Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20101220 Late Correspondence
RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 20, 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 21, 2010 City Council meeting: Iters No. Description of Material 3 Email from Noel Park 9 Emails from Lowell R. Wedemeyer; Joe Lindorfer; Email exchange between Mayor Long and Don Richardson; Email exchange between Edward Z. Stevens and Christopher F. Wilson; Email exchange between Deputy Director Mihranian, Lowell Wedemeyer and Lynn Swank; Email exchange between Mayor Long and Mickey Rodich; Emails from Christopher Wilson; Dina Garbis; Mary Jane Schoenheider; Julia Robinson Shimizu; Cassie Jones; Tina Quinn; Jo Woods; Gary Palmer; Linda DiNoto; Caryl Schwartz; Lynn Scollo; Rosemary Campbell; Sharon Yarber; Stephanie Bryan; Mark Sturgeon; Nancy DeLong; Adrian J.A. Rops; Ann Shaw; Philipp Huber; John Wessel; Judith B. Herman; Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale WAAGEN©A12010 Additions Revisions to agendas120101220 additions revisions to agenda through Monday aftemoon.doc From: NOEL PARK [noel Qd corvette. corn] Sera: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:10 AM To: cc@rpv.com; 'Carolyn Lehr' Cc: arriane5@aol.com Subject: Item 3 Council Agenda of 12/21/10 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 (310) 377-4035 home (562) 210-2128 cell Dear Friends, I note with great appreciation the second action proposed under Agenda Item 3 for next week's Council meeting. Many thanks. Happiest of Holidays to all. 12/16/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn�7a rpv.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:08 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: City Council, 12121 Agenda item 9, Proposed Annenberg Consistency Application From: Tom Long[mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:42 AM To: Lowell R Wedemeyer Ce: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com; clynch@rwglaw.com Subject: Re: City Council, 12/21 Agenda Item 9, Proposed Annenberg Consistency Application Mayor, Correct me if I am wrong, but the merits of the Annenberg project never have been approved by the full Council, I understood that the Council in 2008 authorized the Staff to process the Annenberg proposal internally within the City according to the City's established land development procedures, which plainly are nowhere near completed. City Council consent was necessary to even file the application with the Planning Department because a land owner must sign such an application and the City owns the land. That 2008 Council action to enable filing the application for internal City evaluation is very different from instructing Staff to advocate the merits of the as -yet -unapproved project to outside state and federal agencies. There is only so far that 2008 Council action can be stretched. For example, the Council in 2008 certainly did not authorize Staff to negotiate an exchange with the Annenberg Foundation of a portion of Lower Point Vicente for other land, as now is suggested in the December 21st Staff Report, Respectfully, the proposed application to the National Park Service for a definitive decision within federal jurisdiction simultaneously is also a City land use matter because the land in question is owned by the City. Adoption of a City position in an application before the Federal agency is a City decision about the use of City land, I simply suggest that sort of thing requires approval of the full Council after appropriate public hearings. I have never suggested that the public have to be invited to contract negotiations such as those with PVPLC -- or with Annenberg. I have no quarrel in principle with public-private "partnerships", but such a "partnership" with the Annenberg Foundation was not created by the 2008 Council decision (which only authorized formal evaluation of such an arrangement) and it has yet to be adopted on the merits by the full Council. Respectfully, your arguments heighten my concern that authorization now of an open-ended, ambiguously defined "consistency application" will later be argued as approval of the merits of the Annenberg application as a foie accompli in subsequent City land use hearings --just as the 2008 Council action is now being characterized, incorrectly 1 believe. Please keep in mind that in none of this have 1 argued for or against the Annenberg proposal on its merits, It is precisely because I have not been fully convinced on either side of this issue that I am opposing premature City commitments to state and federal agencies before the City's proper, formal land use procedures have fully, publicly developed all the issues, Sorry for the late hour, but I have limited ability to address these issues, though I do consider them of major import to qualify of life in our City, as you also obviously do, Thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule to discuss them with me. Lowell R. Wedemeyer From: Tom Long[mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] 12/20/2010 / 0 �- . Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:31 PM To: Lowell R Wedemeyer Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Subject: Re: City Council, 12/21 Agenda Item 9, Proposed Annenberg Consistency Application Dear Lowell, The council made a policy decision to support the Annenberg Foundation's application in 2008 and that decision has not been reversed. We can certainly continue to make decisions on procedure consistent with established council policy and we can instruct staff to continue to implement that policy and their activity in doing so need not be neutral or ministerial. Again, for historical perspective I look to what we did on open space acquisition --we made policy decisions and we instructed staff to advocate for those decisions. Such instructions are not instructions to staff on how to decide city land use issues since we are talking about applications to NPS, not to the city itself. In advocating in favor of the city council's open space policies the staff even hired professional lobbyists. Many specifics of the staff's work were conducted with a private non-profit, the PVPLC, in negotiations which were not public. There was nothing wrong with that because the proposed agreements with PVPLC were brought foward for full public hearings before their adoption. In sum, there is nothing procedurally different being done here from what was done between the city and PVPLC. The conduct of the public-private partnership between the city and PVPLC was appropriate in my view and so is the conduct here. But if you have anything else to support your concerns I invite you to call it to my attention. Tom Long Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ----- From: "Lowell R Wedemeyer" Sent 12/19/2010 8:58:30 PM To: "'Tom Long"' Cc: clehr@rpv.com, clynch@rwglaw.com Subject: RE: City Council, 12/21 Agenda item 9, Proposed Annenberg Consistency Application Mayor Thank you for the prompt, thoughtful reply. I would agree with you that Staff can and should affirmatively implement a policy properly adopted by the full City Council after proper public hearings. However, no such City Council approval of the merits of the Annenberg Foundation development proposal can even be discussed on December 21St under the Brown Act. This is because those merits were not noticed for the December 21St agenda and the public hearing on the EIR has not occurred. So the Council cannot instruct the Staff to implement a full Council decision on the proposed Annenberg development's merits. 1 trust that you agree that as a general rule Staff is supposed to ministerially implement policy adopted by the full Council, not create and implement policy without prior Council approval. The actual contents of a proposed Annenberg "consistency application" likewise were not noticed on the December 21St agenda. Evidently, the application contents are to be drafted in the future by the Annenberg Foundation "working with" the Staff. Presumably those contents will reflect the Annenberg Foundation's vision, which the full Council has not adopted and cannot adopt on December 21St. Consequently, the Staff should remain impartial and neutral on the merits of the Annenberg development proposal AT THiS PRELIMINARY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS. This is precisely because no full City Council vote on the merits of either the development proposal or the contents of a consistency application has occurred, nor can that occur on December 21St. That is, the Staff should not be advocating in the name of the City to state and federal officials ON THE MERITS of what is only a proposed project which at this stage cannot yet have full Council approval. If Staff were to advocate to state and federal officials on the merits of the Annenberg development proposal at this preliminary stage, then Staff would be creating City policy to present to outside agencies in the name of the City, rather than ministerially implementing a policy previously adopted by the full City Council. There is a critical difference between 1) advocacy by Staff to outside agencies in the name of the City on the merits of a proposed but not yet approved development, and 2) Staff giving recommendations within the City to 12/20/2010 a 43 the Council about that proposed project based on the best judgment of Staff members. The multi -jurisdictional issues created by the Annenberg proposal illustrate a significant adverse effect of the Ralph M. Brown Act's limitation on Council action, but we all have to live with that State law. Transparency in a democracy is messy, inconvenient, inefficient, and absolutely essential. am not suggesting that a consistency application necessarily would be improper. It could be a useful procedural mechanism here if carefully implemented. I am suggesting that explicit constraints on Staff advocacy to outside agencies are necessary to ensure that such an application will be and remain proper at this preliminary stage. In order that I not create any appearance of a Brown Act violation, I will not forward Mayor Long's email and this reply to other members of the Council. I respectfully request, however, that Staff also distribute this reply with distribution of Mayor Long's response to me. Lowell R. Wedemeyer From: Tom Long[ma ilto:tom long@palosverdes.com] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 5:33 PM To: Lowell R Wedemeyer Cc: clehr@rpv.com; clynch@rwglaw.com Subject: Re: City Council, 12//21 Agenda Item 9, Proposed Annenberg Consistency Application Lowell, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am not sure on what you base your conclusion that staff must be neutral. Staff often implements policies adopted by the council and is not neutral in doing so. Even on quasi- judicial planning matters staff provides recommendations. Indeed council policy requires staff to give us their best professional advice which often will not be neutral. If the council adopts a policy asking that an application with NPS be pursued, I would see nothing wrong with requiring staff to advocate for that application just as staff advocated for grant applications for open space preservation (advocacy which occurred even though some in our community strongly opposed the city getting such grants). You seem to be advocating a marked departure from both past practice and council policy. Staff --please include this e-mail in any distribution of LowelI's e-mail. Tom Long Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ---- From: "Lowell R Wedemeyer" Sent 12/19/2010 5:50:08 PM To: CC@rpv.com, planning@rpv.com Subject: City Council, 12/21 Agenda item 9, Proposed Annenberg Consistency Application Honorable City Council: I am appending a comment concerning the implications of the proposal that Staff file a "consistency request" application on behalf of the Annenberg Foundation, with particular focus on questions about the proper role of City Staff in such an application if it were to be made. I do not envy you for your official burdens on this contentious issue and appreciate that you are shouldering them for our City. Lowell R. Wedemeyer 12/20/2010 3 of 3 ------= NextPart_00I_0002_01CB9FA5.2D72CE70 Content -Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content -Transfer -Encoding: 7bit Honorable City Council: I am appending a comment concerning the implications of the proposal that Staff file a "consistency request" application on behalf of the Annenberg Foundation, with particular focus on questions about the proper role of City Staff in such an application if it were to be made. I do not envy you for your official burdens on this contentious issue and appreciate that you are shouldering them for our City. Lowell R. Wedemeyer 7 <20101217175925.GGA5593.dukecmfep04.coxmail.com@dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:59:25 -0500 Received: from lowellVAIO ((172.18.18,217]} by dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com with bizsmtp id kHzB1f0054hONTLO1HzFl4; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:59:16 -0500 X-Barracuda-BBL-IP: 68.99.120.137 X-Barracuda-RBL-IP: 68.99.120.137 From: "Lowell R Wedemeyer" <lowell@transtalk.com> To: <CC@rpv.com>, <citymanager@rpv.com>, The Staff Report for the December 21 City Council meeting contains a significant misapprehension concerning Save Our Shoreline, an organized group of which I am a member. Save Our Shoreline was formed to address issues at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. Save Our Shoreline as a group has not taken a position either for or against the Annenberg Foundation proposal for Lower Point Vicente. While it is true that some prominent members of Save Our Shoreline also publicly oppose the Annenberg Foundation project, other SOS members have not stated any public position on the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation proposal never has been brought to a vote within the Save Our Shoreline organization. Therefore, SOS as a group currently has no plans to present an organized opposition on December 21. However, Staff is correct that there is organized opposition to the Annenberg Foundation proposal . I am not aware whether the organized opponents of the Annenberg Foundation proposal have adopted a group name. It is up to those organized opponents to designate their spokespersons. Lowell R. Wedemeyer From: lindorfer [lindorferl @cox. net] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 7:51 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dec. 21, 2010 Staff Report on proposed ANNENBERG Project Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, The staff report discussion of optionl indicates that staff "understands" in scenario 3) that either of the following 2 choices will mitigate non-compliance issues: "• Public Facility Restriction - Recording a restriction on the proposed building that ensures public access for improvements that enhance outdoor recreation benefits for the entire park." "• Land Exchange - Purchasing equivalent land to dedicate as a new outdoor recreational park of equal or greater market value and recreational value to correspond with the reduction of land that is available for outdoor recreational use at Lower Point Vicente." Was this "understanding" agreed to by NPS/OGALS? The first choice seems to say only that the public will be granted access to parts of the building that are not deemed private by Annenberg. The second seems to say that Annenberg can purchase enough land to cover the market value of only the building footprint. Is this your understanding? What action will you take if NPS/OGALS decides that the submittal is not consistent with the POU and grant restrictions? Thanks, Joe Lindorfer 1 12/20/2414 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:57 PM To: V and D Richardson' Cc: cityclerk@rpv.com Subject: RE: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why? Mr. Richardson — Thank you very much for completing the chain of communication. It appears that the last three exchanges were not attached to the staff report because City staff was not copied on them. They will be included in Late Correspondence for the December 21 It meeting on the Annenberg Project. Sincerely, Carolynn Petru From; M and D Richardson [mailto:medon@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:41 PM To; carolynn@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Fwd: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why? Dear Ms. Petru: I have learned that portions of a correspondence between Mayor Pro Tem Long and I are included as attachments to the staff report for the Annenberg Project discussion scheduled for the December 21 City Council meeting. In the interest of thoroughness, I am forwarding you the entire chain of e-mails, as I could not find the final three notes (two from Mr. Long and one from me) from the exchange. Sincerely, Don Richardson Begin forwarded message: From: "Tom Long" <tomlong_@pplasyerdes,com> Date: November 21, 2010 3:16:57 AM PST To: "M and D Richardson" Emedon.@cox,net> Subject: Re: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why? Dear Don, I agree that the main issue at hand is Annenberg and my reference to PVPLC is tangential. And I think most people see it that way. Only two people (you and one other person) have even mentioned it in the dozens of e- mails I have received on this. Please be assured I support the original mission of PVPLC. We have 1400 acres of coastal land, the largest coastal nature preserve South of Santa Barbara and North of San Diego. Hundreds of years from now (assuming the Preserve is still here) people will look at it in a megalopolis of 30 million plus people and say "waw --who thought of this!" None of this would have been remotely possible without the vision of Bill Ailor, the perseverence of Doug Stern and Barbara Dye and the hard work and contributions of those 3 and hundreds of others I cannot possibly all name. I have not forgotten any of that and one of my primary thoughts is what should we do to protect that legacy? Whatever I may do that people may disagree with from time to time, please be assured that that question is forefront in my mind. Tom Long 12/20/2010 -----Original Message ----- From: "M and D Richardson" Sent 11/20/2010 7:05:06 PM To: "Tom Long" Subject: Re: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why? Dear Tom, Thanks yet again for yet another prompt reply. I am only familiar with the Ginsburgs' intentions through my intermittent - my wife would say obsessive - following of the city council meetings, so I can add nothing to your clarification. I would like to say that it has been my intention in this exchange to encourage focus on the matter at hand, the proposed Annenberg Project and to suggest to you that drawing PVPLC into the discussion serves only to distract from the real issue. I fear my notes may have accomplished the opposite. Regardless, I do appreciate your responsiveness. Best Regards, Don On Nov 21, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Tom Long wrote: Dear Don, Your characterization of the Ginsburgs' earlier withdrawal is correct as far as I know but it is not what I was referring to. The Ginsbergs made a second withdrawal more recently I have been told. I haven't discussed why with them but at some point I am sure I will. I suspect their confidence in the city has eroded. They have expressed concerns to me before. As you may know the Ginburgs are considering funding a building in the Upper Point Vicente area that would be a multi purpose building but with an emphasis on the donors' interest in dance. Given the opposition to the Annenberg project I forsee that they may have to go through a difficult process too given their desires and I think they may figure that out and may decide they are not interested. When a private donor ids bludgeoned the way Annenbers was, it does not stretch the imagination to think that other donors may draw unfavorable inferences. As for the other donor's reaction that I quoted I have it on very good authority even though I did not hear it personally. You confuse drawing inferences with inaccuracies and innuendo. I stand by the facts I stated and I think the inferences I draw, while unpleasant, are reasonable. We should not run from them just because they are unpleasant. Everyone draws inferences from the facts they know. As a result my description of the facts points toward certain conclusions. Everyone who tells a story does the same thing. I am certainly open to learning additional facts. Indeed I have asked for some additional facts. For example, I asked Ms. Ciccoria why she would object to my seeing the National Park Service's file on this matter. I never got an answer. All I want to see is the facts given to the NPS that caused their representatives in DC to think the project is a "dog pound." If the thought is that the names of those speaking to the NPS should be redacted to protect their identities from someone like me that would be just fine. Personally I may increase my donation to PVPLC this year and ask that it be used to support a better timetable for native plant restoration and for other needs that are part of PVPLC's original mission. I am not the only one who is concerned that PVPLC has lost its way to some degree. There are others -- former board members and even one current one and other major supporters --who share my view. When the wife of the president of the PVPLC is saying that the councilmembers who disagree with her on land use issues are acting illegally while that may be her free speech right, it creates a poor public image. The image only creates more suspicion in the view of some of us when the apparent purpose of her efforts seems to be to turn some of the city's parks into open space preserves over which the PVPLC would have control. The problem is capped off by a letter to the state from Ms. Ciccoria lobbying against grant applications made by the city for park improvements that was riddled with inaccuracies that it took staff hours of time to respond to in order to keep the grant application alive. All of these efforts have been supported by others with close connections to PVPLC. Again --that is their right. But shouldn't the public get to know what is happening? And isn't there an allocation of resources that some of us might think is improper? Even though PVPLC's board is not taking an official position, if people closely connected 12/20/20I0 r1 o� 7 with PVPLC are aggressively attacking city policies does it look like or constitute a cooperative approach? I have been a good friend of open space restoration and good land use decisions in this city for some time and often at significant personal sacrifice. I continue to support the original mission of PVPLC. And I hope it can avoid becoming an advocacy organization for land use issues as opposed to a land conservancy. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: "M and D Richardson" Sent 11/20/2010 6:08:31 PM To: "Tom Long" Cc: clehr r v.com, carol nna,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 I 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 Iikely 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 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 12/2012010 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 Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ----- From: "M and D Richardson" Sent 11/20/2010 12:59:47 PM To: tomlong rr,palosverdes.com Subject: Re: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why? Dear Mayor Pro Tem 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 MBCA, 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 of the 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. Ciecoria, 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, tomlon,g(2(palosverdes.com wrote: > From: tomlonggpalosverdes.com > Subject: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why? > Message: 12/20/2010 "(7( 7 > 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 ce@rpvcom 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. Ciecoria 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. 12/20/2010 547 > 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 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, 12/20/2010 to 4 7 > 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. Ciecoria 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 Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes 12/20/2010 ? o� 7 From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [cfw.cwanda@gmail. coml Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:54 AM To: EZStevens; aram@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com; david.siegenthaler@nps.gov Cc: Jaakola, Jackie; Irene Chansawang Subject: Re: Support for the Annenberg RPV Discovery Park Mr. Stevens, Ara, City Council, NPS and PVPWatch, I appreciate having your thoughts, Mr. Stevens, and having you as a neighbor. I am not entirely in agreement, as explained below, but look forward to continuing to have you as a friendly neighbor. Please forgive me if this seems a bit sharp - I suppose it is an occupational hazard. Plus I have a limited amount of time for editing and smoothing out the rough edges. If it is too annoying to read, feel free to just delete it. The "people" have not voted on the Annenberg project, though maybe they should, especially if "the people" is construed to include those under 18 (who do not get to vote, of course). If by "the people" we mean the City Council, I am not convinced the 3-2 vote can retract the previous 4-1 vote in favor of the project. Once Annenberg got a green light and invested millions in the project, they had (and have) reasonable expectations of cooperation from "the people" of RPV, in my view. The City could of course offer to pay back the millions already spent by the Annenberg Foundation, but I am not seeing any of the objectors proposing to chip in. I think it is very unlikely that Annenberg will have anything more to do with the City if it gets a 4-1 vote in favor of its project then, with no change in circumstances, after it spends millions, the City does an about face. Exactly what assurance can the City give that any project anywhere in RPV could be finally built if the City can change its mind on no basis other than "the City Council now has new members." I am not in agreement with your conclusion that there is no open space between Malibu and San Diego. The first marathon we ran in 2009 was at Camp Pendleton - 20 miles or so of open coastline. We have also built up the RPV coastline since 1968 - the property in question already has the PVIC, which has a higher profile than the proposed center. If what was proposed was a new material obstruction of the view from PV Drive to the Ocean, I would be with you 100%. I am not seeing that - the view is already materially impaired by the PVIC. ,Let's recall the property is pie -shaped, with the tip of the pie at PV Drive. To the left looking down is the Coast Guard complex. To the right is a complex of houses. The Annenberg roof is to be covered in native plants, and under 16 feet high (and built in a sort of swale or gully). The people who came here in 1968 and founded the City are to be respected and thanked for their foresight. But, let's not forget that the property values have gone up from say $65,000 to $1.2 million for a typical property. And those who set up the City have also approved the Trump project and the Terranea project and the houses below the end of Hawthorne. The circumstances are not what they were in 1968 or 1973. There is more density, and there is more population. The highest and best use of the land has changed a bit. It is no longer the case that a weed farm is the highest and best use of the property, all would agree. But we cannot be too cheap or incremental in park development - a park is not a "fix it and forget it" project. It is not cheap, or something that RPV should try to do too cheaply. The park across from the Wayfarers Chapel is also great, but limited. The structure is pretty worthless. The men's bathroom is generally closed. There is no ability to get a cold drink, water or otherwise, or a snack. The trash is removed once a week, if that. The bathrooms at the Santa Monica Annenberg facility should be looked at for comparison purposes. The amenities are also much nicer in Santa Monica. It is like comparing a Motel 6 complex to a Ritz Carlton complex. A Motel 6 complex might have made sense in 1968 when things were less developed (and less pricey). Now, if RPV wants to keep pace with places like Orange County, it can and should set its sights a bit higher, in my view. 12/20/2010 At the subject site, RPV needs a space with trails (and no material new view obstructions from PV Drive) that connect up (eventually) to ocean -side trails already built. That is a big ticket item and the on-going maintenance is another big-ticket item. The coastal area should be enjoyed more than just from a distance - it should be smelled, seen, felt, heard and tasted by those who have taken the time to get out of their cars and walk around. My comments are offered in a spirit of friendship and as a neighbor. Any irritation or offense caused was not intended. I am going to be thrilled to be in RPV however the City chooses to proceed, and hope we can remain friends and good neighbors. Regards, Chris Wilson On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, EZStevens <erstevens cox.net> wrote: Dear Chris, I do not think you are aware that the people in RPV WANT TO KEEP this area in its natural state. I was attracted to this area in 1968 for its natural state & open view corridor of the ocean. I voted for our new City to protect our open Coastal view along with the Coastal commission for eternity so that future generations could enjoy this area in its natural environment. You can drive up and down our Coast from Malibu to San Diego & all is get is barely a what I call A — PEEK —A —VIEW of our Awesome coast line. You should be one of the first people who has lived here for the last 10 years would want to protect one of the last open Coastal areas in California. If I want to go to a busy place like Santa Monica, Century City or Disney land to see a nice developed area I can go there & so can you. We do not want this development on our Natural Coastal property. I agree with you that the area could be spruced up without putting up buildings. Surely Annenberg can find another site, like up on the RPV City Hall property or down at the lower end of Fess park. We are all aware of the nice projects that The Annenberg foundation does, but not on one of the last open areas of RPV. Please help & persuade the Annenberg people to find it in their Heart to build this in another part of RPV & to maybe spend a few dollars in just building a few trails & a little landscaping for future generations to enjoy without having to drive up to Oregon to enjoy the same open coastal view corridor. Sincerely Edward Z Stevens 32418 Conqueror Dr. From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [mailto:cfw.cwanda@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:48 PM To: aram��v.com; cc@Epv com; pvpwatch ri pv watch.com; david_siegenthaler@a nps.bov Cc: Jaakola, Jackie; Irene Chansawang Subject: Support for the Annenberg RPV Discovery Park Ara, plus Friends and Neighbors: I am writing this also to a few neighbors who have opposed the project in the hopes that they might reconsider - I was not at the prior session with the City Council and did not have my views in the record until after the 3-2 vote against the Annenberg project. I am late to the party. The email addresses came from the objections in the 12/20/2010 public record, which I have read and weighed. If there are neighbors who are offended and/or have made up their minds and do not want to hear a different perspective, or see photos of previous Annenberg projects, they should not read further and simply delete this email. I apologize for any hurt feelings, and hope we can go on being good neighbors. I am not trying to be irritating or adversarial, and present this in a spirit of friendship, trusting that we can remain friends (or at least not enemies) however the City ends up proceeding. The email may be a bit long for the casual reader - if so, please just skip to the photos, which suggest to me that Annenberg knows what it is doing and will not build an eyesore, or a nuisance, or a "white elephant", or overrun RPV with tourists. Ara, could you list me as in favor of the Discovery Park proposed by Annenberg and add the text and photos from this email to the administrative record? By way of background, I have lived in RPV at 3250 Seaclaire since 2001. I have had many occasions to run and bike ride in and around the Annenberg site in PV, most recently while training for 3 marathons in 2009. The longer runs wend along the coastline from Point Fermin to where Paseo Del Mar intersects PV Drive West. I also used to drive from our house to the PV High School every weekday morning taking my son to high school. My law practice is primarily in the public construction area - subways, hospitals, paving, water treatment plants, etc. I do contracts as well as go to court and arbitration or mediation proceedings. I have had the pleasure of working on the Disney Concert Hall project by Frank Gehry. Gehry's work looked pretty "out there" in the late 80's and early 90's but is now considered really nice. I think the Annenberg projects (including the one in Santa Monica) have initially struck neighbors as far-fetched, but, on further reflection, really pretty nice. So, I am suggesting the RPV neighbors might want to reflect a bit more about what Annenberg proposes, in light of its "track record." I went to law school at University of Virginia (where my daughter is now getting law and business degrees). Cindy, my wife also ran the three 2009 marathons and did all the 2009 training runs with me past and through the PVIC area and the Discovery Park site. I started in the JAG Corps (Army) in Germany and at Fort Ord working on claims, as a prosecutor, as a defense counsel, and as a magistrate. I then went to Morgan Lewis in LA (one of the large, international firms) for 8 years. I have been in my own practice since 1993 (5 years in Brentwood and since 1998 in Torrance). I have discussed my concerns with the Annenberg office (which is next to mine), reviewed their design and proposal, and agree strongly that the Annenberg RPV project should go forward as planned. Annenberg has done great things for Santa Monica and Century City - look at the Annenberg Santa Monica facility on the beach below the bluffs for an idea of what sort of "world class" work they could do for RPV (without spoiling views or flooding the area with tourists or creating a nuisance or overly urbanizing the area). (See photos of Annenberg Santa Monica and Annenberg Century City attached.) $35 mm well spent with good construction and good work of architects would be a huge plus for that area of RPV. I am a former Eagle Scout and have as much respect for open space as any of my neighbors, I think. But the Annenberg site as now configured is not in any useful sense open space or parkland. It is not a place I could walk with my older relatives, or frolic with my younger relatives. It is not a place where I could run or ride a bike. It is ok for mice, I suppose, but not more than minimally useful for the average RPV resident. It needs to be upgraded a bit (with natural vegetation and limited trails) to make it reasonably user-friendly for RPV residents and their guests. The Annenberg project is in line with what one would see on that type of site in Europe, on the East Coast, or in the UK. It is not a crazy idea and a building taking up 4% of the land area is a huge benefit, not a detriment. I suggest RPV folks need to get out and actually walk the site a bit, see how non -useful it is now, and then ask if the upgrades suggested by Annenberg will do anything besides greatly enhance that part of RPV. The site is spectacular, yes, it is "god's country" in my view, and I spend and will spend lots of time there. I would be the first to oppose the project if I thought it would be a nuisance, or would block the view, or the area was going to end up covered with dog droppings and mud and dogs jumping up on children and elders. But that is not how Annenberg does things, as shown by the projects that they completed in 2009 and the project they have planned 12/20/2010 so for for RPV. They care as much (or more) about open space as any of our neighbors, having put up $1 million in matching funds for open space purchase in RPV. Why anyone thinks what they have in mind would drive down property values in RPV escapes me. Ask some of the neighbors around the Annenberg Santa Monica or Annenberg Century City projects if they are anything Iess than thrilled about the work done by Annenberg and I think you will find them uniformly thrilled to have Annenberg next door. We have been training for the LA Marathon along the Santa Monica/Venice/Marina del Rey/Manhattan Beach/Pacific Palisades trails and have run past the Annenberg Santa Monica facility lots of times. It is popular, but blends in and is not over -run with tourists. A big plus with Annenberg is the commitment to fund the site maintenance and operations. If there are any noise or nuisance issues, the Annenberg site will have on-site management and people to fix the problem. This is not like asking the PVPLC folks (who may be poor at any given time) to fix trails in the Portugese Bend area (where I have also done a good bit of running and bike riding). The Annenberg group has world class designers and construction crews who can make sure that the project is built per spec and runs as expected. The Annenberg Foundation has over a billion in assets, I understand, and would be quite able to respond in damages (or tear the work down) if it proved a nuisance. The beauty of that area will be far more accessible if the trails at the bottom of Hawthorne (which I think turned out quite well) can be linked to the trails at the PVIC (whale watching center), through the front of the Coast Guard property and on down to the Terranea trails. I understand the Coast Guard and Annenberg are agreeable, and Annenberg funds can make the safe and user-friendly pathway from PVIC to Terranea a reality. At present, runners and walkers need to go along the road, through quite rough shoulder area. The shoulder from PVIC to Terranea would not be safely passable with a running stroller or by my mother in law (who has macular degeneration issues). That shoulder area would not be recommended for small running groups, such as PV High School cross-country teams (my son was once on a PV High CC team). Without making the views worse, Annenberg support could make the connection between Terranea Trails (and Trump trails beyond that) and PVIC (and trails below the bottom of Hawthorne beyond that). This work on walking paths should help runners, walkers, guests at Trump and Terranea, cross-country teams, mothers pushing strollers or walking with youngsters, and property values all along the improved area. What the City needs to do, in my view, is ask Annenberg to make sure the project is 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. I am not seeing any better spot for the project to be located - upper Vicente has much too much slope, in my view. The lower Vicente property is an abandoned farm and is (all agree) in need of work. If the "make a park" work is not done now, then when? The delays can be huge - the place that was partly torn down in Santa Monica to make way for Annenberg Santa Monica was pretty much abandoned for say 20 years before Annenberg funds arrived. I know that "in the long run" other non -Annenberg funds might be found for lower Vicente, but park plans have been on the books for Iower Vicente and unfunded since 1983 (27 years). Quoting John Maynard Keynes; "In the tong run, we're all dead." 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 tanning vegetation and do anything interesting with the property. PVP Watch and the PV land conservation zealots are potentially driving away a huge opportunity for RPV. In my view, they are misleading the Interior Dept, and misrepresenting facts to RPV. 12/20/2010 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 nun of Annenberg funds. Why should we prefer that the money go to Beverly Hills or Orange County or Malibu 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. Hopefully the PVP Watchers will take a look at the 2009 projects opened by Annenberg in Santa Monica (http:/Ibeachbouse.smp,ov.net/about/the-beach-house-story.aspx) and Century City (http://annenbergsuaceforphotography,net/blog_-/) and realize the Annenberg RPV project is like a $35 mm gift offered to your college alma mater. Does anyone here think a college in its right mind would say "no thanks" if a donor like Annenberg came by with a project like the Annenberg team completed in Santa Monica or Century City? I would think not, judging from all the fund-raising letters I get from places like Duke, Marymount and UVA. Annenberg looks like a charitable foundation RPV can partner with effectively, and should, to keep RPV on the cutting edge as a fun and interesting place to live in SoCal. To PVP Watch Editor re Annenberg: 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 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 Annenberg RPV facility, what are you and your "hair on fire" supporters suggesting? When? With whose $35 mm? Attached are some photos of fine work done by Annenberg in Santa Monica and Century City (taken Saturday, I2/4/2010, 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 24 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 Iand 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 modern 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, I side by a 4 lane road, 1 side by a housing development (with nice paths) and I side by the interpretative center (also with nice paths). 12/20/2010 So long as the path network is respected and enhanced (and Annenberg plans to do that), and native vegetation is used with proper drainage (and Annenberg plans to do that), and ocean views are respected, the reasonably open space is being well-preserved, in my view. To the owner of the house that may lose a lighthouse view: I would say a lighthouse view is nice, and desirable, but is not the sort of primary ocean view that must be protected at all costs. The loss of the lighthouse view would be more than made up for, in my opinion, by the improved trails and usability of the abandoned farm. If the lighthouse view is considered protected, under the RPV view ordinance, the most reasonable solution might be to have the house owner sell to the Annenberg Foundation, or agree to an arbitration as to change in value with no lighthouse view after the project is completed and stabilized. 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 310 316 2500 fax: 310 543 2526 cfw.cwandaggrnail.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 310 316 2500 fax: 310 543 2526 cfw.ewanda@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 12/20/2010 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. 12/20/2010 I --I.= ; � \ \^� _ \ � A for, W 1 4 1 s s From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10.37 AM To: lyn n. swan k@cox. net-, lowell@transtalk.com Cc: 'Ara M; 'Joel Rojas'; 'Carolyn Lehr; CC@rpv.com Subject: Save Our Shoreline/Misrepresentation in Staff Report - Retraction Lynn and Lowell, I want to first hand apologize for incorrectly stating in the December 21 st City Council Staff Report on the Annenberg Project that Save Our Shoreline (S.O.S.) is an organized group in opposition of the project. I will make sure that a correction is posted on the City's website (under the Annenberg Project Page) by the end of the day and will publicly correct the record at tomorrow's Council meeting during Staff's opening remarks on this agenda item. Again, my apologies and please do not hesitate to contact me with any further comments or requests. Sincerely, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310544-5293 (fax) aram rpv.com w,.vNv,p_alosverdes.com/rpY ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Lynn Swank [mailto:lynn.swank@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:56 PM To: Carolyn Lehr; Joel Rojas Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Save Our Shoreline/Misrepresentation in Staff Report In the report to City Council staff indicated that "members of the public, as part of an organized group referred to as Save Our Shoreline, may also request additional time." Save Our Shoreline, as staff is fully aware, is a group organized for Abalone Cove to work with the City to make improvements as set forth in previous city council approved plans. I don't know how to make this any clearer: Save Our Shoreline is an organized group for Abalone Cove only. Any reference to Save our Shoreline being involved as a group in the Annenberg discussion is a misrepresentation of the facts. Save Our Shoreline has never taken a public stance as a group regarding the Annenberg project. It is important that we have this name recognition applied to Abalone Cove. I had thought that staff, through many meetings, recognized that the purpose of our group was solely for Abalone Cove. In misinforming our residents of this distinction, I feel that staff has undercut the ability of Save Our Shoreline to do independent fundraising and other in-kind services to help the City achieve its own stated goals. The bell has been rung and we can't erase what is already part of the public record. I do request that staff correct their report on the Annenberg Project by admitting their wrongful use of Save our Shoreline regarding the Annenberg project. These actions should include a revision to the staff report acknowledging that a mistake has been made; refer to the group raising questions about the Annenberg Project by name (I don't even know if there is an organized group); correct the staff report on 12/20/2010 9 the City web site; send out a bistServe correcting your mistake; and state when the staff report is presented to the city council that a mistake was made so that the public record reflects the error. The damage to save Our Shoreline has been done and these actions will help us to proceed, if possible, with what has already been discussed with City Staff. If staff has changed their mind about working together please state that to us directly. Please correct the record so Save Our Shoreline can continue to proceed with our mutual goals. Lynn Swank Member, Save our Shoreline 12/20/2010 From: Mickey Rodich [mickeyrodich@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:02 RM To: Aram@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Fwd: Annenberg Cat & Dog Hospital Me and my family are against the Annenberg Project being located along our coastline. Find a place at City Hall if you think that project is that important. I don't like Annenberg's agenda and neither does the government branch that gave the land to our city. I don't think RPV should be giving valuable costal land to special interests. I am attaching some correspondence I had with Tom Long on Sept. 13,2010 that applies to this discussion. I think that if and when he understands the conditions under which the government gave RPV all that land, then he would understand why they stated the land be used for recreational purposes and not for special interests. My comments still apply. Whats wrong with soccer and baseball fields or a skateboard park for our youth? Even a par 3 golf course? ---------- Forwarded message ---..------ From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich�gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Annenberg Cat & Dog Hospital To: Tom Long <tomlong@palosverdes.com> I was being a little facetious with Dog and Cat Hospital, however I am against you and the rest of the city council giving away valuable Iand to special interests that have their own agendas. Yes it is a giveaway. It is a lot less invasive to have a farm than Annenberg's fiasco. What's wrong with having a skateboard park for our teens or a dog park that everyone can use or a city 9 hole golf course on that land or at city hall? Oh, I forgot we don't have the money. Add Abalone Cove to the mix and before you know it the coastline will be filled with buildings and that will be the end of open space along our coastline. If you recall, the reason we became a city was because the county had an agenda like yours to fill up the coastline with buildings, and the citizens were not very happy. Maybe that was before your time here, but none the less it is a similar situation. The citizens of RPV don't want all of these buildings, they want an open coastline. It's a shame that the city council has plenty of time and money to spend on things like these, but doesn't have the time or money to do things like the San Ramon project. That is a much more critical situation and can be resolved without ever getting involved with the City of LA. If we have rainy seasons or a Iarge earthquake that whole canyon can slide into the mobile home park and create a huge catastrophe and many lives will be lost. We who live in Ladera Linda and Sea View could be completely isolated if a large earthquake hits us.But the city council doesn't have the time or money or care to correct the problem. I would not want to be on a city council that is aware of a very serious situation such as this and says they do not care or have the time or money to correct it. Remember the intentions from Save Our Coastline still apply today, but the perpetrator's are from within our own city and not from the county. Also I don't think we need a charter city. After seeing the charter cities of Bell and Vernon in the news recently, we need accountability and not under handed politics. We already have unnecessarily high salaries for our city staff. Also having many city workers employed through the Charles Abbott company is costing the city a lot of money. Please pass along my comments to the rest of the city council. We want accountability. Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Tom Long <tomlo@palosverdes,eom> wrote: There is no proposal for a "dog and cat hospital." But if and when you learn what the proposal really is please do send in your comments. There is no proposal to give away land. The land would be used for a public purpose. 12/2012010 Right now much of it is used for a private for profit commercial farm and the city rents the land at way below market prices. Interesting that you don't want a public use for public land but have no objection to a private use. I think you may have been misinformed about what is really going on. -----Original Message ----- From: "Mickey Rodich" Sent 9/1212010 12:43:25 PM To: cc@rpv com, gram rpv.com Subject: Annenberg Cat & Dog Hospital Me and my family are against The Annenberg Project. It is giving away our land to special interests and is wrong. The same goes for Marymount. Their actions could set a precedent and anyone can then bypass city approval process for land use. 12/20/2010 From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [cfw.cwanda@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:51 AM To: cc@rpv.com; pvpwatch@pvpwatch.com; Brian Campbell; swolowicz; Torn Long; Douglas Stern; momofyago Cc: Jaakola, Jackie; Irene Chansawang Subject: More Friendly Thoughts re Annenberg RPV vs. Annnenberg 2009 Projects, Sunk Costs Issues Hello Sharon, City Council, PVPWatch and Ara, Thank you for your comments, Sharon, and your time spent in responding to my email. I value you as a neighbor and fellow lawyer and of course hope that we can remain good, friendly neighbors however this works out. My overall concern is that your concept is one that has no funding and limited detail. There is a drawing of about what you have in mind, in the public record, dated 1983. Nothing like what you propose has been done at the site in 27 years and I am not seeing it becoming a park of the sort you envision in the next 27 years, at the rate we are going. The Annenberg Santa Monica project is award winning, fits into the area, and was public before it was developed. It is an illustration of what a good design and construction team could do in RPV, blending into the environment and not obstructing the view from PV drive to the Ocean (which is already partly blocked by the PVIC). It is the sort of public/private partnership that the City chose to pursue before Annenberg spent millions in reliance on the 4- 1 vote of the City Council for the project. If the switch in votes had been made on a Trump project, I submit the City would already be in a suit for millions of dollars. Why the City should feel like it can ignore its promises because "Ms. Annenberg" spent the millions and not "The Donald" escapes me. The idea that Lower Point Vicente "has only recently become unencumbered" would not fly as any sort of justification for the City going against the project, after voting 4-1 in favor of the project. It has been an abandoned farm for years, as you know. The $600 or so per year "encumbrance" that you mention is miniscule compared to the market value of the 24 acres - say $24 to $50 million. If the City said we changed our vote because we found the lease was not expired, the judge (even Judge Mallano, or maybe especially that judge) would laugh the City out of court. The "we need more time" objection makes more sense, if the objectors are also saying "here are the millions you spent in reliance on the 4-1 vote." Since there is no such offer of compensation being made, the legal objection of "we rushed into this" would not suffice to stop the hypothetical suit. "If anyone is misinformed about the project I believe it is you, not the opponents or the National Park Service, the CA Coastal Commission and the California Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) who have oversight of the property and have all interposed objections to the project," Objections to the project by the agencies you mention are advisory only. I have seen no suit filed by any agency, and I am convinced that no suit will be filed or would be successful if filed. The lead agency with the responsibility for the project is and was the City of RPV. Having said go forward, it is arguably bad faith for the City to say it now wants to stop based on deed issues that Tom Long (a lawyer) has fairly clearly shown should not detain us. If the objectors had a legal ground for stopping the project, based on deed language or the draft DEIR, or the POU, or General Plan or Zoning issues, they could and should have filed suit to stop the project. No such suit has been filed, I submit because the top lawyers working with the objectors (including Shepherd Mullin) are not seeing any good enough grounds for suit. Again, rather than throwing up nice legal objections that would not prevent the City from having to pay millions in damages to Annenberg if an Annenberg suit was filed, maybe the objectors should focus on the actual highest and best use of the property. The proposed building is some 4% of the land space here at issue (a 10% footprint is the most allowed for a building in a park use, I understand - Annenberg"s footprint is under 1/2 the size limit). The "majority" of the building is a discovery center. It is for pretty passive use - like the PVIC. It is a place to 12/20/2010 9k learn about animals, to interact a bit with animals, and to help take care of those animals. The idea that S cats and 10 dogs in a building on 4% of 24 acres should have the community in an uproar about "pets are not that important" is surprising, to say the least. How your email comes to label a multipurpose room a "trustee board room" escapes me - why is that space not also usable by the community for any number of other meetings, such as of the PVP Watch or the PVPLC? The project is designed to be entirely for public use. Just as in any park, there would be some offices that would not be appropriate for routine public use. I suggest you look again at the Annenberg Santa Monica project (if you have ever actually been there) to see how the staff is officed - the idea that Annenberg RPV is some sort of disguised office building or "Taj Mahal for Ms. Annenberg" is just not going to withstand scrutiny if the City is ever sued. Why is 10,000 feet (say 60 spaces) of underground parking said in your email to be "staff' parking? It is parking, and underground, and underground is a plus for those who want to not see cars at the site as much as possible. If one wanted to create a misperception of the intent of the Annenberg project, one might call it "staff' parking, but I see no reason why it cannot also be called "visitor" parking (or, more likely, "staff and visitor" parking). Again, if one actually visits Annenberg Santa Monica and/or Annenberg Century City, one can see that the staffing and parking is what one would expect for a high-end passive -use park, and Ms. Annenberg is not building a complex of private palaces or "Taj Mahals" for her own use. You say "only a small portion of the interior of the property is available for public educational uses." I am seeing 35,000 square feet available for program space. You try to say the center is primarily a "public education" building, but you fail to compare the Santa Monica Annenberg facility or the Annenberg Century City facility. Yes, formal education is one thing that can be done in the 35,000 square feet of program space, but is certainly not the only thing, or the primary thing. Look at the photo exhibits, shows, community meetings, and so forth that are on-going in the other 2009 Annenberg projects. The RPV Annenberg site can be used by young and old to informally interact with animals, to formally or informally interact with other people, to enjoy the trails, to independently study, to read the paper, type some emails, enjoy a coffee and muffin, and so forth. It is designed to get young and old out of the house and into nature and culture, as we see in the 2009 projects completed by Annenberg. To call Annenberg RPV the equivalent of a Marymount classroom building is a recipe for disaster if the City ever has to show up and explain its flip-flop in court. I hear you when you say: "I, for one, do not want to see all of the available land landscaped with native habitat, essentially turning this park into yet additional Preserve property. We need grass (and maybe even a few weeds) and picnic tables and some trees for shade, so that this property can be used for the contemplative, peaceful pastime purposes for which it was granted, and allow people from all over to have an escape from buildings, concrete, and decomposed trails as the only places upon which their feet may be placed." I would suggest you take a look at the park across from Wayfarers Chapel, which has grass/weeds, picnic tables, some trees for shade, no decomposed granite trails. I am not seeing much difference between that concept and what the Annenberg RPV project would involve, except: (1) Annenberg takes care of staffing, maintenance, operation; (2) top notch bathroom facilities; (3) a place to get a cold drink and snack; (4) native plants and usable trails; (5) 4% of the property occupied by a public use facility (with underground parking). There seems to be room for both the more primitive property (which has limited staffing and maintenance) and the more high-end facility proposed by Annenberg (and initially approved 4- 1 by the City Council before the Annenberg Foundation spent millions making the vision a reality). Again, please excuse me if I have been a bit too strident or annoying or offensive. We may just have to agree to disagree, hopefully as friends or at least supportive neighbors. Regards, Chris Wilson Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 12/20/2010 Torrance, California 90503 310 316 2500 fax: 310 543 2526 cfw.cwanda@amail.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. 12/20/2010 From: Dina Garbis [dinadog@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2090 6:26 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: aram@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg Project Dear Mayor Long and Distinguished Members of the City Council: As an animal behaviorist, I encourage you to listen to the vast majority of people in this community who support the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente, and expedite the project's approval. In Rancho Palos Verdes, people -- and their pets -- come into contact with wildlife virtually every day. A dog on the beach chases after a pelican. An egret sips water from a backyard pond. A cat plays with a butterfly. A coyote walks the street looking for its dinner. There is much we can learn about the bonds we have with nature, and the Annenberg Project will offer a wide variety of programming for the entire community. The project will also dovetail with PVIC and make the Point Vicente truly a discovery park for education and recreation. Sincerely, Dina 12/I6/2010 From: Mary Jane Schoenheider [pen people@easyreader. info] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:35 PM To: cc@rpv.com; aram@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Cc: communications@annenbergfoundation.org Subject: Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente I writing to encourage the RPV City Council at it's December 21, 2010 City Council Meeting to reverse it's negative vote from the November 16 RPV City Council Meeting on sending the Annenberg Project to the RPV Planning Commission for further study. The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente deserves to go through the entire entitlement process • The educational programming, including the adoption program, will offer exhibits, courses, workshops and counseling that the community will enjoy and benefit from • Most of Lower Point Vicente is not accessible now for walking or relaxing; the discovery park would expand recreational opportunities and enhance the community. As a longtime Peninsula resident I believe in preserving open space. But I also recognize when there comes along a project that deserves our consideration for development for adding educational and community projects that will enhance our beautiful community such as The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente, it is important to make the community aware of the TRUE scope of the project. Unfortunately at the November City Council Meeting I was shocked to listen to so many untruths being spoken about what the Annenberg Project will encompass. Since that meeting I have actively been speaking to many people on the Peninsula about my support for the Annenberg Project, and find that many residents are not aware of the scope of this project. There are so many miss -conceptions including many who think it is just a pound for dogs and cats. I once again urge the City Council to vote on December 21 to send this project back to the Planning Commission for further study. Mary Jane Schoenheider Publisher Peninsula People Phone: 310-372-4611. Ext 121 Direct: 424-212-6612 Fax: 424-212-6788 Email: 11en eople , ,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 12/16/2010 9- From: Julia Robinson Shimizu Ouliarobinsonshimizu@gmail.comj Sent: Friday, December 17, 2410 11:59 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Support for Annenberg Point Vincent Discovery Center I support the project, please keep it moving forward and make it happen! I know the the community will benefit from making discovery park more accessible for walkers and will mean a lot to me and to others Thanks! From: cassiej@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:47 PM To: CC@rpv.com; jjaakola@annenbergfoundation.org; cassiej@aol.com Subject: Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Attachments: zoobiquity.pdf Dear Councilmen, <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endifJ--> I am writing yet again to request that you consider pursuing going ahead with the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente. I realize there are many hurdles to overcome. I have been disappointed in hearing so many misconceptions about the project and wanted address two of them. <!—[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <1--[endif]--> First, there has been an international movement afoot for 5-10 years now variously called One World/One Health or One World/One Medicine or just One World. It is a movement whereby researchers, scientists, doctors and biologists are addressing our world health issues as one health issue and treating diseases as world diseases both species specific and zoonotic. (This is an extremely simplistic view of a very elaborate and intricate program that if you are interested in I could provide more information about.) Attached you will find a brochure for a symposium to be held next month in Los Angeles recognizing and discussing the intimate relationships and similarities between the diseases we see in people, in pets, in wildlife and in captive wildlife or zoo animals. You will see lectures on cancer, heart disease, stress and OCD in people, pets and wildlife as but one example. This is the viewpoint of cutting edge medicine. For you to say that dogs and cats have no place at Lower Point Vicente is like saying that foxes or sea gulls have no place there or that people have no place there. It is the view of dinosaurs- sorry. For you to not see the relationships between all animals only speaks more to the need for such a program. I feel by not realizing the interconnectedness of all animals on, around and above the peninsula you are deliberately impeding progress in the care and management of all animals. <I --[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <t--[endif]--> The second misconception is that the project is not recreational. Our society's use of animals, other than eating them, has evolved to almost exclusively recreational. Very few people raise animals for food, clothing or as their livelihood, Most people enjoy them as pets, as hobbies and even the educational uses of animals- in zoos and aquariums are geared to draw people through recreation. Hunting? Pretty much just recreational. Fishing? Commercial and recreational. Many people who enjoy protecting wildlife also enjoy observing it and people who enjoy observing it come to want to protect it- birdwatchers, whale watchers, people visiting Africa on safari and so on and, if it isn't recreational, then what is it? <!--[if lsupportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--> For Rancho Palos Verdes to be a world leader in such a movement is chance that comes along only once and you are blowing it by putting your blinders on and not seeing. Probably most adults can't see the big picture yet which is why programs to educate children are the only ways to effect change in the future. But it is up to adults to be able to put these programs in place and to do so, they need to have their blinders taken off and cleaned! At least take a look at the attached brochure or find out more (it could save your life someday) at http://www.zoobiquitv.com- it is very interesting and shows that we can't separate us from the animals in many ways. <1—[if !supportEmpryParas]--> <I—[endifl_> Cassie .Jones, DVM Rancho Palos Verdes 12/20/2010 9 From: Tina Quinn [quinns3@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:19 PM To: cc@rpv.com Ce: aram@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg project Dear RFV City Council members, I beg you to support the Annenberg project on the Lower Pt. Vicente property and MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD. We need something like this in Palos Verdes and in Southern California desperately... for the children, the adults and all of our community. Thank you for your consideration, Tina Quinn 310-213-9555 12/20/2010 From: Jo Woods [rest mbro a@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:23 PM To: aram@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg Project at Lower Pt. Vicente Park/PVIC From: Jo Woods RPV resident PVPUSD, retired teacher Past RPV Open Space Committee Member Current member Los Serenos de Pt. Vicente Rancho Palos Verdes City Council should keep the Annenberg Project moving through the entitlement process. The Annenberg Foundation has said that they would like to preserve, restore and enhance Lower Point Vicente Park which includes PVIC. They have listened to the public and made many good changes since their first presentation three years ago. With this in mind, perhaps the Foundation will reconsider the animal adoption segment which many of the public feel is inappropriate for that site. This can happen only if the Council will allow the project to continue and be guided by the National Park Service, the State of California, as well as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Thank you for your consideration. 0 12/20/2010 From: Gary Palmer [Gary@GetMyMail.org] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 813 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: The Annenberg Project While I am unable to attend the meeting, please know that I would like to see the project supported at the 21 -Dec meeting. As someone who lives so close I walk down there and view it from my back yard, I am very concerned about misuse. I have viewed the plans and believe them good for the location and our community. Cheers, Gary Palmer 31009 Rue Langlois RPV, CA 90275 9 From: Linda Di Noto [dinoto@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 11:22 AM To: cc@rpv. com Subject: for your consideration Dear Sirs; I am in favor of the Annenberg Project for Lower Pt. Vicente. As a 40 year reisident, I have seen lots of changes on the peninsula. This would be a wonderful opportunity for open space to be maintained and utilized for education. I am a retired educator, literacy volunteer, church volunteer and Los Serenos docent. My opinions are mine personally and with well thought out information, I again state that I am in favor of the Annenberg Project. Sincerely, Linda DiNoto 7015 Hedgewood Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: caryl schwartz [pvcaryl@verizon,net] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 12:55 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: aram@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: Vote to Support the Annenberg Project Hello, The Annenberg Project would be wonderful addition to the Palos Verdes community. I urge the city council to do whatever is necessary to propel this project forward to completion. The vast majority of land �,?a lower Point Vicente is under utilized and inaccessible. The addition of trails with native landscaping will complement the park & PVIC. I feel that Annenberg Project dovetails with the needs of our residents will further enhance the beauty of our community. The Annenberg Foundation planned building is not intrusive and will blend into the landscape. I have no objection to a pet adoption area The replica of Tongva Native Indian Village and planned educational programs are a gift for our children, grandchildren and entire community. The Annenberg Foundation is an extremely generous and will be funding the construction, improvements, maintenance and educational programs. I urge you to vote in support moving the Annenberg Project forward. Thank you, Caryl Schwartz 6719 Monero Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 12/2012010 From: Lynn Scollo [Iscollo@cox.net] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:29 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: The Annenberg Project To the City Council, I am the 1st Vice President of Los Serrenos de Point Vicente, the docent group that volunteers at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. I am a retired teacher from Los Angeles Unified School District. I taught seven years at South Shores Elementary in San Pedro and 29 years at Fries Avenue Elementary in Wilmington. I am a 5th generation Californian. My great, great, great Grandfather had the first four story hotel in Los Angeles in 1883, the Nadeau Hotel, which was at First and Spring. I urge that you support the Annenberg project for Lower Point Vicente. I am passionate about education and California history, and this project has both. The Education Center, the Outpost, the trails, and the outdoor exhibits, especially the Tongva village, will provide excellent information to our community. Palos Verdes students will learn information that will be part of the California State Science Standards. They plan to finish our phase II and phase III (the tongva village and the archeological dig) which we are looking forward to. It is wonderful that the Annenberg family wants to do this for our community as they have done for so many already. Please vote for the Annenberg project which is so worthwhile for everyone. Sincerely, Lynn Scollo 0 From: ROSEMARY CAMPBELL [rosel0grows@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:27 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: The Annenberg Project Attachments: Final draft Dec 15. let to council.dat E_- Final draft Dec 15. let to cou... For all council members Final draft Dec 15 let to council.dat fli❑ai±❑� ' ❑ by ❑ Ll 8 11 : I J pYYY 7 YYYYYYYYYY7iYYl'YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYI+YYY'YYYYY``�3�YYYYYYYYY7+YYYYYYY'YYYYYYYYYYYY'YYYYYYYYYYyYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYI'YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY'YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY'YYYYYYYYY'YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyYyYyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYY�¥A ❑c ..... 8❑� .....C._.,.,..P�.C...pY...r' jbjbl&I&.................................CC................................................................... .......... ................ YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY +2 ;D❑ ;DF pF YY1- YYi- WE ❑ ❑ .0 Al .C' 1: .I I 2l Z z Z Z v Ll 2 A❑ Si I — :❑ ❑ <❑ <❑ <❑ <❑ <❑ <❑ u❑ R 1 K 17 ¢ h1-1 1 ❑ — h1-1 :❑ [.1 L- 11- }1- :❑ :❑ :❑ — R — :❑ :K BE D t1l, .A C ❑ i- — :L :H .n :❑ la/E Z e R :1i :❑ °`❑ o A❑ :❑ i❑ :1 i1-: :❑ :[ I 2F -2F - FJ „❑ 6❑ $1J 2 =❑ 6❑ ❑ L❑❑ ❑❑ December 15, 2010 Dear Council Members, I am troubled by the recent development of pretense for continuing the Annenberg application. Our taxpayer funded city staff should not be requesting direction from the Council as to how to proceed with the project. The project has been unequivocally rejected in its current form. It is now in the hands of the Annenberg Foundation to amend the scope of their project to fit our ordinances and laws for Lower Point Vicente, or move the project to a more appropriate location. The Annenberg project ended up in front of the City Council on November 16th because the Planning Commission could not reconcile the scope of the project to the City's; General Plan, the sites deed restrictions or the POU. The Planning Commission was looking for direction, or amendments, from the Council, which would have allowed to proceed or not, but correctly, a majority of the Council had the same findings; the project is NOT compliant and therefore the application cannot proceed. On November 16th when David Seigenthaler, representative from the NPS, was asked hypothetically if the project were to appear on his desk in its current form what his response would be, he admitted he'd already made that clear in his response to the DEIR. The project is noncompliant. While the latter observation was politely unspoken in front of the council, it was evident for anyone who had read his letter. The project cannot go forth in its current state. It is a waste of taxpayer funds to proceed with the project in its Page 1 Final draft Dec 15 let to council.dat current form. You have been given appraisal by NPS and OGALS that it is noncompliant. No taxpaying citizen of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes would be given the kind of latitude the Annenberg Foundation is being given for pushing a project forward despite its discrepancies. Every private citizen who has ever made application to the city for construction or additions (which have been found noncompliant) has been forced to take their plans back to the drawing board to amend them until they are compliant, at their own expense!! That is how we maintain our city's beauty and uphold its laws. It is not the city's responsibility to bring the project into compliance; it is the Annenberg's responsibility. Rancho Palos Verdes public land is not for sale. If we give the Annenberg Foundation carte blanche above our citizens, laws and ordinances we will be setting a precedent which is sure to be abused by other projects like this one, as well as giving future Council members, who may not be as scrupulous as yourselves, a starting point to allow approvals for things which permanently alter the very basic qualities of our city. It is a slippery slope. This is why we have a General Plan....and it has meaning! Our city founders saw overbearing development encroaching on the hill and decided to stop it by founding our great city with an iron clad General Plan! I'm sorry that the forefathers of San Pedro and Torrance did not have such foresight. We are not elitists, we are fortunate to live in a city whose General Plan far predated our most wealthy constituents, and the prescience of our founders is the only reason for our view preservation and small town feel. We so called "eco -elitists" are fighting to preserve the vision of our fore fathers, and as our elected representatives that is your charge. You vowed to hold all progress to the standards of the General Plan. We are an open city. Daily we entertain and host a myriad of visitors from all over California and the world. What we naturally possess is the draw. We don't need buildings to bring visitors. I'm going to assume our buildings didn't entice you to become residents. You moved here for the preserved beauty too, why remove it for future generations? If you want to see buildings go into LA, there are lots of them. What they don't have are parks with open space. Their natural open spaces are gone and they'll never be able to reclaim them. Never!!! That's a mighty long time. We eco -elitists simply don't want that to happen here to our public lands? Why build a facility designed to lure people inside and away from enjoying the natural coastal beauty right outside its doors? Some of you may call this positive change, but I call it contradictory at best. A city sponsored proposal already exists in the form of The RPV Parks, Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan proposal of June 29, 2004, which was amended March 29, 2005. From what I understand a task force made up of community members studied our parks and came up with recommendations for improvements to our parks, including Lower Point Vicinte. The proposal was never even reviewed or voted on for adoption by the City Council, why? Was this when The Annenberg Foundation first laid its claims to the site? From the start this project has been a pet adoption facility with educational aspects finessed and manipulated to address the LPV site, but no amount of manipulation hides the larger intent for the structure; it is a pet adoption facility. Many have asked why the project can't be moved to Upper Point Vicente? Many of us have repeatedly asked you in correspondence why, but we have received no response. Recently we discovered some correspondence from 2006 showing that Wallis Annenberg came to RPV and hand picked Lower Point Vicente. Did no one tell her that it was public park land and not for private usage?! For those who say an injustice has been perpetrated on the Annenberg Foundation, I say it is only comparable to what has been done to any private citizen who has spent several thousand dollars (comparable value for Annenberg) in plans and designs willfully ignoring local restrictions, only to be sent back to the drawing board by the city when they were noncompliant. I sincerely believe the city staff disclosed the site's constraints to the Annenberg Foundation but someone thought the project would be unhampered by those restraints. That truly was the injustice done, the assumption that our laws and ordinances could be ignored. Who perpetrated that I wonder? If it was our staff I do feel terribly for the Annenberg Foundation and there should be an investigation into who mislead the Foundation from the beginning! Still, Wallis Annenberg verified that she understood under what circumstances she was proceeding. She was fully complicit. The entire report and attachments are found on the City's website under staff reports for 2008: In her signed letter dated August 22, 2008, Wallis Annenberg writes: "I understand that concept approval on September 2 would not be approval to build; ..." On September 2, 2008 Carolyn Lehr approved the executive summary that states: "Initiating the planning process by authorizing the Foundation to file the appropriate planning applications does not constitute approval of the proposal,.. " Page 2 Final draft Dec 15 let to council.dat On Page 5, the following is stated: "The Council's authorization for the Foundation to proceed to the next step does not constitute de facto approval to build the project, but simply allows the Foundation to move forward at its own risk with the entitlement process." WHAT CAN BE CLEARE=R? Please direct the Planning Commission to deny any further processing of the application. If and when an application is submitted which appears to be in compliance with our laws and ordinances, then the process can begin anew. That is your trust and your duty to your constituents. Please also review the recommendations of The RPV Parks, Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan proposal to see if it may have a viable alternative. f look forward to hearing your responses if you feel so led, as long as they contain no red herrings or ad hominem fallacies. Most sincerely, Rosemary Campbell ❑ ❑❑*❑+❑'❑I❑0❑C❑6 6 11 [-" >O AO ❑" ❑f Ty Onn °V ]u In fn ❑ ❑" 90 60 u" of ay em rV wu 'n —n ❑ nanal�°ani a°a-ana,anapaYaYa-a- ,a Ehn! @ Oh„JK 5] C66TOJ6 QJ 1 t le ^Jt _HrlaJi., #❑h»❑@ ❑h„J) 6600J'- QJ' ^Ju -H ❑aJa &d h»f © Dh„J1 5 1 OJ QJc In c ^J. _H ❑aJL #❑h„J❑ I :h„JIj Eos OJa QJC ^Jb H ❑aJ❑ #❑h» ❑© Eh„J❑ >*❑OJ❑ QJ❑ ^J Cl H r-aJO & h»CO J h„JH 6a J OJ QJ„ ] Ll^JJ _H ❑aJ❑ #h h„J h h„J 51 'OOJ QJ ^J H ❑aJT Ah»BO Ch„JR OJ QJI ! ^J❑ H ❑aJu ” k h»; © <h„JA OJ, QJK "JW ❑” T Ah @ „ J +J 1-1 o — 11 a❑ fl1- 11- -H o 1 001 0 U❑ L B❑ 'C, 01-1 ^11 ul._ yl i f a a b b b b b E E E 1$ 7$ 8$ H$ 0,,Jr a a8 1$ 7$ 8$ H$ gd„Jn n /E& FJ0 '❑h»A©6 PC€2 °❑61;11” @❑ 1$ 7$ 8$ H$ gd„J❑ ❑ L p$ P II Z- 1 j ❑ ❑s D❑ 0! U❑ 9n Ba 1-.111 a dA nRhl y2«'/c'�2TM%-ydydydOdy” )' h»)O-h„JR B*ZOJ❑ QJL ^J❑ _H 1 OJ QJ' ^JA _H aJ1_! #h h7J u h h„J AJ r, H ❑aJ❑ ❑h»❑@ ❑h„Jn OJT QJs IIh"J❑ 6❑1-1OJ[-: QJL.]❑^J❑ -H Y$ k$ I$ m$ n$ o$ p$ 6 6 9 d a ii ❑ ]n "- u; 0 ❑ 1 f b! o! u! o! y! )❑h»❑@ Gh„J[J B*wOJI_' QJ(- "JI-'. _H ❑aJ❑ phy ❑ I7aJa ph%0y Dh»J © 5 h„JJ OJJ Qin ^J. H I! 1-_h>>[-!@ I lh"JI, 6❑OOJ QJ ^J _H ❑aJ» # h„JJ- h„JO 6 QOJ QJ ^J11 _H ❑aJu k h„Jcp <h„JA OJ, QJK ^JW H ❑aJ h„J 1 J » h„Jh J h„Jh OJ QJO ^JQ _H i u! y! H$ I$ 6 6 6 b 6 6 a 6 i i rO 1$ 7$ 8$ H$ gd„Ji 1$ 7$ 8$ H$cigd„J+ y! C” Z# a# A# q# E# G$ H$ X$ Y$ j$ n$ o$ p$ ilJl'/a%al!>lJ>U> CE h„J h» O ❑h„Jr OJ QJh h e h»n @ t h„Je OJp QJe ^J” H ❑ ”❑h„Jh 7 h„Jh 6J OJ❑ QJ ]J ^JJ H ❑ ❑ h„J ! h„J! OJ” QJ” ]H$^JI _H ❑❑Yh„J± r1�h„J❑ OJ❑ QJ❑ "JI -H [I nh»❑cU ❑h„J❑ OJ❑ QJ❑ ^JI H ❑aJ❑ &❑h»❑@ F- h„JL 5[ ❑OJ❑ QJn 1❑E^J❑ _H ❑aJJ ) LIQ❑PQ :p„J❑ J'D/ °a=1° "° # $ %0 Page 3 From: sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:33 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Ara M, ,Joel Rojas; Carolyn Lehr, David_Siegen#haler@nps.gov Subject: Annenberg/Dec, 21st CC Mtg. Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council: I have reviewed the staff report in connection with the meeting on the 21 st and find that another, second alternative could and should have been proffered, towit: Make the finding that the project AS IT NOVO' EXISTS does not comply with our ,general plan or zoning, and since we already have preliminary determinations from NPS and OGALS based on the project AS IT NOW EXISTS that many components do not comply with the POU, deed and grant restrictions, there is no point in submitting the same project for a formal determination (especially since the project has not been approved at the local level, and by definition is not a final, approved project); instead ask Annenberg to come up with a new plan consistent with the NPS letter of September 15th as well as the OGALS letter, and if the revised project is one that Council finds IS consistent with our General Plan AND one that meets the recreational needs of the community, then staff can informally submit that plan to NPS and OGALS for review and comment. If the agencies then find informally that the project complies with the POU, deed and grant restrictions, then the project, as revised, can go back to the PC for processing and public comment. We do not need to expend staff time pursuing a formal ruling on a project that will never be approved in its present form. Instead, put the ball back in the Annenberg court and let them come up with something that will work. I doubt they will revise their plan to take out the non-compliant components, because those components are the raison d'etre for the project, but at least we would be giving them an opportunity to revise the project. Is the effort to seek formal approval of the existing project indicative that perhaps someone at NPS in Washington has indicated that the project WILL be approved? I note that the staff report indicates that "representatives" of NPS and OGALS have indicated a preference for Option 1 and do not prefer Option 2 (I fail to understand why these agencies would indicate they do not prefer Option 2 inasmuch as the difference between the Options involves pursuing the project at the local level, which would not be a concern to these governmental agencies, so I question the accuracy of the statement that they do not favor Option 2). In this regard, I would like to have you ascertain with specificity the identity of the representatives with whom staff has discussed these options and obtained these viewpoints. Finally, it seems to me that inadequate attention is being given to the deed prohibition against transfer to a non- governmental agency. If this project is to be pursued in any respect whatsoever, it seems obvious that the threshhold question of what that relationship would be should be clarified now so that the bona fides of that relationship can be scrutinized by the NPS and the public, and its compliance with or violation of the prohibition can also be ascertained sooner rather than later. It would be a complete waste of time to get some project finally approved only to learn that the relationship effects a de facto prohibited transfer. Sincerely, Sharon Yarber 12/16/2010 From: scbryan@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:44 PM To: cc@rpv.com; aram@rpv.com, pc@rpv.com Subject: Proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Pt. Vicente Please, please, please stop this from happening. Let the Annenbergs build their shrine elsewhere. We don't want it at Lower Pt. Vicente. Our lovely coastal location will be ruined forever if this is allowed to happen. Stephanie Bryan 12/16/2010 Teri Takaoka From: Mark & Joan Sturgeon [mjsturgeon@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:53 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: aram@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg 12-21-10 GC Meeting Dear Mr. Mayor and City Councilmen, Please vote to rescind the authorization for the Annenberg Foundation to pursue applications for the proposed project at Lower Point Vicente. There is no need for further discussion of the issues with the deed restrictions, the program of utilization, the General Plan, and others. We can disregard all of these issues and simply ask the question; [does this project belong at Lower Point Vicente? The answer is NO! Mark Sturgeon Rancho Palos Verdes 12/17/2010 F From: Nancy De Long [pvnancy@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:32 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg Project No, No. No on the Annenberg Project at Lower Pt. Vicente. Hang in there......... Lots of us still out here. Some of us will not be at the meeting because we are either out of town or hosting relatives ............... Convenient for Mr. Long, Nancy DeLong 1 VI From: Adrian Rops [ajar.lax@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 5:37 PM To: cc@rpv.com; cram@rpv.com, pc@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg Project. To Whom It May Concern: It appears that more hearings will be held about this project in the near future. I would urge you to have a permanent moratorium on consideration of new construction of any kind at or near Lower Point Vicente. In the past I have recorded my concern with you about rapidly disappearing prime ocean front space at the Palos Verdes Peninsula and this latest proposal has caused me serious misgivings. It has to stop. While the Annenberg Project is being sold as "beneficial" to the community, there is no need for such a facility at Lower Point Vicente. I see it as a serious mistake that will further reduce unobstructed views and pristine vistas at a primary piece of "public" land. It bothers me that any organization with deep pockets can make a donation and in return build a structure on public land with their name on it. That is not the purpose of "Public" land in my opinion. The Annenberg project simply does not belong on Lower Point Vicente. As I have stated in previous submissions to you, let Annenberg buy an existing building in a different location and cease and desist in their efforts to preserve their name for posterity on unspoiled "Public" land. Respectfully submitted, Adrian J.A. Rops. (310) 370-9343. 12/20/2010 Frown: ANN SHAW [anndshaw@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 12:36 PM To: RPV Council; Carolyn Lehr; Ara Mhranian Subject: December 21 meeting I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting of December 21, 2010 so please consider my remarks regarding the Annenberg issue.. I take exception to the comment in the background section of the staff report that the Program of Utilization was imposed on Lower Point Vicente by the National Park Service. The POU was part of the application to the Department of Interior by Los Angeles County asking to acquire the surplus land. In other words, if you gift us this land, this is how we will use it. Secondly, the core of the Annenberg proposal is the domestic animal care center. This is what drives the proposal and what will never be deleted from the proposal. At the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting the representative from the National Parks Service stated that the domestic animal care center was not compatible with the deed restrictions or POU that apply to Lower Point Vicente. It is apparent that the application for this project at Lower Point Vicente should be terminated and that the Annenberg Foundation's and the City's time and energy should be redirected to finding a more suitable location for this project. Thank you Ann Shaw 12/20/2010 From: philipp huber [huber_hallmark@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:10 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: cram@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: No Annenberg project at lower Pt Vicente - Please preserve the natural habitat of this little piece of coastline Dear City Council members, Thank you Council member Campbell and Misetich, and Mayor Wolowicz for having had the courage to reflect on the current Annenberg project and to put a halt on the progress. Please keep our small nature retreat at Lower Point Vicente protected. I encourage you to rescind_ the authorization for the planning application without further delay. Let's keep to the spirit of what this city was founded on. The Annenberg foundation is doing great work and if the organization remains interested and respects the open space at Lower Point Vicente I would support their project up at the RPV City Hall property. It has adequat space and as well a view. I would support that option but not at Lower Point Vicente. Sincerely, philipp huber 30929 Rue Langlois RPV 12/20/2010 From: John Wessel [wesselj@cox.netj Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:10 AM To: cc@rpv.com; cram@rpv.com Subject: Council Meeting on Annenberg Project Dec 21, 2010 To: Honorable City Council Members Subject: Annenberg Project The proposed Annenberg Project is clearly inconsistent with the City General Plan, the Program of Utilization for the property, and the Deed for the property. I firmly believe that the conditions of the Deed should be honored unless they are incompatible with applicable law. The City accepted property, given Deed restrictions requiring the Iand be used for open space public recreation, in perpetuity. The core of the Annenberg Project is incompatible with this requirement. There is no reasonable way the intended mission of the Annenberg Project can be reconfigured to comply with the Deed requirement. Therefore, I recommend that the application be rejected and that the City develop more appropriate plans for the land. The Lower Point Vicente site in question lies directly in a path connecting Upper Point Vicente Reserve with the Oceanfront Estates revegetated open space. Upper Point Vicente hosts endangered species, and every possibility should be pursued to provide habitat connectivity extending to the west. Therefore, any "improvement" to the proposed site should provide an isolated revegetated pathway, uninterrupted by major roads and other hardscape, allowing an undisturbed pathway between Preserve areas. Sincerely yours, John Wessel Rancho Palos Verdes 12/20/2010 From: Judy Herman Uudyherman@cox.netl Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:03 PM To: cc@rpv.com; aram@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg proposal Honorable Members of the City Council: Please direct city staff to cease spending any more time and money modifying the Annenberg proposal for Lower Point Vicente. The site was deeded to the county and then to the city for public outdoor recreation in perpetuity. A large semi -private center primarily devoted to pet care and adoption would infringe on public outdoor recreation. Trying to make it fit is a waste and abuse of city funds. The Annenberg Foundation is not the only source of funding for the beautification of the site. The Vincent Conze bequest for $392,000 for a "native plant and 'tee' garden" is being held by the city as an endowment. An equal bequest went to the South Coast Chapter of the Califomia Native Plant Society. Since the chapter's main native plant garden is on the property of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center, it would be fitting to use that bequest to extend that garden. Rancho Palos Verdes was founded to save our coastline from development. Please honor the reason most of us enjoy living here. Thank you Judith B. Herman Rancho Palos Verdes 12120/2010 From: Brill [ebrill@mac.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:15 PM To: cc@rpv.com; aram@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: Annenberg Project Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes: I am in support of the Annenberg Project. Their proposed flat -roofed building is modern and elegant, and will be a good complement to the existing Interpretive Center. in addition, the Annenberg focus on local wildlife will also fit well with the Interpretive Center's marine exhibits. I even think that the inclusion of attention to pets makes sense, as the Annenberg Center's intention here is to foster an appreciation for wildlife and the natural environment by showing that they are fully related to our domestic animals and should be thought of in a similar context. This seems particularly credible in an equestrian community like RPV. Sincerely, Eric Brill 3137 Barkentine Road Rancho Palos Verdes 1 9 From: dens friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:54 PM To: CC@rpv.com Cc: Ara M; difriedson@gmail.com Subject: The Proposed Annenberg Project — City Council Meeting on December 21, 2010 To: Mayor Tom Long and Council Members Anthony Misetich, Brian Campbell, Doug Stern, and Steve Wolowicz CC: Ara Mihranian, Principal Planner From: Dena Friedson A letter dated December 14, 2010, from Leonard Aube is attached to the Staff Report. The Annenberg Foundation wants to continue the planning process. There is nothing in Leonard Aube's letter that offers revisions to the proposed domestic animal care center. Now, however, it is referred to as an interpretive center. According to Leonard Aube's descriptions, the layout of the very large building, the interior exhibits and uses, the extensive hardscape, and the excessive amounts of unsightly pseudo -asphalt are all the same. The only change that is mentioned is that the Foundation would "gift" the proposed facility to the City and then manage the 26 acres. The letter does not state for how many years the management contract is desired. Not long ago, Leonard Aube was talking about a 99 -year Iease. If the proposed facility were to be built -- whether managed or leased -- the City would lose control over the everyday operations of the public's parkland and any changes that the Annenberg Foundation might want to make. In letters to the Planning Commission and to the City Council and in personal appearances at Commission and Council meetings, comments made by David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service should have clarified for everyone that principal elements of the Annenberg proposal do not comply with the federal government's deed restrictions. The Quitclaim Deed to the County and the incorporated Application and Program of Utilization mandate that Lower Point Vicente be used in perpetuity as passive outdoor recreation with emphasis on "pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean." The Quitclaim Deed states, "This property shall be used and maintained for the public purposes for which it was conveyed in perpetuity as set forth in the program of utilization and plan contained in the application submitted by the grantee on February 27, 1976." The County's Application states that written agreed-upon amendments to the Program of Utilization "shall be consistent with purposes for which the property was transferred [to the applicant]." The Application further agrees, "The property shall not be sold, leased, assigned, or otherwise disposed of except to another eligible governmental agency that the Secretary of the Interior agrees in writing can assure the continued use and maintenance of the property for public park or public recreational purposes subject to the same terms and conditions in the original instrument of conveyance." (Emphasis is added.) Shortly after Rancho Palos Verdes became a City, the County acquired ownership of Lower Point Vicente. Since the County had been leasing Lower Point Vicente for five years, the deed restrictions were well known to the City. The City's Application for Upper Point Vicente was signed on the same date as the County's Application: February 27, 1976..The City's Application referred to "light passive recreational use" of Lower Point Vicente as being of a "compatible nature to the community's desire to maintain open space uses in the coastal area." When the City leased the property from the County, Mayor Ann Shaw signed an Agreement requiring the City to honor all the restrictions in perpetuity. All the same covenants and restrictions are contained in the Quitclaim Deed to Rancho Palos Verdes. The deed restrictions -- as well as the City's desire to preserve open space on the coastal bluff tops -- are the reason that Lower Point Vicente has always been designated as passive recreation and open - space recreational on the City's General Plan Map and Zoning Map and in the General Plan text and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Annenberg facility is NOT consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning requirements. 12/2012010 t o � �z ? You all have had a chance to study these documents. What can be clearer? Do planning staff members believe it is their job to negotiate on behalf of the Annenberg Foundation with the state and federal agencies? I personally do not think so, but with the participation of the Foundation's representatives with the City's planning staff in closed meetings with these agencies, it may appear that way to many people. Lower point Vicente was given by the federal government as a gift of public parkland to the general public to be protected and maintained by County and City officials in perpetuity. There is no adequate justification for violating deed restrictions or amending the General Plan to accommodate the wishes of a private organization. In a letter dated August 22, 2008, Wallis Annenberg acknowledged to the City Council that she "understood that concept approval on September 2 would not be approval to build." If the Annenberg Foundation wants to be a part of this community, it should find another properly -zoned, non -deed -restricted location. (One such location exists on the flat, City -purchased, non -deed -restricted, ocean -view area zoned Institutional near City Hall in Upper Point Vicente.) Please save time, money, and efforts that should be devoted to other important City issues. Vote to stop the proposed project immediately. 12/20/2010