ken Delong
Subject:Please do not reconsider Annenburg project during Nov.30th City Council Meeting
Dear Council Members,
I urge the council not support Annenburg project.
Councilman Long's recent letter to RPV residents asserts some
silly,offensive views and reveals a personal resentment at having
lost,in this case. It's always frustrating to "lose".Nonetheless this
is not reason enough to warrant moving the Annenburg proj ect
forward.
.
I think the important Issue is the city's interest and or need to
partnership with private investors rather than direct the focus on a
specific land use.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
April L.Sandell
RPV
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 167
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:32 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenbery Project
From:Charles Agnew [mailto:cvagnew@cox.net]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,20105:10 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenbery Project
It's dead.Leave it dead.Impeach Long.
12/15/2010
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT - 168
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,November 23,20104:31 PM
'Ara M'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:What changed for Annenberg?
-----Original Message-----
From:Gary Palmer [mailto:Gary@GetMyMail.org]
Sent:Saturday,November 20/2010 5:16 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:What changed for Annenberg?
The notes and results from the 16-Nov meeting leave me wondering if more was stated
outside the meeting and kept from public scrutiny.From reading notes,editorials,and
communications it appears there is a lot of misinformation and unexplained dramatic change
of direction.
Given that Annenberg is still trying to work with the city,it would be a good thing that
those who believed in the project either publicly state why they changed position or
continue to support the project.It was sudden changes and decisions,without statement
of basis,that lead many of us residents to distrust and vote out prior council members.
It seems some people are providing the council misinformation.I would urge the council
to reconsider before too late.It is not reasonable to alter direction so abruptly and
without explanation after so long a record of support.It does appear that the vociferous
few are bending the council to their ways.
Please reconsider the council position to bock the Annenberg project.
Without explanation of sudden changes of opinion,I am left distrusting my council.
Cheers,
Gary Palmer
31009 Rue Langlois
RPV,CA 90275
1
ATTACHMENT - 169
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
2010 11_20 TO
CC.doc (28 KB)
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,November 23,20104:31 PM
'AraM'
'Joel Rojas'
FW:Annenberg Project
201011_20 TO CC.doc
-----Original Message-----
From:itsthebarrys@cox.net [mailto:itsthebarrys@cox.net]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 5:57 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Mayor Wolowicz and Council Members:
Please see attached.
Robert and Joan Barry
1
ATTACHMENT - 170
November 20,2010
Dear City Council Members:
We were very disturbed by the outcome of the early morning decision of City Council on November 17th
regarding the Annenberg Project.We feel that you did the Annenberg people,the City,and its residents
a great disservice by not completing the planning process,and not sending it back to the Planning
Commission and staff.
Surely you recognized the great deal of misrepresentation presented by the opposition.They
mischaracterized NPS representative Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as the deed restrictions.Ms.
Ciccoria and others falsely characterized the letters from the NPS as final,when Mr.Siegenthaler
specifically stated that his letter did not represent a final NPS decision,and that this decision cannot be
made UNTIL the City applies for a determination.He clearly indicated that he was willing to work with
staff and the Annenberg people.
We feel you did not do your homework in looking into the NPS's correspondence,and the fact that Ms.
Ciccoria tried to conceal the NPS files from the public,which is reprehensible.The least you should have
done is to revisit the land use issue,and not base your decisions on the misrepresentations of a few
opponents,who by their own admission attained the majority of their GOO-some signatures from people
who do not live in our city.
The majority of the opponents targeted the one animal building sitting on 3%of the land,and the
remaining 97%of the passive recreational/educational/interpretive project was ignored.The City and
the PVPLC have attained a vast amount of open space,which is wonderful.But many of us do not bike
or hike or horseback ride,and would prefer to sit at a picnic table with our family,or walk the paths
around the Tongva "gathering area"and dry farm area,or visit the Point Vicente Interpretive Center or
the animal building.And we hope the City Council recognizes the balance needed between these two
land uses.
No new factual information was presented which would give you pause to re-consider the original 2008
consideration of the plan.The Planning Commission was seeking guidance from the City Council,and
you did not give it to them.We urge you to reconsider the issue immediately,at your next meeting on
November 30th •
Sincerely,
Robert and Joan Barry
30770 Ganado Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ATTACHMENT - 171
Page 1 of6
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:31 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
From:M and D Richardson [mailto:medon@cox.net]
sent:Saturday,November 20,20106:09 PM
To:Tom Long
Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Tom,
Thanks for the quick reply.One more thing.
In addition to the issues identified in my earlier note,this statement from your note confused me when I
first read it:
"Another donor has withdrawn some funds that were on deposit with the city for possible civic
center improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC."Taken in the context of your note,this statement
seems to indicate that the donor,having witnessed the conflict over the Annenberg project,took the money away from
the city and gave it to PVPLC.
As it's been a little rainy today,I took the time to poke around the city council archives and have concluded that you
are referring to the Allen and Charlotte Ginsburg donation.(If!am incorrect,then there is no need to read on.)City
council records (March 2,2010 Mid-Year Financial Report)indicate that in November,2009 -one full year ago -Dr.
Ginsburg instructed that $300,000 be transferred to PVPLC to support an open space purchase.I assume this was in
conjunction with the York transaction.The record of the November 2007 city council meeting during which the
donation was discussed clearly identifies open space purchase as one of two potential uses documented in the original
agreement between the Ginsburgs and the city.
I hope you can see how your omission of an accurate timeline and use of the phrase "interestingly
redirecting them to PVPLC"to describe this transfer appears intentionally misleading.
Please understand that I have no particular position on this matter.In fact,I generally agree with you
that the planning process should go forward if for no other reason than to provide certainty regarding
the restriction issues.However,I believe you have at best clouded matters and likely damaged the
credibility of your argument with the repeated references to PVPLC.You did not,as you put
it,"simply (say)something that is true."You embellished facts with innuendo and inaccuracy,the very
practices you attribute to the Annenberg Project opponents.In my opinion,fighting fire with fire is a
losing tactic in this case.(I had to get at least one cliched phrase in there somewhere.)
Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your continued service to the community.
Don Richardson
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 172
Page 2 of6
On Nov 20,2010,at 9:23 PM,Tom Long wrote:
Dear Don,I did not say PVPLC had taken any position--in fact I pointed out that it had not.I simply
said something that is true.People closely associated with PVPLC are doing things very harmful to the
city and to causes I am trying to advance.They are entitled to advance their causes--although it would
be nice if they could be accurate with the facts.But a lot of energy is being spent trying to convert the
city's parks into open space nature preserve.That is unfortunate.As I said,I wish people would
constructively help PVPLC with its original mission.As a small foundation it needs that help.Surely
there is much more that could be done if more resources were available.For example,native plant
restoration in the Preserve is on a very long timetable and should be on a much shorter one.I can't
imagine that you would suggest that PVPLC has optimal resources now and needs nothing more.I am
sure if we put our minds to it we could come up with many more examples of things that could be
improved.It should not be surprising to the PVPLC and its supporters that when people closely
associated with it seek to disrupt important policies those officials are trying to achieve that there will
be consequences.To suggest that the motive for the consequences is personal animus misses the point.
My point is that resources which could be constructively helping PVPLC are being directed elsewhere
toward very destructive ends and I think it is reasonable for me to make that point.I continue to support
PVPLC and hope that it and its supporters will constructively advance its original mission to preserve
and maintain open space.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
-----Original Message-----
From:"M and D Richardson"
Sent 11/20/2010 12:59:47 PM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Mayor Pro Tern Long,
I understand your disappointment and find much of your argument
persuaSIve.
I believe your attack on the PVPLC,however,is completely
unwarranted,particularly when your only specific criticism is the
suggestion that they are failing to fulfill their mission by not
providing Ranger services.
A couple of quick facts:The current provider is MRCA,not the Santa
Monica Mountain Conservancy as you inaccurately state.MRCA manages
and provides ranger services for a total of 60,000 acres,and area
over 40 times the size ofthe PV preserve.To my knowledge,at no
time in the long process of developing and assisting in the
acquisition of the preserve did PVPLC represent itself as a provider
of ranger services.As you provide no other example of how PVPLC
"clearly needs ...help",I am led to the conclusion that your
disparagement of the organization -left as it was to the end of your
note -stems primarily from personal animus toward Ms.Ciccoria,who
as you note has no official capacity with PVPLC.
I urge you to reconsider your attack on PVPLC.It consists of nothing
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 173
more than the same sort of misrepresentation you attribute to the
Annenberg Project opponents.For the time being,it has cost you my
support in this matter.
Respectfully,
Don Richardson
On Nov 20,2010,at 12:12 PM,tomlong@palosverdes.com wrote:
>
>
>From:tomlQ!1g@palo~verd~~,.Y9Jn
>
>Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
>
>
>Message:
>
>Dear RPV Residents,
>
>The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg
>Project bears some additional discussion because of the
>consequences it may bring.I have had additional time to garner
>some facts about what happened and they present a picture that
>should be made public.The decision was singularly the worst I
>have seen in my seven years on council because of the substance but
>even more importantly the process behind the decision.The city's
>decision was the product of a 3-2 vote on November 16th that can be
>reconsidered if one of those in the majority (Wolowicz,Misetich,
>or Campbell)chooses to support reconsideration.I urge you to
>write to the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to do so and to do
>it at our next meeting on November 30th.
>
>In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stem
>in favor and Wolowicz dissenting)to proceed with the planning
>application for the Annenberg Project.At the time the council
>determined that the project would not require a general plan
>amendment.The project continued to move forward to the point that
>a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial hearing was held before the
>planning commission a few months ago.
>
>Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably
>Eva Ciccoria,contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park
>Service (NPS)to lobby against the project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife
>of Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is
>also actively lobbying the State of California to block grant
>applications for other park improvements in the city.Siegenthaler
>was told that the Annenberg Project was a "dog pound"and relayed
>that misrepresentation of the project to his superiors in
12/15/2010
Page 3 of6
ATTACHMENT - 174
>Washington D.C.Without contacting either the Annenberg Foundation
>or other supporters of the project or any elected officials,
>Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he spoke
>mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not all,members
>of the planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting that the
>project violated deed and program of utilization (POD)restrictions
>but also admitting that he really did not have complete information
>about the project.His letters also failed to explain the process
>for getting an official determination from the NPS or for seeking
>amendments to restrictions ifneeded.Siegenthaler's letters were
>a premature judgment on the project based on misrepresentations.
>Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
>
>I made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to
>obtain Siegenthaler's files to try to learn more.Interestingly
>Ms.Ciccoria learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter from
>the NPS acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me
>to complain about the request and to demand that I withdraw it.
>She cannot articulate any good reason,however,for her desire to
>conceal the NPS files from the public.I have received only a
>limited partial response to my request.If and when I get a
>complete response I will post the results on my webpage.
>
>In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to
>bring its proposed project through the planning process.Over the
>two years since the council's 2008 vote to permit the application
>to proceed,the project was further modified to address concerns.
>Over the course of the past few months Annenberg's representatives
>met with each councilmember and was assured of support by each.
>Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the foundation that he
>was"100%in support"of allowing the application to proceed.
>
>In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project
>opponents continued to misrepresent the project describing it as a "
>huge development,"a "dog pound"and an "animal hospital."The
>former commercial farm and untended fields where the project would
>be located were falsely described by opponents as "pristine open
>space."The proposed building footprint on 3%of the land was
>described as "dense development"and all of the non-building
>features of the project and many of its other aspects were simply
>ignored.Opponents of the project mischaracterized Mr.
>Siegenthaler's letters as well as the deed restrictions and the
>POU.The deed was misrepresented as requiring "open space passive
>recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase "open space"
>or the word "passive"anywhere.
>
>The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.
>Siegenthaler's letters.Understandably the planning commission
>felt that it needed guidance from the city council as to how to
>proceed in light of the letters.At the council hearing on
>November 16th Ciccoria and others falsely characterized the letters
12/15/2010
Page 4 of6
ATTACHMENT - 175
>as a final decision of the NPS that demonstrated that the actions
>of the council allowing the project to proceed were "illegal."
>Ciccoria was again resorting to misrepresentation.Mr.
>Siegenthaler explained that his letters were preliminary and did
>not represent a final NPS decision.He clearly indicated that such
>decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a
>determination.Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have
>the determination based on a project that had gone through the
>entire planning process.The process also includes the ability to
>seek amendments to the restrictions if necessary.
>
>Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it
>should have been easy for the council to send the project back to
>the planning commission with instructions to continue the process.
>Siegenthaler had clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work
>with Annenberg and with the staff.Nothing about the project had
>changed to justify reconsidering the council's 2008 determination
>that the project was worth considering in the planning process.
>And no council member identified any new information that justified
>reversing his earlier declaration of support of the project.
>
>Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers
>voted to abort the planning process.One of the three,Councilman
>Campbell,continued to say he supported the project.Councilman
>Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained.
>After 4 years of work and after clear earlier indications that it
>felt the project should get a full hearing in the planning process,
>the council abruptly ended the process without a coherent
>explanation.In light of this,a number of people understandably
>have expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness of RPV's
>council is questionable.
>
>Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg
>Project,all of the residents of RPV should be appalled by the
>process used to kill the project.Much ofthe process was hidden
>from public view and left totally unexplained.Much of it was
>based on misinformation that the Annenberg Foundation was not given
>an opportunity to fully answer through public exposure of that
>misinformation and through the public hearings of the planning
>process.
>
>We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was
>handled,even more than just the rejection of the project,will
>have serious ramifications for RPV.Major private donors were in
>the audience on November 16th watching how our city council handles
>donors.One was heard to remark "I don't need to go through
>something like this."Another donor has withdrawn some funds that
>were on deposit with the city for possible civic center
>improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC.Of course
>PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project or
>any other land use matter in RPV.But its President previously
12/15/2010
Page 5 of6
ATTACHMENT - 176
>joined his wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the
>city's application for a grant to provide park improvements at
>Abalone Cove.That lobbying too was characterized by
>misrepresentations.
>
>Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area)is in the city's
>Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,eliminating sources of funding for
>improvements on public park land may be seen by some as a way to
>further expand "open space preservation."Of course what the city
>really needs is help protecting and maintaining the open space it
>has,not converting its parks into yet more open space.RPV has
>had to turn to others,notably the Santa Monica Mountains
>Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program,because of the
>inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help the city
>needs.Hopefully the energies of those now attacking the city's
>parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its
>original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
>
>Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV
>and charitable foundations and other agencies,those hopes are now
>likely dashed for decades to come.While open space preservation
>has been successful and likely will be for some time to come,
>efforts to improve the city's parks,educational opportunities and
>its civic life in general are sure to suffer.
>
>Tom Long
>Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
>
>
>
12/15/2010
Page 60f6
ATTACHMENT - 177
Annenberg Project
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:30 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Kin &Lily [mailto:tanyow@earthlink.net]
sent:Saturday,November 20,201010:40 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear Council Members:
Page 1 of 1
I want to express my family's support for the Annenberg Project and was greatly disappointed that the City
Council had voted to abort the planning process for the Annenberg Project.We believe that this Project will
bring great benefits to RPV and support our outdoor and park facilities with no money from the tax payers.
I find it hard to believe that the Council has chosen not to support this project.My wife and I urge the City
Council to reconsider their decision.
Sincerely,
Kin and Lily Tan
6716 Locklenna Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA90275
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 178
Page 1 of4
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:29 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
SUbject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Attachments:Annenberg Tom Long Response Nov 20.doc
From:Ned Mansour [mailto:ndmansour@yahoo.com]
sent:Sunday,November 21,2010 10:37 AM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com;carolyn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Hello Tom
Please see the attached.
Ned
---On Sat,11/20/10,tomlong@palosverdes.com <tomlong@palosverdes.com>wrote:
From:tomlong@palosverdes.com <tomlong@palosverdes.com>
Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
To:NDMANSOUR@YAHOO.COM
Date:Saturday,November 20,2010,12:12 PM
From:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Message:
Dear RPV Residents,
The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg Project bears some additional
discussion because of the consequences it may bring.I have had additional time to garner some
facts about what happened and they present a picture that should be made public.The decision
was singularly the worst I have seen in my seven years on council because of the substance but
even more importantly the process behind the decision.The city's decision was the product of a
3-2 vote on November 16th that can be reconsidered if one of those in the majority (Wolowicz,
Misetich,or Campbell)chooses to support reconsideration.I urge you to write to the council at
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 179
Page 2 of4
9~@mY,QQm asking them to do so and to do it at our next meeting on November 30th.
In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stem in favor and Wolowicz
dissenting)to proceed with the planning application for the Annenberg Project.At the time the
council determined that the project would not require a general plan amendment.The project
continued to move forward to the point that a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial hearing was
held before the planning commission a few months ago.
Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably Eva Ciccoria,contacted
David Siegenthaler ofthe National Park Service (NPS)to lobby against the project.Ms.
Ciccoria,the wife of Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is also
actively lobbying the State of California to block grant applications for other park improvements
in the city.Siegenthaler was told that the Annenberg Project was a "dog pound"and relayed
that misrepresentation of the project to his superiors in Washington D.C.Without contacting
either the Annenberg Foundation or other supporters of the project or any elected officials,
Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he spoke mostly to opponents of the
project and some,but not all,members of the planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting
that the project violated deed and program of utilization (POU)restrictions but also admitting
that he really did not have complete information about the project.His letters also failed to
explain the process for getting an official determination from the NPS or for seeking
amendments to restrictions if needed.Siegenthaler's letters were a premature judgment on the
project based on misrepresentations.Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
I made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to obtain Siegenthaler's files to
try to learn mote.Interestingly Ms.Ciccoria learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter
from the NPS acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me to complain about
the request and to demand that I withdraw it.She cannot articulate any good reason,however,
for her desire to conceal the NPS files from the public.I have received only a limited partial
response to my request.If and when I get a complete response I will post the results on my
webpage.
In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring its proposed project
through the planning process.Over the two years since the council's 2008 vote to permit the
application to proceed,the project was further modified to address concerns.Over the course of
the past few months Annenberg's representatives met with each councilmember and was assured
of support by each.Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the foundation thathe was
"100%in support"of allowing the application to proceed.
In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project opponents continued to
misrepresent the project describing it as a "huge development,"a "dog pound"and an "animal
hospital."The former commercial farm and untended fields where the project would be located
were falsely described by opponents as "pristine open space."The proposed building footprint
on 3%of the land was described as "dense development"and all of the non-building features of
the project and many of its other aspects were simply ignored.Opponents of the project
mischaracterized Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as the deed restrictions and the POU.The
deed was misrepresented as requiring "open space passive recreation"when it does not even
contain the phrase "open space"or the word "passive"anywhere.
The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.Siegenthaler's letters.
Understandably the planning commission felt that it needed guidance from the city council as to
how to proceed in light of the letters.At the council hearing on November 16th Ciccoria and
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 180
Page 3 of4
others falsely characterized the letters as a final decision of the NPS that demonstrated that the
actions of the council allowing the project to proceed were "illegal."Ciccoria was again
resorting to misrepresentation.Mr.Siegenthaler explained that his letters were preliminary and
did not represent a final NPS decision.He clearly indicated that such decisions cannot be made
until the city applies for a determination.Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the
determination based on a project that had gone through the entire planning process.The process
also includes the ability to seek amendments to the restrictions if necessary.
Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it should have been easy
for the council to send the project back to the planning commission with instructions to continue
the process.Siegenthaler had clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work with Annenberg
and with the staff.Nothing about the project had changed to justify reconsidering the council's
2008 determination that the project was worth considering in the planning process.And no
council member identified any new information that justified reversing his earlier declaration of
support of the project.
Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers voted to abort the planning
process.One of the three,Councilman Campbell,continued to say he supported the project.
Councilman Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained.After 4 years of
work and after clear earlier indications that it felt the project should get a full hearing in the
planning process,the council abruptly ended the process without a coherent explanation.In
light of this,a number of people understandably have expressed the view to me that the
trustworthiness ofRPV's council is questionable.
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project,all of the residents of RPV
should be appalled by the process used to kill the project.Much of the process was hidden from
public view and left totally unexplained.Much of it was based on misinformation that the
Annenberg Foundation was not given an opportunity to fully answer through public exposure of
that misinformation and through the public hearings of the planning process.
We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled,even more than just the
rejection of the project,will have serious ramifications for RPV.Major private donors were in
the audience on November 16th watching how our city council handles donors.One was heard
to remark "I don't need to go through something like this."Another donor has withdrawn some
funds that were on deposit with the city for possible civic center improvements-interestingly
redirecting them to PVPLC.Of course PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg
Project or any other land use matter in RPV.But its President previously joined his wife Ms.
Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the city's application for a grant to provide park
improvements at Abalone Cove.That lobbying too was characterized by misrepresentations.
Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area)is in the city's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,
eliminating sources of funding for improvements on public park land may be seen by some as a
way to further expand "open space preservation."Of course what the city really needs is help
protecting and maintaining the open space it has,not converting its parks into yet more open
space.RPV has had to turn to others,notably the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,to
provide a park ranger program,because of the inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of
the help the city needs.Hopefully the energies of those now attacking the city's parks can be
redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its original mission.PVPLC clearly needs
that help.
Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and charitable foundations
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 181
Page 4 of4
and other agencies,those hopes are now likely dashed for decades to come.While open space
preservation has been successful and likely will be for some time to come,efforts to improve the
city's parks,educational opportunities and its civic life in general are sure to suffer.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 182
November 21,2010
Dear Tom,
At first,I hesitated to write about your e-mail of November 20 regarding the
Annenberg proposal,but like you mentioned to me this week,I also need to
bring to closure matters that trouble me.
In our exchange of e-mails over the past week,I thought we agreed on at
least two matters:
1.Reasonable minds may differ;and
2.The planning staff has been dedicated and efficient in connection with
the Hesse Park project and the Annenberg proposal.
Given your email,it seems that you even disagree on the first item,at least
when it comes to the proposal in question.
On first reading your note,I was frankly irritated.In the second reading,I
found it shameful.By the third reading,it became sadly humorous.I can just
picture you seething at your colleagues and unappreciative constituents as
you banged away on your keyboard.You do not seem to have a high regard
for any of us.
It would seem that this argument now goes well beyond benefiting the
community.This has become truly personal issue for you.For whatever
reason,opposing views on this matter have become an affront to you.
For reasons that are only known to you,I seriously doubt that anything can
be demonstrated or said that would persuade you to possibly rethink,even
for one minute,your strong position on this proposal -not Federal or State
governments,not your colleagues on the Council;not the Planning
Commission members;not the staff;and not even supportive and respected
constituents.
ATTACHMENT - 183
Tom,I noticed that you did not even pay lip service to any concerns voiced
by speakers during the Council meeting or those who expressed their views
is written comments.In your comments during the meeting and in your
written responses,you have been abruptly dismissive and argumentative
about every possible view questioning the viability or merits of this
proposal,no matter how accurate,well-intentioned or rational those
comments may be.
As one minor example of your rigidity on this matter,you constantly cite
that the planned facility would only use about 3%of the Lower Point
Vicente land,excluding any hard-scape.You were correct in chiding me for
using the imprecise word "massive"in describing the planned facility.
However,you do not even accept the notion that a facility that would be five
times the footprint of the Interpretive Center or nearly five times the square
footage of our local Trader Joe's is "large"by any measure,particularly so if
built on precious coastal parkland.The point being,you seem to have lost all
objectivity on this subject.
My sense is you believe that anyone who disagrees with you on this
particular matter typically fall within one of two camps;they are either
woefully ill-informed of the true facts or they remain stubbornly blinded and
ignorant of those facts.
Since we are not in an adversarial proceeding or a heated election campaign,
I hope you had the simple common courtesy of giving fellow Council
members a "heads'up"by allowing them to review your e-mail before
distribution.I would think that you would want the same favor in return
from fellow Council members if unfavorable comments were made about
you in a public e-mail.
I just wonder whether you would adopt the same approach if you dissented
from a decision made by your firm's executive committee.I doubt you
would demean the majority committee members in an open e-mail to others
in the firm.
While I do not know Ms.Ciccoria or Mr.Siegenthaler,I am hopeful that in
the interest of fairness,they will be given an equal opportunity to use this
same forum to offer a response,if they choose to do so.Otherwise,their
points of view may never be fully known to RPV residents.
ATTACHMENT - 184
We try to teach young people the effective and proper way of voicing
differing points of views in a compelling,yet diplomatic and respectful
manner.The teenagers who support a skate park at Hesse Park were able to
witness proper decorum during the Council meeting in which speakers were
able to voice their respective points of view.
I agree with you that all the appropriate facts should surface about the
Annenberg proposal,but the tone and attacking nature of your e-mail crosses
the line of proper behavior and is an embarrassment to you,your colleagues
and the elected office you hold.
The way the Hesse Park hearing was handled by the City Council should be
a case study for a high school civics class of the right way to operate local
government.You e-mail should be used as an exhibit for the wrong way.
If it was your intent to publicly vilify three dedicated colleagues and to
suggest that we have a fragmented,dysfunctional and weak City Council,
you will be pleased to know that you have more than succeeded.
Had the vote been 3-2 in the other direction in favor of the Annenberg
proposal and a minority Council member treated the majority in this manner,
I would also be writing this letter to that Council member.It is not where
one sits on this particular issue;it is about a disrespectful approach.
Ned Mansour
ATTACHMENT - 185
Page 1 of6
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:26 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
From:Robert Kalmey [mailto:kalmeyfamily@cox.net]
sent:Sunday,November 21,2010 12:42 PM
To:Tom Long
Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
I'm not doing anything whatsoever as a taxpaying property-owner to "hurt"the city Sir and I resent your
implication in that respect.
Absurd statements like that from goverment staff (volunteers or not)are a large part of why people like me are
"angry"as you put it.
Put that in your Friday report.
Robert
-----Original Message -----
,PM
Anr'lAn,hAI'n Project What Happened and Why?
Robert,
A city councilman cannot repair the state and federal government.It's all we can do to try to keep the
city government running.Please remember we are part time volunteers.
The city is just us and a little bit of our money.When you hurt the city you just hurt yourself and your
own property values.Whatever you anger at government is,directing it at the city is
counterproductive.
Tom Long
Staff--please put this in a Friday report.
-----Original Message-----
From:"Robert Kalmey"<kalmeyfamily@cox.net>
Sent 11/21/2010 11 :37:43 AM
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 186
Page 2 of6
To:"Tom Long"<tomlong@palosverdes.com>
Cc:clehr@rpv.com,carolynn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
When you push your views so stridently Tom you are going to get push back.Deal with it.You put yourself out
there.I've seen the land like all of us have,thank you.I'm not going to be your sympathetic ear to weep for
how little tax you government types take from me.
I'm not responsible for the corrupt state system that creates revenue problems for local cities,so maybe instead
of lecturing taxpaying residents when they don't agree with you and spend the time to express theiropinon,you
could work to fix this failed Third World state that is taxing and regulating me to death and driving more and
more people like me out of RPV because we just can't afford it any longer.
If you really value your tax base so much you might want to consider addressing what's actually causing
whatever revenue problems our city may have.And it isn't one long-delayed land project.
Robert Kalmey
,AM
Anl"lt:>n,ht:>,rn Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Robert,Go look at the land and tell me if you think it is "natural."When we discuss issues we
should at least have the same reference point.To me farm fields and weeds devoid of native plants
are not "natural."As for the rest of your comments I don't understand how you see the big hand of a
statist government or a "power gran"by the city in a proposed partnership with a private non-profit.
can I see statism in a city that gets only 6%of your property tax and has only $1.20 per resident
day and can hardly keep the streets paved properly.Perhaps you favor the PVP Watch approach
of "driving government toward zero."How that helps our property values escapes me.But if you
want to look at a "statist"government look at those wild-eyed radicals in Palos Verdes Estates.
They vote by over 80%every 10 years to tax themselves an extra $700 per parcel to have their own
department and other "statist"government services.They must be a bunch of commies,right?
Actually they are just smart people who realize that local government keeps the dollars here and that
its spending directly helps our property values.Notice how theirs are higher than ours?Notice how
streets,public buildingd and parks are nicer too?I'd be remiss to accept the mediocrity that
seems to satisfy you and I won't accept it.I will continue to ask how we can so things better.Tom
Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes Staff please put this in a Friday report.
-----Original Message-----
From:"Robert Kalmey"
Sent 11/21/2010 9:02:02 AM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Mr.Long
You never cease to amaze me with the contortions you will assume and the
self-importance you attempt to project in order to advance the growth and
influence of government over city residents.I don't care one way or the
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 187
other about the subject issue,however your statist nature is apparent with
your constant attempts to lobby residents to your government-centric views
and your ease of attack on those who you claim oppose your aims,which
constantly appear to be those of granting ever more power to city
government.
Weeds on the peninsula -oh the horror.Please.That is the lamest excuse
for espousing more government control of natural land that I've ever heard.
disappointed,
Robert Kalmey
Seaview
-----Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 12:12 PM
Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
>
>
>From:tomlong@palosverdes.com
>
>Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
>
>
>Message:
>
>Dear RPV Residents,
>
>The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg Project
>bears some additional discussion because of the consequences it may bring.
>I have had additional time to garner some facts about what happened and
>they present a picture that should be made public.The decision was
>singularly the worst I have seen in my seven years on council because of
>the substance but even more importantly the process behind the decision.
>The city's decision was the product of a 3-2 vote on November 16th that
>can be reconsidered if one ofthose in the majority (Wolowicz,Misetich,
>or Campbell)chooses to support reconsideration.I urge you to write to
>the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to do so and to do it at our next
>meeting on November 30th.
>
>In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stern in
>favor and Wolowicz dissenting)to proceed with the planning application
>for the Annenberg Project.At the time the council determined that the
>project would not require a general plan amendment.The project continued
>to move forward to the point that a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial
>hearing was held before the planning commission a few months ago.
>
12/15/2010
Page 3 of6
ATTACHMENT - 188
>Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably Eva
>Ciccoria,contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service (NPS)
>to lobby against the project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife of Palos Verdes Land
>Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is also actively lobbying the
>State of California to block grant applications for other park
>improvements in the city.Siegenthaler was told that the Annenberg
>Project was a "dog pound"and relayed that misrepresentation of the
>project to his superiors in Washington D.C.Without contacting either the
>Annenberg Foundation or other supporters of the project or any elected
>officials,Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he
>spoke mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not all,members of
>the planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting that the project
>violated deed and program of utilization (POD)restrictions but also
>admitting that he really did not have complete information about the
>project.His letters also failed to explain the process for getting an
>official determination from the NPS or for seeking amendments to
>restrictions if needed.Siegenthaler's letters were a premature judgment
>on the project based on misrepresentations.Siegenthaler now essentially
>admits this.
>
>I made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to obtain
>Siegenthaler's files to try to learn more.Interestingly Ms.Ciccoria
>learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter from the NPS
>acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me to complain
>about the request and to demand that I withdraw it.She cannot articulate
>any good reason,however,for her desire to conceal the NPS files from the
>public.I have received only a limited partial response to my request.
>If and when I get a complete response I will post the results on my
>webpage.
>
>In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring its
>proposed project through the planning process.Over the two years since
>the council's 2008 vote to permit the application to proceed,the project
>was further modified to address concerns.Over the course of the past few
>months Annenberg's representatives met with each councilmember and was
>assured of support by each.Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the
>foundation that he was"100%in support"of allowing the application to
>proceed.
>
>In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project opponents
>continued to misrepresent the project describing it as a "huge
>development,"a "dog pound"and an "animal hospital."The former
>commercial farm and untended fields where the project would be located
>were falsely described by opponents as "pristine open space."The
>proposed building footprint on 3%of the land was described as "dense
>development"and all of the non-building features of the project and many
>of its other aspects were simply ignored.Opponents of the project
>mischaracterized Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as the deed
>restrictions and the POD.The deed was misrepresented as requiring "open
>space passive recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase "open
>space"or the word "passive"anywhere.
12/15/2010
Page 4 of6
ATTACHMENT - 189
>
>The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.
>Siegenthaler's letters.Understandably the planning commission felt that
>it needed guidance from the city council as to how to proceed in light of
>the letters.At the council hearing on November 16th Ciccoria and others
>falsely characterized the letters as a final decision of the NPS that
>demonstrated that the actions of the council allowing the project to
>proceed were "illegal."Ciccoria was again resorting to
>misrepresentation.Mr.Siegenthaler explained that his letters were
>preliminary and did not represent a final NPS decision.He clearly
>indicated that such decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a
>determination.Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the
>determination based on a project that had gone through the entire planning
>process.The process also includes the ability to seek amendments to the
>restrictions if necessary.
>
>Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it should
>have been easy for the council to send the project back to the planning
>commission with instructions to continue the process.Siegenthaler had
>clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work with Annenberg and with the
>staff.Nothing about the project had changed to justify reconsidering the
>council's 2008 determination that the project was worth considering in the
>planning process.And no council member identified any new information
>that justified reversing his earlier decIaration of support of the
>project.
>
>Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers voted to
>abort the planning process.One of the three,Councilman Campbell,
>continued to say he supported the project.Councilman Misetich and Mayor
>Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained.After 4 years of work and
>after clear earlier indications that it felt the project should get a full
>hearing in the planning process,the council abruptly ended the process
>without a coherent explanation.In light of this,a number of people
>understandably have expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness of
>RPV's council is questionable.
>
>Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project,all
>of the residents of RPV should be appalled by the process used to kill the
>project.Much of the process was hidden from public view and left totally
>unexplained.Much of it was based on misinformation that the Annenberg
>Foundation was not given an opportunity to fully answer through public
>exposure of that misinformation and through the public hearings of the
>planning process.
>
>We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled,even
>more than just the rejection of the project,will have serious
>ramifications for RPV.Major private donors were in the audience on
>November 16th watching how our city council handles donors.One was heard
>to remark "I don't need to go through something like this."Another donor
>has withdrawn some funds that were on deposit with the city for possible
>civic center improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC.Of
12115/2010
Page 5 of6
ATTACHMENT - 190
>course PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project or
>any other land use matter in RPV.But its President previously joined his
>wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the city's application
>for a grant to provide park improvements at Abalone Cove.That lobbying
>too was characterized by misrepresentations.
>
>Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area)is in the city's Palos
>Verdes Nature Preserve,eliminating sources of funding for improvements on
>public park land may be seen by some as a way to further expand "open
>space preservation."Of course what the city really needs is help
>protecting and maintaining the open space it has,not converting its parks
>into yet more open space.RPV has had to turn to others,notably the
>Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program,
>because of the inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help
>the city needs.Hopefully the energies of those now attacking the city's
>parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its
>original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
>
>Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and
>charitable foundations and other agencies,those hopes are now likely
>dashed for decades to come.While open space preservation has been
>successful and likely will be for some time to come,efforts to improve
>the city's parks,educational opportunities and its civic life in general
>are sure to suffer.
>
>Tom Long
>Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
>
>
>
12115/2010
Page 60f6
ATTACHMENT - 191
Page 1 of3
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,20104:25 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?The Failure of a Public-Private Partnership
From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
sent:Sunday,November 21,20102:15 PM
To:Ned Mansour
Cc:dehr@rpv.om;carolynn@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?The Failure of a Public-Private Partnership
Ned,
Thank you very much for the dialogue below and the earlier dialogue.The high quality dialogue from
my constituents keeps me on my toes I think,even when,or perhaps especially when,we do not agree.I
am especially thankful to people who disagree with me and have the courage to say so and to maintain a
dialogue that helps me see the issues.It's the same thing I value at work.Yes men don't help me much.
Those who disagree with me have helped me a lot.It's nice to hear agreement now and then,but it is
only disagreement that has any chance of helping me avoid mistakes.I may not avoid those mistakes
and/or I may not end up being persuaded by your disagreement,but that disagreement is very valuable
nonetheless.Democracy does best when it encourages respectful and thoughtful disagreement.That is
exactly what you have brought to the table.I am lucky to have constituents who disagree with me.
Personally I think UPV would be almost as good as LPV for the facility and indeed it has better views.
BUT there are serious problems that make this a non-starter.(1)The opposition will be exactly the
same as at LPV and many similar problems and some additional ones will arise.Statements to the
contrary notwithstanding,the opposition will not accept UPV.(2)I raised this issue with Annenberg
many times over the years.My impression is that they view UPV as inadequate because it does not
allow them to tie in very well with PVle.While that is not a non-starter from my point of view,I am
almost certain it is from theirs.(3)Annenberg views the current council as having a "vacuum of
leadership and vision"and Annenberg and some project proponents think the council is
"untrustworthy."Again,I don't agree,but these perceptions likely mean that Annenberg will not trust
whatever "commitment"we give it to consider an alternative site given that we didn't give this one a full
hearing.If they have to go to an alternative site they need to pretty much redesign.Why not do that in a
city that is friendlier to public-private partnerships?
Finally I note that a lot of people object to the idea of a supposed "qui pro quo"and insist that we keep
Annenberg and others "at arm's length."If this is the attitude of our community,then we should stop
wasting time and we should simply tum all private donors away unless they just want to give us
completely unrestricted gifts of cash or in kind items.When the city contracts with a street paving
company,it is an adversarial situation.The company wants the work but also wants the most profit
possible.The city wants the work done but wants the lowest price possible.Obviously we must be at
"arm's length"in such transactions.But when we work with another government agency or a non-profit,
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 192
Page 2 of3
the relationship should not be adversarial.We often get grants and those grants often have conditions.
Ifwe say that such conditions are an unacceptable "quid pro quo"we are attaching profit motives to
agencies and foundations that do not have those motives.We are also being very naive and unrealistic.
For many grants we get,the funding is designed to fulfill particular purposes.For example,the city got
many grants for open space acquisition.The city partnered with a private foundation,the PVPLC,and
state agencies to get grant money to buy the land.The grants have conditions set forth in reams of paper
drastically limiting the city's prerogatives as to how that land will be used.Since the government grants
under the NCCP only restricted the city for 50 years,the PVPLC asked for and got conservation
easements over the property that are good in perpetuity in exchange for its contributions.In sum,the
city's use of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (city owned land)is in a straightjacket in perpetuity as a
result of conditions imposed by a private foundation.(And I think that is a good thing by the way.)Of
course the contributions by the PVPLC and the government agencies were pivotal in getting the open
space aquisition done.Is all of this an unacceptable "qui pro quo?"Is there a conflict of interest?
Should the city have tried to find other land consrvancies (there likely are some)that would not have
insisted on perpetual conservation easements so as to keep its options open?Should we keep PVPLC
and the government agencies at "arm's length"negotiating with them like they are profit-driven
adversaries similar to a street paving company?
Another complaint was that Annenberg's earlier contributions to the city (which were not conditioned
upon approval of this proposed project)also created a perception of a "quid pro quo."Again the thought
appears to be that non-profits cannot be trusted to be such.This thought also has no recognition of the
reality that many foundations making large gifts will want to start out making smaller ones to see how
the recipient handles gifts.Ponder how we handle our own contributions.Is there anything wrong with
a non-profit or another governmental agency saying to the city "here is a small gift,let's see how you do
with this as we ponder whether to give you more?"If our community leaders do not understand this
reality,then we are simply not really interested in public-private partnerships and we should stop
wasting our time and the time of others such as the Annenberg foundation on the notion that we are
interested.
Ned,Thank you again for framing these issues and maintaining a dialogue with me.
Staff--please put this in a Friday report.
Tom Long
Tom
Thanks for taking time to read and respond to my note.
We did not re-elect you or other members ofthe Council because you vote in a politically correct or
expedient manner.We expect all of you to protect our interests.
Ironically,I have been relatively inactive in local matters until the Marymount issue surfaced.While I
had a balanced view of this matter,I voted against it for two reasons:in sympathy to nearby residents of
the college who would be adversely affected and also due to the inappropriate tactics/approach adopted
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 193
Page 3 of3
by the college in circumventing the planning process.
At some point,you or the Mayor may wish to address one issue that has often been suggested,but never
truly answered.Has the Council and/or the Annenberg Foundation ever given serious consideration to
the suggestion of using Upper Point Vicente for this facility?If not,is it something that the City and the
Anneberg Foundation might give due consideration at this point?After all,if the Planning Commission
previously authorized giving the land for a proposed Terranea golf course,you would think the
Annenberg facility would be a far better utilization of this land.
Ned
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 194
Ara M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Importance:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Tuesday,November 23,201010:33 AM
'Ara M'
joelr@rpv.com
FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
High
-----Original Message-----
From:Mary Jane Schoenheider [mailto:penpeople@easyreader.infoJ
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2010 10:25 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Importance:High
This email is directed to Mayor Walowicz,Councilman Campbell,and Councilman Misetich
in refrence to an email from Mayor Pro-Tern Tom Long forwarded to me regarding the
Annenberg Project.Although I am a resident of Palos Verdes Estates,I am a long time
resident of the Peninsula,and a strong supporter of the Annenberg Project at Lower Pt
Vicente.
I strongly urge the three of you who voted against sendinging the project back to
Planning Commission to support reconsideration on your vote at the November 30 City
Council Meeting to allow the project to go forward.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Schoenhieder
Mary Jane Schoenheider
Publisher Peninsula People
Phone:310-372-4611 Ext 121
Direct:424-212-6612
Fax:424-212-6788
Email:penpeople@easyreader.info
Become a Fan on Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/EasyReaderNews
Follow us on Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/EasyReaderNews
http://www.easyreadernews.com
-----Original Message-----
From:Ruberta Weaver [mailto:ruberta@cox.netJ
Sent:Sunday,November 21,2010 7:38 AM
To:Joan Cobble;mjsels@aol.com
Subject:Fw:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
-----Original Message -----
From:<tomlong@palosverdes.com>
To:<ruberta@cox.net>
Sent:Saturday,November 20,2010 12:12 PM
Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
>
1
ATTACHMENT - 195
>
>From:tomlong@palosverdes.com
>
>Subject:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
>
>
>Message:
>
>Dear RPV Residents,
>
>The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg
Project
>bears some additional discussion because of the consequences it may
bring.
>I have had additional time to garner some facts about what happened
and
>they present a picture that should be made public.The decision was
>singularly the worst I have seen in my seven years on council because
of
>the substance but even more importantly the process behind the
decision.
>The city's decision was the product of a 3-2 vote on November 16th
that
>can be reconsidered if one of those in the majority (Wolowicz,
Misetich,
>or Campbell)chooses to support reconsideration.I urge you to write
to
>the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to do so and to do it at our
next
>meeting on November 30th.
>
>In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark,Gardiner,Long and Stern in
>favor and Wolowicz dissenting)to proceed with the planning
application
>for the Annenberg Project.At the time the council determined that
the
>project would not require a general plan amendment.The project
continued
>to move forward to the point that a Draft EIR was prepared and an
initial
>hearing was held before the planning commission a few months ago.
>
>Residents within the community opposed to the project,most notably
Eva
>Ciccoria,contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service
(NPS)
>to lobby against the project.Ms.Ciccoria,the wife of Palos Verdes
Land
>Conservancy (PVPLC)President Ken Swenson,is also actively lobbying
the
>State of California to block grant applications for other park
>improvements in the city.Siegenthaler was told that the Annenberg
>Project was a "dog pound"and relayed that misrepresentation of the
>project to his superiors in Washington D.C.Without contacting either
the
>Annenberg Foundation or other supporters of the project or any elected
>officials,siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he
>spoke mostly to opponents of the project and some,but not all,
members of
>the planning commission.He wrote letters suggesting that the project
>violated deed and program of utilization (POU)restrictions but also
>admitting that he really did not have complete information about the
>project.His letters also failed to explain the process for getting
2
ATTACHMENT - 196
an
>official determination from the NPS or for seeking amendments to
>restrictions if needed.Siegenthaler's letters were a premature
judgment
>on the project based on misrepresentations.Siegenthaler now
essentially
>admits this.
>
>I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)request to the NPS to
obtain
>Siegenthaler's files to try to learn more.Interestingly Ms.Ciccoria
>learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter from the NPS
>acknowledging receipt of the request.Ciccoria contacted me to
complain
>about the request and to demand that I withdraw it.She cannot
articulate
>any good reason,however,for her desire to conceal the NPS files from
the
>public.I have received only a limited partial response to my
request.
>If and when I get a complete response I will post the results on my
>webpage.
>
>In the meantime,the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring
its
>proposed project through the planning process.Over the two years
since
>the council's 2008 vote to permit the application to proceed,the
project
>was further modified to address concerns.Over the course of the past
few
>months Annenberg's representatives met with each councilmember and was
>assured of support by each.Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured
the
>foundation that he was "100%in support"of allowing the application
to
>proceed.
>
>In advance of planning commission and council hearings,project
opponents
>continued to misrepresent the project describing it as a "huge
>development/"a "dog pound"and an "animal hospital."The former
>commercial farm and untended fields where the project would be located
>were falsely described by opponents as "pristine open space."The
>proposed building footprint on 3%of the land was described as "dense
>development"and all of the non-building features of the project and
many
>of its other aspects were simply ignored.Opponents of the project
>mischaracterized Mr.Siegenthaler's letters as well as the deed
>restrictions and the POU.The deed was misrepresented as requiring
"open
>space passive recreation"when it does not even contain the phrase
"open
>space"or the word "passive"anywhere.
>
>The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr.
>Siegenthaler's letters.Understandably the planning commission felt
that
>it needed guidance from the city council as to how to proceed in light
of
>the letters.At the council hearing on November 16th Ciccoria and
others
>falsely characterized the letters as a final decision of the NPS that
>demonstrated that the actions of the council allowing the project to
3 ATTACHMENT - 197
>proceed were "illegal."Ciccoria was again resorting to
>misrepresentation.Mr.Siegenthaler explained that his letters were
>preliminary and did not represent a final NPS decision.He clearly
>indicated that such decisions cannot be made until the city applies
for a
>determination.Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the
>determination based on a project that had gone through the entire
planning
>process.The process also includes the ability to seek amendments to
the
>restrictions if necessary.
>
>Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th,it
should
>have been easy for the council to send the project back to the
planning
>commission with instructions to continue the process.Siegenthaler
had
>clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work with Annenberg and with
the
>staff.Nothing about the project had changed to justify reconsidering
the
>council's 2008 determination that the project was worth considering in
the
>planning process.And no council member identified any new
information
>that justified reversing his earlier declaration of support of the
>project.
>
>Amazingly,and with almost no explanation,three councilmembers voted
to
>abort the planning process.One of the three,Councilman Campbell,
>continued to say he supported the project.Councilman Misetich and
Mayor
>Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained.After 4 years of work
and
>after clear earlier indications that it felt the project should get a
full
>hearing in the planning process,the council abruptly ended the
process
>without a coherent explanation.In light of this,a number of people
>understandably have expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness
of
>RPV's council is questionable.
>
>Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project,
all
>of the residents of RPV should be appalled by the process used to kill
the
>project.Much of the process was hidden from public view and left
totally
>unexplained.Much of it was based on misinformation that the
Annenberg
>Foundation was not given an opportunity to fully answer through public
>exposure of that misinformation and through the public hearings of the
>planning process.
>
>We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled,
even
>more than just the rejection of the project,will have serious
>ramifications for RPV.Major private donors were in the audience on
>November 16th watching how our city council handles donors.One was
heard
>to remark "I don't need to go through something like this."Another
4
ATTACHMENT - 198
donor
>has withdrawn some funds that were on deposit with the city for
possible
>civic center improvements-interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC.Of
>course PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project
or
>any other land use matter in RPV.But its President previously joined
his
>wife Ms.Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the city's
application
>for a grant to provide park improvements at Abalone Cove.That
lobbying
>too was characterized by misrepresentations.
>
>Now that 1400 acres (15%of the city's land area)is in the city's
Palos
>Verdes Nature Preserve,eliminating sources of funding for
improvements on
>public park land may be seen by some as a way to further expand "open
>space preservation."Of course what the city really needs is help
>protecting and maintaining the open space it has,not converting its
parks
>into yet more open space.RPV has had to turn to others,notably the
>Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,to provide a park ranger program,
>because of the inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the
help
>the city needs.Hopefully the energies of those now attacking the
city's
>parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its
>original mission.PVPLC clearly needs that help.
>
>Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and
>charitable foundations and other agencies,those hopes are now likely
>dashed for decades to come.While open space preservation has been
>successful and likely will be for some time to come,efforts to
improve
>the city's parks,educational opportunities and its civic life in
general
>are sure to suffer.
>
>Tom Long
>Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
>
>
>
>
5
ATTACHMENT - 199
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2010 10:23 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Linda Retz [mailto:lretz@ljratty.com]
sent:Monday,November 22,20101:12 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Dear City Council Members:
I strongly urge you to reconsider the vote taken on November 16th to prevent the Annenberg Project from
proceeding and to take a new vote at the City Council meeting to be held at the end of this month after giving the
Annenberg Foundation a chance to set the record straight.In my opinion,on November 16th,there were a lot of
tall tales told by opponents of the Project and the Foundation was given no opportunity whatsoever to get the true
facts on the table.
Unda J.Retz,Attorney at Law
21535 Hawthorne Boulevard
Suite 200
Torrance,California 90503
t:310.944.9700
f:310.944.9722
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail and any attachments to it may contain confidential communications between a lawyer and her client.If you
are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached
to this e-mail is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.If you have received this e-mail in error,please immediately notify us by reply e-mail or by telephone at (310)
944-9700 and destroy this e-mail and any attachments without reading or saving them in any manner.Thank you.
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 200
Annenberg Project
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,201010:22 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Susan Chang [mailto:sured@cox.netJ
Sent:Tuesday,November 23,201010:14 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Page 1 of 1
Please overturn the decision to kill the Annenberg project.With the California budgets deficits the way they are
this is an unbelievable opportunity to move forward and do something that creates an educational opportunity
for our children and children throughout the State.It is a gift that will keep on giving for years and years to
come.
Melanie and Richard Lundquist
Palos Verdes Estates
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 201
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:TIMANDLORR@aol.com
Sent:Monday,November 22,20101:56 PM
To:pc@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
Cc:jjaakola@annenbergfoundation.org;togrady@fx-concepts.com
Subject:November 16 City Council Meeting
71 Via del Cielo
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
November 22,2010
To the City Council and Planning Commission,
I don't even know how to express the way I feel about what transpired at the City Council
meeting on November 16 -17,after my husband and I left.It was such a shock to hear of it.
I would watch the video of the meeting but it would probably make me sick.It has taken me
time to process this,and alii can say is that I am in mourning.I feel like I was pregnant but
have miscarried.I am not trying to be dramatic here;I sincerely feel the loss in my gut,and
am reminded of it every time I drive out from my home and see that the outline flags and
project signs are missing from Lower Pt.Vicente Park.There was a wonderful promise/gift of
a park to come,and now...?Has our City Council in one meeting destroyed years of
planning and hopes?
Because of some N.LM.B.Y.people (who,of course,live in others'"backyards"),a
superlative park that was to benefit all of the residents, and the area,is now in jeopardy of
not being built?!Have you given up?Is the process too difficult for you to complete?I do not
understand what certain City Council members were thinking,or what they envision for the
future of that Park,but there is no way it could exceed the splendor that would be the
"Annenberg Project."I think the City Staff,with their years of experience,have far better
insight of this City than some of the Council members,and that people who "don't know what
to do"might learn from the Staff,or,barring that,best do nothing,rather than make
ambiguous,hasty rulings.I would also suggest that this issue is mostly opposed by those
who live closest to it (and yet we have a full view of that property from our yard and look
forward to it),and those who would favor all of R.p.v.'s undeveloped park lands being "open
space"which,in effect,does not serve the population as a whole at all.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a "Vision Plan"designed with public input.I would
suggest that if some of our Council members have gone blind,they should excuse
themselves from public office,as we need visionaries worthy of leading this beautiful City.
Those who processed the years-long,complex developments such as Ocean TrailslTrump's
golf course,the Terranea Resort,and the Pt.Vicente Interpretive Center have given us
wonderful projects that are legacies for current and future residents.Why was the
"Annenberg Project"shelved,at a time and with an "offer"that made it a perfect addition to
our community?If the PVIC was approved on this very same piece of property,there is no
way that the "Annenberg Project"could not have been approved since it serves the same
purpose.Leaving Lower Pt.Vicente Park in its current "natural state"is not an option,nor is
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 202
Page 2 of2
that the "Vision"for it,and yet I am sure the City is not now nor will it be in the near future
able to assume the huge expense of developing it into a true park.
Before the November 16th City Council got to agenda item #5 (Lower Pt.Vicente Park),while
the Lower Hesse/Dog/Skate parks were being discussed,Mayor Wolowicz stated "right idea,
wrong location"regarding a dog park proposal.Then he stated,"You're going to hear me say
that again later relative to the next agenda item."Perhaps not an exact quote,but very much
understood by all in the audience what he meant,and a very biased and unprofessional
thing to state,considering that it is the purview of the Planning Commission's lengthy
process to make such determinations for outside applicants,not the Mayor!The Mayor's
opposition to the Annenberg Project has been noted,and should not be so blatantly flaunted
at a public meeting that was NOT to determine who is FOR and who is AGAINST.I am really
sorry that the Planning Commission ever sought-out guidance from the City Council.
They say,"It's not over 'til it's over"and we certainly hope that this project can be revived,
with apologies from the Council to the Annenberg Foundation and to the residents of R.p.v.
for this lapse in judgment.The planning process should continue.When the project is in its
final,approved form,it should be submitted to any required state or federal authorities for
their consideration.If amendments are needed to satisfy deed restrictions,they should be
dealt with professionally and with honesty.
Sincerely,
Tim &Lorraine O'Grady
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 203
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 22,201012:32 PM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg
From:julian foley [mailto:julianpfoley@msn.com]
Sent:Sunday,November 21,2010 3:38 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg
I am really appalled at your vote against Annenberg.Please either explain your position or
reconsider.We want this project to go forward for all the right reasons.
Thank you
Julian Foley
RPV.
12115/2010 ATTACHMENT - 204
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 22,201012:25 PM
To:aram@rpv.com;Joel Rojas
Subject:Fwd:Lower Point Vicente -Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:Christy Kelly <2~k~Uy@gID1J:itQQm>
Date:November 21,2010 6:17:07 PM PST
To:stevew@rnv.com,BriaJ;l.Camnbell®-rpv.com,Anthony.Misetich@mv.com,
Gitym~n~g~r@rnY-,_QQm
Subject:Lower Point Vicente -Thank you!
Dear Councilmen,
Thank you for listening to your constituency and halting the lower Pt Vicente project-a
proposal that never should have reached this point.Please use caution on future proposals
that include plans for structures and hardscapes as we are not in favor of these amenities on
our undeveloped land in RPV or the city time wasted on developing and reviewing such
plans.Please also encourage the other council members and the City Manger to recall why
our city incorporated and to keep that mission in mind when they act in official capacity for
us by applying for grants to build structures and/or encouraging such proposals on our
undeveloped land.There is a lot of other already developed land in our city that could easily
lend itself to the amenities and improvements mentioned in the latest project.Seems as
though the gift giver may not be interested in RPV unless an ocean view is involved.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Christy Kelly
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 205
Page 1 of 1
Ara M
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 22,2010 11:59AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg project
From:nyc0100@aol.com [mailto:nyc0100@aol.com]
Sent:Monday,November 22,20107:44 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Annenberg project
Dear Council members Wolowicz,Misetich and Campbell,
Please DO NOT reconsider your vote on the Annenberg project planning application.There is no need to
further use the city's time or money on processing this application until it is clear the project could go
forward.I am not deeply involved in the nuances and legalities of this project,I just know a lot of time and
money has gone into it and now it appears its viability is questionable.Wait.Why rush?If we lose the
funding because we took our time and thought it through,gathered all the information,that is OK.The
community will not suffer if we lose this project.We will suffer if we make a mistake.
I still have concerns beyond the National Park Service issues.Why build for the sake of building?Does
the community need this facility?What percentage of the community would it benefit,say vs.something
like a community pool?Just because you are given $to do something,should you do it?Can the traffic
truly be handled at the intersection on PV Drive,the site of a fatal accident this Fall?If we,the
community,truly wants a companion animal facility,are there other places or ways to raise funds to get it.
Same question stands for the Tongva village?
These are just some thoughts from an average RPV resident with an average understanding of how city
government works.It took me 2 years to gather all the data the city needed to put a retaining wall in my
back yard.I was fine with that,we need to be sure before we do something in our town that cannot be
reversed.Or worse yet,do something that causes a landslide of change in how we allow further
development.
thank you Tom Long for sending out your e-mail message,though I think my response to it was not what you
were looking for.
Sara Engl
30060 Avenida Tranquila
12/15/2010 ATTACHMENT - 206
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,November 22,2010 11 :55 AM
To:'Ara M'
Cc:joelr@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Annenberg Project
From:Paul 1sel [mailto:pauliselattorney@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,November 22,201010:33 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project
I urge the councilmen who voted against the Annenberg Project to reconsider their votes.Putting this
project at that location (past which I walk every day)makes more sense in trhat the Interpretive center is
a great companion opiece and it would be better to have these plkaces together.Certainly makes better
sense than the propsed project for Abalone Cove,near which I live.I am opposed to that project.That
location is certainly more open than the where the Annenberg Project would be built.
Paul Isel
Resident,Palos Verdes Bay Club
32700 Coastite Drive,Unit F
RPV,CA 90275
310-377-1950
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 207
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Monday,November 22,2010 11 :54 AM
'Ara M'
joelr@rpv.com
FW:Support for the Annenberg Project
-----Original Message-----
From:staceyteach@cox.net [mailto:staceyteach@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,November 22,2010 10:45 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Support for the Annenberg Project
Specific Attention to:Mayor Steve Wolowicz,Councilman Anthony Misetich
and Councilman Brian Campbell
Dear Honorable Representatives,
After reading the local newspaper's coverage of the proposed Annenberg Foundation's
project at Lower Point Vicente,I was left disappointed,confused and perplexed as to why
you don't support Tom Long's motion to direct the Planning Commission to continue
processing the entitlement applications for the conditional use,grading and coastal
permits.I understand that this Tuesday,November 30th the council will meet again to
reconsider this issue.
As a registered voter,public educator and parent of a high school Junior at Palos Verdes
Peninsula High School,I am in support of the Annenberg-funded project.My family and I
live within walking distance of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center and the trails
adjacent to the property.We feel very fortunate to have the Annenberg Foundation's vested
financial interest in updating and upgrading this property with a focus of environmental
education.Also,I appreciate the foundation's efforts to work proactively and
collaboratively with the community to ensure the integrity of this project,which would
enhance environmental education for our public school children in the area.
I would be happy to serve as a citizen volunteer for the planning stages if you are in
need of citizen input at a future date.I hope you will do all you can to ensure that we
continue in an amicable and supportive approach for this environmental education community
project.Please reconsider your vote and support.
Thank you very much,
Stacey Michaels
6568 Beachview Dr.#203
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-6930
(310)377-0652
staceyteach@cox.net
1 ATTACHMENT - 208
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Nwong117 [nwong117@aol.com]
Sent:Monday,November22,2010 11:03AM
To:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:Ocean Front Esate
Hi,
I am a residence of the Ocean Front Estate at 67 Via Del Cielo.We are against the
entry modification especially the entrance center block wall.It is not safe for the
drivers as it blocks the traffic and the pedestrians crossing the road.The cross road
traffic lights changes real fast and it is dangerous for all parties with that
obstruction at the cross road.It is in violation of the height restrictions which is
against the city building codes.It also destroys the ocean coast line view as we
enter the division.
Please have it taken down.
Thanks,
Nang &.Chris Wong
12115/2010
ATTACHMENT - 209
Page 1 of 1
AraM
From:Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.com]
Sent:Saturday,November 20,201010:32 PM
To:Joseph M.Clifford
Cc:aram@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Mr.Clifford,Here is a link to the Annenberg Foundation webpages on the project.You may have
to navigate around a bit.You can also go to the city website to look around.By copy ofthis to staff!am
asking that they provide you with weblinks for more information.I hope this helps.Thank you for
asking and thank you for taking time to investigate this.Tom Long
http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/tsprojects/tsprojects_show.htm?doc_id=976378
-----Original Message-----
From: "Joseph M.Clifford"
Sent 11/20/2010 10:27:11 PM
To:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:RE:Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Dear Mr.Long,
Would you please send me,bye-mail hopefully,how to learn about the
Annenberg project --what it really is about.
I feel that I should read all about it,fully,myself,in view of the
council hearing (most of which I watched on TV)and your letter.
I think that I agree with your judgment.
Thank you,
Joseph M.Clifford
30907 Rue de la Pierre
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5319
1-310-377-8956
joeclifford@cox.net
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 210
AraM
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bob Marohn [rkmarohn@cox.net]
Wednesday,November 17,20109:46 PM
tomlong@palosverdes.com
cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com
RE:Annenberg Project
Tom 1 have followed this Annenberg Project closely and read everything that I can
find to make sure I am not missing something.Up to now I have not talked publicly to
anyone about it but in my many private conversations I have met no one who is enthusiastic
to have this thing built on our beautiful coastline.I have no doubt there are plenty of
people who like it but I seriously doubt their numbers are even close to a majority of RPV
residents.Tom,I have read your defense of the project citing details possibly misstated
by some that this project can be built without violating the city's general plan,the deed
restrictions and such.But let me tell you from my experience as a member of the PV
Advisory Council that sponsored the formation of this city,as a member of SOC,as the
founder of the Portuguese Bend Defense Committee who was named in a $7 million law suit
over the apartment (now condos)project built east of Portuguese Bend (now on the east end
of the Trump Golf Course),as a member of the General Plan Goals Committee and as a member
of the City's first Planning Committee that preceded the first Planning Commission (having
come in 6th in the first election for city council),the founders of this city never would
have dreamed of supporting anything like the Annenberg Project on this pristine piece of
coastline.I must admit I am thinking of coming out of my 35 year retirement from being
an activist in our city to oppose this project.I don't think that you and the others in
our city government who are supporting this project are doing a good job of listening to
the citizens of our city.I implore you to please stop supporting this type of
development anywhere on our coastline no matter how much private money it might bring.
I hope that Ken Dyda will apply the efforts of the SOC III organization he leads to oppose
the Annenberg Project.
Thank you for taking time to read this plea.
Bob Marohn
3567 Heroic Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
rkmarohn@cox.net
310.377.8565
-----Original Message-----
From:tomlong@palosverdes.com [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.comJ
Sent:Wednesday,November 17,2010 9:47 PM
To:rkmarohn@cox.net
Subject:Annenberg Project
From:tomlong@palosverdes.com
Subject:Annenberg Project
Message:
Dear RPV Residents,
I have posted some thoughts on the Annenberg project on my webpage.
See http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/
Thank you.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes
1 ATTACHMENT - 211
2 ATTACHMENT - 212
November 17,2010
To the City Council,
We witnessed City government operating at its best last night during the
Council meeting.I mow that serving as a Council member is often a
thankless task with long agendas,exhaustive meetings and little appreciation
for the difficult issues you constantly face.
I was particularly impressed in the Council's thorough process before
adopting resolutions with respect to the Lower Hesse Park improvement
proj ect.You obviously did your homework,were respectful of the speakers
and asked probing questions.You also gave due consideration to public
comments and suggested sensible options in order to satisfy the practical
needs of residents,yet you remained fiscally responsible.
Even more,I applaud the Council members who voted in favor of a logical
approach for the Annenberg proposal.We should first determine what is
feasible given regulatory,contractual and other implications before spending
more staff time and City funds to evaluate this proposal.
I will never forget my late father's pride when he became an American
citizen.My father was not a particularly expressive man,but he showed his
excitement after his first voting experience.Despite being in his 40's,he
finally enjoyed the privilege of voting in a true democracy for the first time
in his life.
Dianne and I also consider our voting privileges as serious business.We
study as much as possible about candidates and ballot measures before
casting our votes.
In the 2007 election for the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,we were
convinced to cast our votes for Doug and Tom in great part on the basis of
these compelling priorities:
"Complete natural open space acquisition to insure our quality of life."
(Doug)
"Preservation of open space and low density development."(Tom)
ATTACHMENT - 213
Dianne and I may be somewhat naIve,but when a candidate presents
priorities to voters,we consider them more than routine political platitudes-
they are firm pledges.One can reasonably question whether the minority
votes on the Annenberg proposal are entirely consistent with these pledges,
but it would not serve any productive purpose to begin this discussion.I do,
however,appreciate Tom and Doug's efforts in supporting much-needed
park improvements and in opposing over-sized housing on under-sized lots.
On the other hand,thank you Mr.Mayor for honoring your 2007 pledge of
"working in a collaborative team-like effort."
Tom may be right that Lower Point Vicente is considered by many as
nothing more than fields of weeds.I do not disagree that Lower Point
Vicente can and should be improved,but such enhancements should modest,
fiscally limited and honor the above pledges for maintaining our open space.
I hope that the City Council will include an initiative in its 2011 goals to
improve Lower Point Vicente,but to do so in a manner that is in keeping
with the original vision of our City fathers as well as within the confines of
governing laws and historic documents.As our City's web site says,despite
developments which were approved by the County before RPV became a
City,"Rancho Palos Verdes is still an oasis connected yet separated from the
hectic pace of modern city life."
On a separate but related matter,municipal employees are often maligned
for inefficiencies and an underachieving work ethic.Based on what we have
seen during recent Council and Planning Commission meetings and have
read in voluminous reports,the polar opposite is true of the Rancho Palos
Verdes planning staff.
I simply cannot fathom how the staff has effectively managed this volume of
projects given the relatively thin number of employees.Although I have not
had a chance to meet him,I am particularly impressed with Ara,who is a
professional in every respect.Even ifhe may disagree with an opinion,he is
objective and gives residents an opportunity to fully express their views.I
have also not met Carolyn,but since the tone of any organization starts at the
ATTACHMENT - 214
top,much of the credit for the staffs good work is undoubtedly due to her
able leadership.
Thank you all for your dedicated service to our community.
Ned Mansour
ATTACHMENT - 215
Page 1 of2
AraM
From:mjcasaburi@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday,November 17,20108:05 AM
To:aram@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:send to Ara Re:The AnnenbErg Project
----Original Message----
From:L.Bilski <ldb910@intergate.com>
To:mjcasaburi@aol.com
Sent:Tue,Nov 16,20108:50 am
Subject:re-send to Ara Re:The AnnenbErg Project
Please re-send/forward to the planner so it doesn't get lost:
aram@rpv.com
Quoting
>
>
>Dear Council,
>
> I have written you before about this project.I,and my family,are>astonished that such a proposal would have made it so
far in the>planning/approval process ...and hope that it goes no further in >its current form.
>
> I appreciate the fact that the Annenburg foundation has done much >for the benefit of the Palos Verdes Peninsula,and for
that I am >extremely grateful.I also applaud the community pool -beach house>they have renovated and provided to the
people of Los Angeles in >Santa Monica.I remember those private beach clubs in Santa Monica>from my childhood ...and
having one available to anyone who makes a >reservation is absolutely fantastic!
>
>However,a big facility dedicated (even partially)to domestic>animals within the small expanse between Palos Verdes
Drive West and>the cliffs at Point Vicente is simply not appropriate ...nor is it >needed.I believe this type of land usage is
absolutely not what>the government (land donors}and the founders of RPV hand in mind>for this irreplaceable piece of
coastal land.
>
>In my previous communication,I mentioned that residents of the >peninsula have pets and know where to go to adopt
pound animals (as>close as San Pedro).We don't need a pet adoption /learning>center.If I were living anyplace off the
peninsula,and took a >drive around the peninsula,I would do it for the spectacular views,>maybe to spot whales,perhaps
a hike,a visit the Wayfarers Church,>or to have a Frappuccino sitting on the patio at Starbucks.The>Vetinary hospital at
Golden Cove is excellent - I have taken my >animals there for expert care and advice.A family visiting our>lovely city will
not just happen to have supplies/equipment for>adopting a pet with them in the car ...why would they?One doesn't>
come the the Palos Verdes Peninsula to find or learn about pets.>They come to appreciate calm,beauty and nature ...wild
nature.
>
>The proposed edifice will clutter the precious remaining view from>PVDW to the ocean.I cannot believe how much of that
view>evaporates daily as buildings and vegetation grow.One of my >neighbors talks about the now 'peek'a view where
views used to be >expansive ...he is right on!
>
>Mention has been made that a portion of the Pt.Vicente land has>been used for years as agricultural land ...and the
suggestion that>a building and parking lot would esthetically look much better.I >disagree.Farm land produces food ...
maybe that is an even more>important lesson for LA County kids ...who are probably much more>familiar with domestic
animals than where their sustenance comes>from!Farm land also allows space for water to sink into the ground.> A field,
while it might not presently contain native vegetation,>can much more easily returned to its original state than buildings>
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 216
Page 2 of2
and pavement.
>
> I have seen people propose that the Annenburg building be moved >across the street to some of the land around our city
hall.That is > a much more palatable solution to me ...if we must have a domestic>animal center in our city.Do we really
need all that pavement and >old Nike Base remains?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Mary Casaburi
>3941 Palos Verdes Dr.South
>RPV
>
>
>
>
>
>
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
12/15/2010
ATTACHMENT - 217