20101207 Late CorrespondencePagel of 3
Paul Christman
From: Wind, Henry [HWind@calwater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:50 PM
To: Wind, Henry; Paul Christman; Boothe, James A.
Cc: Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost
Subject: RE: Rates for Residential Customers with Private Fire Protection Service
Hi Paul,
1 have just noticed that I provided you with incorrect information in the attached e-mail.
The additional cost for a 1" meter should have been $15.39 not $12.29.
My apologies for any confusion, and the late notice.
See you tonight.
Henry
From: Wind, Henry
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:09 PM
To: Paul Christman; 'Boothe, James A.'
Cc: 'Joel Rojas'; 'Greg Pfost'
Subject: RE: Rates for Residential Customers with Private Fire Protection Service
Paul,
I have spoken with our Rates Department in San Jose, and they confirm that this subject was presented to the
Commission as part of our 2009 (Current) General Rate Case (GRC) filing. The Division of Rate Payer Advocates
objected to this portion of our proposal, and disagreed with our projected impact on rates. The Administrative Law
Judge presiding over the proceedings asked that more data be collected, and that the matter be deferred until the
next GRC in 2012.
We plan on including this item in the next GRC in 2012.
Until then, any affected individual customers would have to pay the additional amount for the 1" meter, which is
currently $12.29 per month. The timing should have a minimal impact overall, only affecting those who construct
or remodel after Jan 2011, and have an existing meter that is smaller than 1" in size.
Thanks
Henry Wind
From: Paul Christman [mailto:PauIC@rpv.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 7:22 PM
To: 'Boothe, James A.'
Cc: 'Joel Rojas'; 'Greg Pfost'; Wind, Henry
Subject: RE: Rates for Residential Customers with Private Fire Protection Service
Jim,
Thanks for the information you sent. I really appreciate your detailed response which I will be sharing with the City
Council at their 12/7/2010 meeting.
12/7/2010
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL LATE CORRESPONDENCE
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
12 Memorandum from Dr. Michael Brophy, President of
Marymount College
Respectfully submitted,
�r
Carla Morreale
20090602 additional additions revisions to agenda.doc
Marymount College
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
PALOS V RD S, CALIFORNIA Rancho
Palos Verdes Drive East
Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-377-5501
www.marymountpv.edu
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council &A
From: Dr. Michael S. Brophy, President of Marymount College
CC: Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager
Melissa Pamer, Daily Breeze
Mary Scott, Palos Verdes Peninsula News
Date: 12/7/2010
Re: Marymount College Donation to Rancho Palos Verdes
Pursuant to our public statement that we would reimburse the City for the direct
costs incurred by it in conducting the Measure P election, please provide a copy of
the invoice or billing statement from Los Angeles County and record of the City's
payment to LA County at your earliest convenience. Upon receipt, the College will
review it and make prompt reimbursement of appropriate expenses. To date, the
College has not received final and complete information about these costs, nor to
our knowledge has the City.
Our May 2010 commitment is steadfast — we have not refused to pay for the costs
of the Measure P election. Public statements otherwise by RPV Council members
are incorrect and troubling as were No on P campaign materials (September 9,
2010 mailer attached) that were false and inflammatory. City Council members led
and paid for the No on P campaign so you can imagine the great ambivalence our
community has regarding your comments about the College and this topic. The
College has paid hundreds of thousand dollars to the City over the last decade
through the entitlement process. Our staffs have worked together in a collegial
fashion for years to settle accounts and this situation should be no different.
We have asked the City for the minutes that record the acceptance of the
Measure P election expense donation and for the revision of the November 4,
2010 City Council meeting minutes so they reflect the conversation between City
Council and the City Attorney on this topic. The videotape of this meeting provides
an exchange where the City Attorney made known that Marymount College is
under no obligation to pay for the election. These requests should be addressed
at the December 7, 2010 City Council meeting as they will help clear up numerous
misstatements that have been made. These documents serve as critical historic
evidence regarding this donation from a not-for-profit (Marymount) to a
municipality (RPV) and the legal findings of RPV's own attorney. These
documents represent good governance and may well be needed by Marymount or
RPV in the future for a wide variety of reasons. We made this Measure P donation
to RPV in good faith — we ask that you do the same in addressing these two
donation -related matters.
What is Measure P?
Measure P is a ballot measure paid to be placed on the ballot by Marymount College in an effort to create a "special
district" that includes only their private campus and would allow them to build whatever they want, whenever they want or
their site.
How did Measure P get on the ballot?
Marymount College paid professional petition circulators, political consultants, pollsters, lobbyists and advertising
agencies to get their private ballot measure on the November 2nd ballot. As of June 30,2010 they have spent over
$542,000!
Who is paying for the cost of this election?
Marymount College is paying the cost of the election, including printing ballots, mailing absentee ballots and COUNTING
ballots cast. When is the last time you voted in an election paid for by'one of the candidates?
Much of it. The RPV City Council passed almost all of expansion plans presented to the city;by the college. Not satisfiec
with the plan approved by the Council, the college paid over half a million dollars to get Measure P — with High Density
Dorms included -- on the ballot. The City council is unanimoursly opposed to Measure P and you can read their full
resolution of opposition at www.SaveRPV.com.
Measure P creates a special district around Maryrnount .College. This. district allows the college to build WHATEVER thei
want, WHENEVER they want. Dorms. Sports fields. Entertainment Complexes. Concert Facilities. Commercial business
space. If you can think of it, Measure P allows,the.m to build it. ,AND construction can take'place for DECADES to come.
Even if the college were to sell its property to another private company, that new owner could also build WHATEVER it
wants on that site.
Do local and state development rules still apply'
Not for the most part. The city of RPV will be FORCED to issues any Idling permits the college 'applies for.
If I think Marymount is a benefit for our commun: ity, shouldn't I vote YESA
go
NO! This measure is NOT about whether`Maryrrrout t �s as goo eigh or, good?college or g–o-od —business. This measure
TAKES AWAY your right to regulate runaway growth and development in your city! The City Council, Planning Commis-
sion and area residents have been working for years to help the college with its future plans. Measure P THROWS AWA'
all of that work and gives the college, or any future owner, ANYTHING it wants, WHENEVER it wants.
Who opposes Measure ?
Measure P is opposed unanimously by the five members of the city council as well of hundreds 'of concerned residents
and businessowners. Visit www.SaveRPV.com to see the current list of opponents.
According to official campaign finance reports on file with the
Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk, Marymount College spent
nearly $550,000 as of June 30, 2010 to get Measure P on the
ballot and to begin convincing RPV voters to vote yes.
At this rate, they could spend nearly a million dollars to buy their
"special district" and build whatever they would like on their property.
If Measure P passes and Marymount gets to build whatever it wants,
whenever it wants, what special interest group or large landowner
will be next?
If you do not want RPV to be for sale to the highest bidder,
please join us in Voting NO on measure P on November 2nd!
Presort Standard
US Postage
PAID
Mail Masters
s
LAWk.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
2 Corrections to Draft Minutes
8 Letter from Fire Chief Michael Freeman, County of Los Angeles
Fire Department
9 Email from Deepak and Nandini Chopra
Respectfully submitted,
(1�k
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday, December 6, 2010**.
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101207 additions revisions to agenda.doe
Joan Barry, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she believed the Annenberg Project has
been developed into a wonderful plan that would be an asset to the City. She noted
that the building would only utilize 5 percent of the entire project, while the remainder of
the land would be devoted to native habitat and outdoor exhibits on land and sea
animals, unique geology, native peoples, and sound environmental practices such as
the replacement of non-native habitat to improve watershed. She stated that the
passive recreation would directly tie into the PVIC and outdoor living museum which the
City approved in 2004.
Cinthia Joyce, Manhattan Beach, spoke in support of the Annenberg Project to make an
elegant improvement to the already existing Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center which would
be enjoyed by local residents and all Southern Californians. She stated that the
restoration of the native plants will improve the habitat for the native animals; buildings
will blend into the environment in an unobtrusive manner; and the use of underground
parking, natural grass covered roofs, and the use of solar power are ecologically sound
innovative ideas.
Katie Traeger and Lenee Bilski, Rancho Palos Verdes, provided a statement and
PowerPoint presentation regarding the General Plan, Program of Utilization, and public
access for the proposed Annenberg Project. She stated that the project has changed
since its proposal in 2008 and is an enormous project, with 58% of the building not for
public access and 39% of the indoor usable space not for public access. She
highlighted the parking areas, mechanical equipment, auditorium and educational areas
and noted that 15% of the total space was dedicated to education. She highlighted the
outdoor exhibits, Tonga Village, archaeological dig, and dry farming which is one-tenth
of an acre; and compared this to the 20,000 square foot private dog agility field in the
back of the project.
Eva Cicoria, Rancho Palos Verdes, reviewed a few rules of statutory interpretation,
noting that,statutes are to be read as a harmonious whole. She indicated that.the.--- Deleted: stated that interpretation of
General Plan, General Plan Map, Land Use Map, Zoning Code, Coastal Specific Plan, Deleted: including
and the Deed and Program of_Utilization all point in one direction. She recited the _____ ----------- Deleted: the
Municipal Code description for institutional uses and stated that the proposed building is
an institutional use for parkland that is not for institutional use. She stated that the value Deleted: indicate that the Annenberg
kt -i
--- - - ------------------------------------------------------- Project at the current proposed site is
of the legs! framework that the City's F'6unders gave us for protecting the open spaces not appropriate, noting that the
we now have in the coastal zone is immeasureable and that approval of the pro'1ect building is an institutional building
.would be a flagrant disregard for our laws. proposed
---------- — ------------------------------ ----------
Deleted: of
Dena Friedson, Palos Verdes Estates, spoke in opposition to the Annenberg Project at
the Lower Pt. Vicente since the property was given by the US Government as a gift to
the Los Angeles County in 1978 for the general public_.The only rice the County was
asked to pay was to guarantee_that_the property_be used_in_perpetuityfor_public passive
recreational pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean as stated in
the Los Angeles County Deed and Program of Utilization. She continued that because
of these restrictions Lower Pt. Vicente has always been designated for use as passive
Draft City Council Minutes
November 16, 2010
Page 10 of 20
Deleted: should be protected as the
value ofthis area is immeasurable J
Deleted: with
Deleted: the
open -space recreation and the City acquired ownership of the property in 2004 and
signed an agreement to honor in perpetuity the restrictions guaranteed by the County.
She noted that the property can only to sold or leased only to another eligible
government agency and noted that the Annenberg Foundation does not qualify as a
lessee.
Valerie Mucha, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the land for the proposed Annenberg
Project should remain undeveloped so that the view of the Pacific Ocean can be
protected and noted that there is a pet hospital in the Golden Cove Center and the City
already has an Interpretive Center.
Mark Knoernschild, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that Mr. Siegenthaler's letter from the
NPS does not provide the City much hope for the project and he suggested that the City
Council consider discontinuing the proposal at this time.
Elizabeth Hoffman, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that future generations do not need a
huge marble building surrounded by cement with high tech electronic entertainment as
proposed. She noted that future generations need open space and natural environment
and pointed out that some actions are irrevocable.
Lorraine and Tim O'Grady, stated that they are in favor of the Annenberg Project at
Lower Pt. Vicente Park for the following reasons: the design will be beautiful and
environmentally and neighborhood friendly; it will be open to everyone free of charge; it
will be educational and a compliment to the mission of the PVIC; it will provide
opportunities for volunteerism; and it will provide improvement over the current condition
of the site and is consistent with the Vision Plan in its use. She noted that the gift to the
City would complete Lower Pt. Vicente Park in an appropriate and beautiful way.
Dr. Anthony Rose, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he has always loved the coastal
area of the Lower Pt. Vicente and noted that he would like to see the site remain pretty
much in the state that it is in currently. He noted that his background is in humane
education and he has participated wildlife and nature conservation in Africa. He stated
that the project should be phased in with work on the interpretive areas and restoration
of the natural habitat. He concluded that the animal care facility and perhaps a dog
park would be more appropriately located at the site that was previously the Palos
Verdes landfill site.
Peter Jensen, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the Annenberg Project is not
appropriate for the site, noting that the Coastal Vision Plan was funded by the
Annenberg Foundation. He stated that no mention was made of the Animal Care
Facility at the first workshop regarding the Vision Plan. He continued that at the second
workshop Annenberg introduced the proposed Pet Appreciation Center as fulfillment of
the vision of the City, noting this concept was being used to advance the interests of the
sponsoring private entity on publically owned land. He opined that the use of the site
Draft City Council Minutes
November 16, 2010
Page 11 of 20
P. MICHAEL FREEMAN
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
December 2, 2010
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063.3294
Mayor Stefan Wolowicz
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Dear Mayor Wolowicz:
I am acknowledging receipt of your letter dated November 22, 2010, concerning the new
residential fire sprinklers required by the California Residential Code. Based on the concerns
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, we are modifying our approach and timeline.
Please be advised, the responsibility of the plan review and inspection for new residential
sprinkler systems will continue to be handled by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department
until we have had the opportunity to work with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and other
cities to provide for a proper transition. We anticipate a transition date of July 1, 2011.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (323) 881-6180 or have your staff
contact Assistant Fire Chief Roy Dull, Fire Marshal, at (323) 890-4144.
Ve r ly urs,
a
P. MICHAEL FREE
PMF:mt
C: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Paul Christman, Rancho Palos Verdes Building Official
Vicky Santana, First District
Randi Tahara, Second District
Joseph Charney, Third District
Rick Velasquez, Fourth District
Sussy Nemer, Fifth District
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:
AGOURA HILLS
BRADBURY
CUDAHY
HAWTHORNE
LA MIRADA
MALIBU
POMONA
SIGNAL HILL
ARTESIA
CALABASAS
DIAMOND BAR
HIDDEN HILLS
LA PUENTE
MAYWOOD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SOUTH EL MONTE
AZUSA
CARSON
DUARTE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LAKEWOOD
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
BALDWIN PARK
CERRITOS
EL MONTE
INDUSTRY
LANCASTER
PALMDALE
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
BELL
CLAREMONT
GARDENA
INGLEWOOD
LAWNDALE
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
BELL GARDENS
COMMERCE
GLENDORA
IRWINDALE
LOMITA
PARAMOUNT
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLLYWOOD
BELLFLOWER
COVINA
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA CANADA-FUNTRIDGE
LYNWOOD
PICO RIVERA
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
LA HABRA
W HITTIER
December 3, 2010
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Subject: Grandview Park
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I live at 717 Via La Cuesta, Palos Verdes Estates. I am very concerned regarding my
PRIVACY AND SECURITY with this park development. I graded my 68,000 sq.ft. lot
down by 8 feet costing $1 Million for just dirt removal, and put a 72 -inch landscaping at
the graded down elevation, so the park behind has good view.
Rancho Palos Verdes MUST satisfy my concerns of PRIVACY AND SECURITY,
otherwise I have got the permission from Palos Verdes Estates to go to original zoning by
Homeowners Association to plant MATURE (20 feet) high landscaping on my boundary.
A buffer of at least 60-75 feet with a 72 -inch (min.) block wall at the buffer line at park
height will help.
I am open to other suggestions on these two concerns. Please regard this very seriously.
Sincerely yours,
Deepak and Nandini Chopra
Copy: Gerald Chizever, Attorney at Law
F]
LI
kq-� RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 7, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
2 Emails from Eva Cicoria; Dena Friedson
9 Email from Bob Bush
12 Email from Rich Anchan
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101206 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From: cicoriae@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 7:53 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Minutes of Nov 16
Dear Mayor Wolowicz, City Council Members, and Carolyn,
The minutes of the November 16 City Council meeting summarize my comments of that evening as follows:
Eva Cicoria, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that interpretation of statutes including the
General Plan, Land Use Map, Zoning Code, Coastal Specific Plan, the Deed and the
Program of Utilization indicate that the Annenberg Project at the current proposed site is
not appropriate, noting that the building is an institutional building proposed for parkland
that is not for institutional use. She stated that the open spaces of the coastal zone
should be protected as the value of this area is immeasurable.
There are some inaccuracies in the summary. For example, some of the items listed as statutes in the summary are not
statutes and I wouldn't, and didn't, describe them as such. Also, what I said is "immeasurable" is the value of the solid leaal
framework that the cm's founders gave us for protecting the open spaces we now have in the coastal zone. I was not
referring to the value of the open space per se in that comment. Another speaker, as I recall, gave some estimates of the
value of the parkland itself based on a recent sale of coastal property.
I don't know if it violates some rule of protocal to offer a corrected summary, but here is my suggestion:
Eva Cicoria, Rancho Palos Verdes, reviewed a few rules of statutory interpretation, including that statutes are to be read as a
harmonious whole. She indicated that the General Plan, General Plan Map, Land Use Map, Zoning Code, and Coastal
Specific Plan, not to mention the Deed and Program of Utilization all point in one direction. She recited the municipal code
description for insitutional uses and stated that the proposed building is an institutional use for parkland that isn't for
institutional use. She stated that the value of the legal framework that the city's founders gave us for protecting the open
spaces we now have in the coastal zone is immeasurable and that approval of the project would be a flagrant disregard for
our laws.
Following are my comments prepared for 3 minutes before Council 11/16/10
Good evening,
I'm going to go over a few rules of statutory interpretation. With all the layers of law that are
applicable to the issues before Council tonight, it is important to keep in mind that, in law,
A A statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its parts being interpreted within
their broader statutory context to further the statutory purpose.
When you look at all the layers of law, the General Plan and General Plan Map, the land use laws
and land use map, the Zoning Code and the Coastal Specific Plan, not to mention the deed and
the Program of Utilization, it's enough to make your head spin.
Except that they all point in the same direction for this site. And following the rule of
interpreting the statutes as a harmonious whole, you can only find that this proposed
building and this proposed use on this site at Pt Vicente is a slam dunk NO.
A second rule of statutory interpretation is that the specific overrides the general: Looking
12/3/2010 1 ., 4 n
through our municipal code, you come upon the description for institutional zoning—it's very
specific. It lists:
"educational facilities, clinics, including animal hospitals, public facilities for governmental
purposes, minor professional and retail uses, such as small offices for bookkeeping, consulting,
etc." It's no wonder people get all bollixed up over active and passive recreation. This building is
neither.
It is an institutional use proposed for parkland that is not for institutional use.
Other rules of interpretation are also important to keep in mind:
➢ The "plain meaning rule," of statutory interpretation says if the language of a statute is
clear, no need to look further; and
➢ Words that are not terms of art and that are not statutorily defined are given their ordinary
meanings, basically from the dictionary.
So when you see a big building and plaza complex and you wonder whether it's "outdoor
recreation activities that are non -structured in nature", or whether "environmental impacts are
low", or whether "it retains the natural character of the land", all you have to do is use common
sense and look at the plain meaning of the English language.
We owe the founders of our City a great debt of gratitude for creating a solid legal framework for
protecting the open spaces we now have in the coastal zone. The value of that is immeasurable.
And it is clear to me that approval of this project would be a flagrant disregard for our laws.
If you don't love and appreciate the inherent natural beauty of Lower Point Vicente Park
enough to restrain grand ideas for "improvement" that threatens the very essence of the
park, then nothing I or anybody here can say about the law is going to stop you from
attempting convoluted interpretations to get us to your goal.
We are so fortunate here to have what we have. For sure we can afford to share these assets
with others who come to enjoy them as we do. But none of us can afford to turn them into
something entirely different.
Hold tight to what is most precious to all of us. Once it's gone, it's gone.
Thank you.
12/3/2010 0
Page 1 of 2
From: dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 11:01 PM
To: Carlam@rpv.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com
Subject: Minutes of November 16 City Council Meeting
To Carla from Dena -- Please excuse me if this is a duplicate e-mail. I thought this message was sent
yesterday but can not find it on my computer. Please insert the underlined words in your minutes.
Dena Friedson, PVE, spoke in opposition to the Annenberg project at Lower Point Vicente since the
property was given by the U.S Government as a gift to Los Angeles County for the general public. The
only price the County was asked to pay was to guarantee that the property be used in perpetuity for
public passive recreational pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean as stated in the
Los Angeles County Deed and Program of Utilization. She continued that because of these restrictions,
Lower Point Vicente has always been designated for use as passive open -space recreation. The City
acquired ownership of the property in 2004 and signed an agreement to honor in perpetuity the
restrictions guaranteed by the County. She noted that the property can be sold or leased only to another
eligible governmental agency and that the Annenberg Foundation does not qualify as a lessee.
(The main points of my statement were 1 ] the gift for the general public and 2] prior knowledge of the
restrictions - the County had leased the land for five years before applying for ownership - caused Lower
Point Vicente to always be shown on the City's General Plan Map as "passive recreation", on the Zoning
Map as "outdoor open space," and to be described the same ways in the texts of the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.)
Below is what I read to the Council on November 16:
I am a member of the general public referred to in the Quitclaim Deeds and the Program of Utilization.
I am opposed to the proposed Annenberg facility on this site.
In 1978 the United States Government gave a gift to Los Angeles County for the general public. The
only price the County was asked to pay was to guarantee that the property be used in perpetuity for
public passive recreational pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean. Agreed upon
restrictions are stated in the County's Deed and Program of Utilization. Because of these restrictions,
the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps and documents have always designated Lower Point Vicente
for passive open -space recreation.
The National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation approved the original
Interpretive Center and then its expansion because its purpose was the public's enjoyment of the marine
environment.
After leasing the property from the County for many years, Rancho Palos Verdes acquired ownership of
Lower Point Vicente in 2004. City officials signed an agreement to honor in perpetuity the restrictions
guaranteed by the County. The Annenberg Foundation now wants to lease 14 acres of this land - over
one-half of the total acreage. As a lessee, it could deprive the City of control of future activities.
An important restriction in the Deed states that Lower Point Vicente can be sold or leased only to
another eligible governmental agency. No way does the Annenberg Foundation qualify as a lessee, nor
12/6/2010
Page 2 of 2
does its proposal qualify as a concession. (Final approval rests with the National Park Service, but) you
can end the application proceedings tonight.
You have a tremendous responsibility. It takes only three of you -- only three of you -- to give away or
protect this precious gift that was given to the general public in your City and in the region beyond.
Please honor the signed contract.
12/6/2010
From:
BOB BUSH [bob.bush@verizon.net]
Sent:
Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:30 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Subject:
Grandview Park
Attachments: —Certification—. txt
Dear Members of the City Council:
I live at 6030 Montemalaga Drive, directly across from Grandview Park. I attended the workshops about the park.
My comments about the item on the upcoming City Council agenda are as follows:
1) The plan chosen should be based on which has minimal impact on noise and views.
2) 1 still question the mountain biking use, based on noise and damage to the environment. There already is a heavily
used regular bike path along both sides of Montemalaga Drive. There certainly shouldn't be any formal or organized
competition allowed.
3) The restrooms/office building should be constructed as low as possible to blend into the hillside and avoid obstructing
views..
4) The proposed parking lot should be built at a minimum size and with pavement which blends into the park. There is
ample overflow parking available on Montemalaga Drive
5) Landscaping should be as native as possible and there certainly shouldn't be any tall trees to block views.
6) A stop sign should be considered on Montemalaga Drive. It will be extremely difficult to turn left out of the proposed
parking lot without stop signs. Not having stop signs also could encourage drivers to turn right and then make a U-
turn in front of my house in order to go east on Montemalaga Drive. This would create a hazard. Stop signs also
would calm the traffic speeds on Montemalaga.
Thank you for your consideration.
12/6/2010
From: anchanrj@cox.net
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 6:12 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Marymount's Welching on their Promise to Pay for the Election
Please don't let Marymount get away with failing to pay what they promised ...the city's
cost of Measure P being on the ballot.
As most taxpayers, we have no interest in funding with our tax dollars their agenda. Even
though they got everything they wanted from the council but the dormitories, they demanded
to take their agenda to the ballot and lost soundly. Thank goodness our fellow citizens
can see through a bully!
However, they promised to pay the city's cost to do this. Don't let them pawn this cost
off on the taxpayers of Rancho Palos Verdes. Once and for all make them understand they
don't set the rules and must abide by what city polices are.
If I made a committment to the city to pay for something and refused, you would put a lein
on my property. If Dr Brophy continues to thumb his nose at the rest of us in the
community, I suggest you use similar legal action and place a lien on Marymount.
Rick Anchan
3312 Corinna Drive
310 221 3421
anchanrj@cox.net