20110621 Late CorrespondenceRECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
JUN 2 7 2011
Defense of PlaceCITy CLERK'S OFFICE
Defense of Place Statement:
Save Lower Point Vicente Park by Rejecting the Proposed Annenberg Building Project
Mr. Tom Long, Mayor
Mr. Ara Mihranian, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Mayor Long and Mr. Mihranian:
The threat to Lower Point Vicente and the seeming disregard for the statutes that established the Park have
drawn the attention of Defense of Place, the nation's only organization founded to protect lands deeded for
public use that are vulnerable to sale, development and predatory changes. Defense of Place advocates for the
inviolability of the principle that lands donated or set aside "in perpetuity" should never be sacrificed for
economic or political motives.
Since 1997, Defense of Place has worked with citizens throughout the United States who become stewards of
lands betrayed by assigned protectors, whether government or private entities.
Our research of the Lower Point Vicente issue shows that oversight agencies and commissions have expressed
undeniable opposition to the Annenberg Foundation plans. Such opposition and the clear language affirming
the legal and natural legacy of Lower Point Vicente should bring confidence that the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes will cease consideration of any conversion of the parkland's character. However, the fact that staff
reviews and Council discussion continue despite these rebukes breaks that expectation.
Therefore, Defense of Place will be adding its voice and resources to ensure that the flora and fauna of this
unique coastal bluff park are not replaced by the glass and concrete of the huge, proposed Annenberg
development.
t� �— Nancy Graalman
IRECEIVED FROM g„��_,.,____ . Director
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE Defense of Place
COUNCIL MEETING OF G ®�t o � lo! June 21, 2011
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK / Lei
' -/h I t -,:, -Fo 14.",p
Defense of Place -VA Project of The Resource Renewal Ins-titazte " ��# o-/
187 E. Blithedale Avenuei„c_ Ppb
Mill Valley, CA 94941 -V 415. 515. 1616
t.,
MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT
NCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
L. I
IL
THE ANNENBERG PROJECT
at Lower Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes
June 21, 2011
To: Mayor Tom Long and City Council Members, Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Leonard Aube, Executive Director, the Annenberg Foundation
Jackie Jaakola, General Manager, The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
Our Spring 2011 ad campaign was designed to educate the public about the Annenberg Project
and set the record straight about what we're proposing.
We thought you might like to have a compilation of all the ads for reference.
ECEIVED FROM, _ &-aAd
ND MADE A PART OF THE RE ORD AT TH
OUNCIL MEETING OF 41. W -U AN/
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
SEE AGENDA PACKET FOR
ANNENBERG PROJECT AD CAMPAIGN BINDER
LI
6q�a RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 21, 2011
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
F Email from Barry Hildebrand
K Revised Agreement
1 Email from Craig Whited; Excerpt from Competitive Service
Personnel Rules
5 Emails from: Edward Steven; Jim Knight; and Lenee Bilski
7 Letter from Leonard J. Aube; Emails from: Joe Lindorfer;
Lynn Swan; Cinthia Joyce; Valerie Blitz; and Christopher F.
Wilson
8 Email from Craig Whited (also listed under item 1)
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Mprreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday, June 20, 2011**.
MAGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110621 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: bjhilde@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:26 PM
To: CC@rpv.com; Clehr@rpv.com
Subject: Portuguese Bend Coop Nursery School Lease
Dear Council and City Manager,
I note that you intend to renew a lease with the subject nursery school tomorrow night. This school,
which incidentally both of my children attended, produces NO income for the city but does require some
upkeep from the city at times. Thus it is a net LOSS to the city every year, however small. Now a few
weeks ago you effectively put a net -rent -paying entity, the Montessori School (at Ladera Linda) OUT OF
BUSINESS along with creating some joblessness in RPV. That was unwarranted and I have a PRA
request pending on that location. My question to each of you is HOW DO YOU MORALLY JUSTIFY
THE LADERA LINDA decision WHILE going along with the PB Nursery School recommendation?? OR
WILL YOU?? Has the city run a safety inspection on the structure that houses the kitchen and the
restrooms; that structure was probably built by the Vanderlip's in the 1930's or 40's.
Barry Hildebrand
3560 Vigilance Drive
RPV, CA 90275
310-377-0051
6/21/2011
F
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALOS VERDES
ESTATES AND THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REGARDING THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF RADIO
TRANSMISSION/RECEIVER EQUIPMENT AT THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES' CITY HALL LOCATED AT 30940
HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD IN THE CITY RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter "RPV") and the City of Palos Verdes
Estates (hereinafter "PVE") (collectively referred to as "the parties") hereby agree that
RPV will allow PVE to install and operate PVE's governmental radio
transmission/receiver equipment at RPV's City Hall, which is located at 30940
Hawthorne Boulevard. in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
I. NATURE OF AGREEMENT:
This Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") sets forth the procedures and conditions that
both parties agree to follow regarding the installation and use by PVE of PVE's
governmental transmission/receiver equipment at RPV's City Hall in the locations that
are depicted in the site plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by this reference ("the Site"). The parties agree that, except as provided herein,
this Agreement shall not convey to PVE any duties, obligations, responsibilities or
privileges. PVE also agrees this Agreement shall not confer on PVE any rights to any
assets of RPV.
II. TERM:
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2011, and will continue until terminated by
either party, with or without cause, as set forth herein in Section VII.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES:
[A] PVE agrees that it must seek and receive prior approval in writing from RPV
before it may install, modify and operate any of its governmental transmission/receiver
equipment at the Site. Any antenna or new antenna support structure that is to be located
at the Site must be painted gray. PVE may only install transmission/receiver equipment
that is to be used by PVE for governmental purposes, including emergency
communication equipment. No non-governmental transmission/receiver equipment may
be installed by PVE pursuant to this Agreement. Initially, PVE may install the
governmental communications equipment that are depicted on the Installation Drawings,
which are attached hereto Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference. If it is
determined that PVE has installed unauthorized equipment at the Site, RPV will notify
PVE that PVE must remove the unauthorized equipment within two weeks of the date of
the written notice from RPV. RPV may stipulate a longer period to remove the
unauthorized equipment if exceptional circumstances warrant such a time extension. If
PVE refuses to remove such equipment within the stipulated timeep riod said two week,
RPV shall have the unqualified right to remove such unauthorized equipment at the sole
expense of PVE, and RPV may terminate this Agreement after providing 30 days written
notice to PVE.
[B] PVE agrees that it must seek and receive prior approval from RPV before PVE
and its agents/vendors may enter the Site for any and all routine service and maintenance.
Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The vendors that are acting pursuant
to an agreement with PVE shall have the right to enter the Site and climb any
antenna/tower structure that is being used to support PVE's communications equipment,
as depicted on Exhibit `B," in order to perform maintenance thereon.
[C] All PVE agents/vendors entering the Site must be pre -registered with RPV.
However, nothing in this agreement shall prevent or prohibit a pre -registered agent or
vendor from immediately accessing the Site (including after-hours access) in the event of
an emergency. In cases such as these, PVE agrees to notify RPV of the entry as soon as is
reasonably possible (generally within three business days), thereafter. Additionally, in the
event of an emergency, PVE retains the right to install necessary unauthorized
equipment, in which case PVE will notify RPV of such installation as soon as possible.
[D] Before installing any new communications equipment (including any antennae)
or before modifying any previously installed equipment at the Site (except replacing like
for like , or before any change is made to the location where the equipment is to be
installed, PVE agrees it first must submit to RPV for RPV's review and written approval
the following documents:
1. A written description of its project and the equipment and supporting
facilities (wiring, floors, conduit, consoles, etc.) proposed to be installed at
the Site;
2. Written specifications for all cabling, attachments, hardware, racks, etc.,
which must meet RPV's standards;
3. Any necessary revisions to the approved Installation Drawings (Exhibit `B");
and,
4. Any necessary revision to the approved Site Plan (Exhibit "A").
[E] Any and all installations performed by PVE and its agents/vendors shall be
carried out in a workmanlike manner using sound engineering and electrical practices.
During and after the installation, the Site shall be left in a neat and presentable condition.
All excess installation materials, temporary structures, and equipment used by the
installers shall be promptly removed.
[F] Any installation by PVE and its agents shall only begin upon direction from
RPV's Director of Public Works or his/her designee confirming that access is available to
the Site; that PVE has provided and properly installed to RPV's reasonable satisfaction
any necessary floors, racks, consoles and modification to the existing AC power, and that
the building grounds are in a satisfactory condition to accommodate the proposed work.
PVE agrees that all work relating to PVE's installation project shall be performed by
PVE's vendor at PVE's sole expense.
[G] PVE further agrees that any equipment it installs and operates at facility shall
not interfere with the communications operations of RPV or its current lessees, and that
2
RPV shall have the unqualified right to remove or disable any PVE equipment that
interferes with RPV's operations or the operations of its leasees at the expense of PVE.
However, prior to removing or disabling such equipment, RPV must notify PVE so that
PVE may attempt to rectify the matter to RPV's reasonable satisfaction.
IV. INSURANCE:
During the term of this Agreement, PVE and its agents shall carry the following
insurance policies, which shall name RPV as an additional insured thereunder:
A. Worker's Compensation insurance in accordance with the applicable requirements
of California law;
B. General Liability insurance having minimum coverage limits of not less than
$1,000,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence, and umbrella liability coverage of
$2,000,000.00 in excess of said primary coverage; and
C. Automobile Insurance in accordance with the requirements of California law.
All policy forms, endorsements and insurance carriers shall be subject to the reasonable
approval of RPV. None of the foregoing insurance policies shall be cancelled without
thirty (30) days' prior written notice to RPV. Any cancelled policies shall be replaced
prior to any applicable cancellation date with an identical policy from an insurer
reasonably acceptable to RPV. Upon the execution of this Agreement, PVE shall deliver
to RPV certificates of insurance evidencing such coverage and naming RPV as an
additional insured. RPV recognizes that PVE is a member of the California Joint Powers
Insurance Authority, and agrees to accept equivalent Evidence of Coverage from the
CJPIA in lieu of any insurance policies, certificates, or endorsements required by this
Section IV.
V. INDEMNIFICATION:
PVE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend RPV and all its successors and
assignees, and its officers, directors agents, employees and volunteers from any and all
claims, demands, loss, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, expenses and or liability
whatsoever, including attorney's fees and costs of suit, arising from or occasioned by any
act, omission or negligence of PVE or its agents, officers, servants or employees, in the
performance of this Agreement.
RPV agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend PVE and all its successors and
assignees, and its officers, directors agents, employees and volunteers from any and all
claims, demands, loss, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, expenses and or liability
whatsoever, including attorney's fees and costs of suit, arising from or occasioned by any
act, omission or negligence of RPV or its agents, officers, servants or employees, in the
performance of this Agreement.
VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
3
PVE and RPV shall attempt to settle any claim, dispute or controversy arising from this
Agreement through consultation and negotiation in good faith and in a spirit of mutual
cooperation. If a lawsuit is necessary to resolve any dispute arising out of any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit as adjudicated and determined by the Court.
VII. TERMINATION:
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon the giving of thirty (30) days'
prior written notice to the other party. Furthermore, RPV shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement immediately upon the discovery of any unauthorized equipment installed
by PVE and its agents/vendors at the Site, but only if such equipment interferes with the
functioning of RPV's City Hall or with communications equipment located at the Rancho
Palos Verdes City Hall that is owned by RPV or its lessess, as set forth in Section III G
above.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
A. Governing Law. The rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be
governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
California Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be the Los
Angeles Superior Court or appropriate federal district court for the Central
District of California.
B. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the full and entire agreement
between and among the parties with respect to the entire subject matter hereof and
supersedes any and all previous or contemporaneous agreements and discussions,
whether written or oral. Any and all prior or contemporaneous discussions,
negotiations, writings, commitments and/or undertakings are merged herein, and
no representations by any party not embodied herein shall be valid or binding.
C. Amendments to Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by a
subsequent agreement in writing signed by all parties to this Agreement.
D. Severability. The invalidity in whole or in party of any provision of this
Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other of the provisions of
this Agreement.
E. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original; however, all such counterparts shall
constitute but one and the same instrument with the effective date hereof being
the date set forth above herein.
F. Authority to Execute. Each City Council authorizes the City Manager of its
respective city to execute this Agreement on that City's behalf. Each person
signing this Agreement warrants and represents that, to the extent he or she is
executing this Agreement for and on behalf of that City, he or she has been fully
empowered and properly authorized to execute this Agreement for and behalf of
El
said entity, and instructed by those having the requisite authority to cause said
entity to make and enter into this Agreement.
G. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service
on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party sent by Registered
Mail of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
CITY OF PVE: Attention: City Manager
City of Palos Verdes Estates
340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
CITY OF RPV: Attention: City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or
three days after deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service.
PVE agrees to provide any required notice to RPV at, or addressed to, any new
headquarters/facility that RPV may move to, upon PVE being advised of RPV's new
address. RPV agrees to provide any required notice to PVE at or addressed to any new
headquarters/facility that PVE may move to, upon RPV being advised of PVE's new
address.
IX RECIPROCITY
In the event that RPV has the need to locate its own governmental radio
transmission/receiver equipment on real property owned and/or controlled by PVE in the
future, PVE agrees to fully cooperate with and assist RPV in obtaining an appropriate site
on PVE's property to accommodate such an installation and to approve an Agreement
similar to this one.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
entered into this day of , 2011.
CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Judy Smith, Acting City Manager Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
5
From:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:39 PM
To:
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: Dedicated Traffic Enforcement Deputy
From: Craig Whited [mailto:craigwhited@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:08 PM
To: Tom Long; anthony.misetich@rpv.com; Brian Campbell; douglas.stern@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com
Cc: citymanager@rpv.com
Subject: Dedicated Traffic Enforcement Deputy
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I had planned to attend tonight's City Council Meeting and address you on the continuing need for a
Dedicated Traffic Enforcement Deputy; however, after reading Carolyn Petru's report on the 2011-12
Sheriff's Contract, I feel much more comfortable that City Hall understands the need for a Dedicated
Traffic Enforcement Deputy even if that nomenclature is not used, as long as the reality is maintained.
As a 30 year RPV resident, who has spent over 12 hours riding along with Deputy Knox, I cannot speak
more highly of the work he has done. We are a safer City because of the work of Deputy Chris Knox.
In the quest to deal with budget realities, I would never want to see my City cutback on safety. However,
I would suggest looking at another approach to allow more Deputy Sheriff time to be spent on traffic
safety and patrol by greater use of lower cost non -sworn Sheriff's Department personnel to direct traffic
at school intersections and similar locations. This would allow our Deputies to spend more time serving
the residents of the community in their capacity as sworn law enforcement officers. Second, if we are
paying the lion's share of the cost of a shared Deputy, we need to receive the lion's share of the Deputy's
time, particularly during peak periods. -
Yours very truly,
Craig Whited
31145 Palos Verdes Drive East
310/377-6006
6/21/2011
MR,
RULE VII
LEAVES
(ADOPTED 01/31/02)
(a) Time spent by an employee on an approved paid leave shall not be construed
as a break in service or employment, and rights accrued at the time the leave is
granted shall be retained by the employee. Additionally, a leave of absence, with pay
or without pay, granted to any employee shall not create a vacancy in the position. For
the duration of any such leave of absence, the duties of the position may be performed
by another employee from the classified service on an acting assignment, an
independent consultant or a temporary employee, provided that any person so
assigned shall possess the minimum qualifications for such position.
(b) Except as otherwise permitted by law, all requests for leave shall be in writing,
and shall be sent to the City Manager or his/her designee. The request shall include
the expected start and ends dates of the leave, and any medical certifications required
by the provisions of this Rule. An employee shall provide as much advance notice of
the need for leave as practicable. Generally, when the need for the leave Is
foreseeable, the employee shall try to provide at least ten (10) days' notice prior to the
commencement of the leave. Failure to provide advance notice of the need for leave
may be grounds for delaying the start of the leave.
SECTION I — VACATION LEAVE:
(a) Employees are entitled to accrue paid vacation leave under the following
schedule:
Length of Emgloymen
Beginning of 1$t month through 2 years
Beginning of 3rd year through 5 years
Beginning of Wh year through 15 years
Beginning of 16th year and more
Vacation Accrual Rates
6.67 hours per month
8 hours per month
10 hours per month
8 additional hours per year for each
year of service up to a maximum of 160
hours per year
(b) After completion of the initial -hire probationary period, the employee will be
credited with vacation leave earned during the probationary period. The employee
shall be entitled to take such leave upon the completion of the initial -hire probationary
period or extension thereof. However, an initial -hire probationary employee may utilize
12
Competitive Service Personnel Rules
Last Amended on May 1, 2007
accrued vacation leave prior to the completion of the probationary period with the
written approval of the City Manager.
(c) Vacation leave may be accumulated to a maximum of two year's worth of
accrued vacation leave. Once an employee reaches the maximum vacation leave
which may be accumulated, the employee shall cease to accrue any further vacation
leave until the amount accumulated falls below the maximum.
(d) The scheduling of vacation leave must be approved in advance by the
employee's Department Head or the City Manager. Employees shall submit a written
request to schedule vacation leave to the employee's Department Head or the City
Manager within a reasonable amount of time prior to the desired date and may be
granted in accordance with the work force needs of the City.
(e) Employees will have the option to be paid for vacation leave that exceeds the
maximum allowed by these Rules if a requested vacation leave is received and denied
by the employee's Department Head and the City Manager due to the work force
needs of the City, not less than thirty (30) days prior to exceeding the maximum
accrual.
(f) Employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to take
vacation leave in advance of its accrual.
(g) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees and probationary
employees shall be paid for accumulated vacation leave up to a maximum amount,
which may be accumulated by these Rules.
(h) Vacation leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability
leave and leave pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave
statutes.
SECTION 2 —ADMINISTRATIVE DAVE:
(a) Exempt employees may be granted up to sixty-two (62) hours of administrative
leave per fiscal year at the sole discretion of the City Manager.
(b) The scheduling of administrative leave must be approved in advance by the
City Manager or his/her designee. Exempt employees shall submit a written request to
schedule administrative leave to the City Manager or his/her designee within a
reasonable amount of time prior to the desired leave. In the exercise of the City
Manager's discretion, he/she shall consider the work force needs of the City.
(c) Administrative leave may not be accumulated to the next fiscal year.
13
Competitive Service Personnel Rules
Last Amended on May 1, 2007
From: EZStevens [erstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:34 PM
To: RPV Planning
Cc: Asst. City Manager Carolynn Petru:; cc@rpv.com; emiliob@rpv.com; Greg Pfost
Subject: Terranea meeting June 21st to discuss height of the natural vegetetion along PV Dr South
Dear Aram
Applying my usual dissection and outlining review technique there a several disconnects
in the City Staff comments vs. the Coastal Commission Special Condition No. 7.B.6.
Staff limited the landscaping to be "coastal sage scrub" with a height limit of "30 inches".
Since a mix of coastal sage scrub and other native plants is allowed, then the height limits should be tailored to 30
inches for sage and 12 inches for other natives. The word "predominately" does not mean exclusively. (see below)
The term predominantly does not exclude other species.
in addition, since the above sage planting only applies only to the "migration." zone, the
land owned by the Salvation Army adjacent to PV Drive S does not apply.
Coastal Commission Special Condition No. 7.B.6 states
Tree canopies shall be limited to ten percent of the area.
Species outside of expected shade canopies shall be predominantly
coastal sage scrub plants.
All plant materials shall be native to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
I also totally agree with R Mucha's email interpretation of the Coastal Commission Special Condition No. 7.B.6.
Please have staff take a further look into this interpretation & try to save our Open Coastal View Corridor for future
generations to enjoy. I still cannot believe that a world class resort would want to block a view of its property by
putting up a hedge & at the same time also blocking the Public's right to enjoy an unobstructed view of the open
Coastal view Corridor.
Like I stated in earlier emails the need to remove & plant low growing plants or cutting the existing plants down to
12 inches as Terranea originally agreed to do.
Sincerely Edward Stevens
Here is an email from you dated Oct. 16, 2008 stating after the plants are established after 6 months they would be
trimmed back to 12inches. This has never happened.
From: Ara M [mailto:aram@rpv.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:32 PM
To: 'EZStevens'; Carter, Anda
Cc: 'Joyce'; 'Sharon and Bill Schurmer '; 'Tom Hollingsworth'; 'George Fink'; 'Evie Tanner'; 'Clark'; "'Douglas Stern
\(Douglas.Stern@cox.net]\)"'; 'Peter'; 'Steve'; 'Tom'; joelr@rpv.com; Majcher, Todd; 'Carolyn Lehr'
Subject: RE: Shrubs along Palos Verdes Dr South in front of the Terranea Resort.
Mr. Stevens,
The landscaping you are observing along the Palos Verdes Drive South median and the sidewalk adjacent to the Terranea
Resort consists of local native plants required by the California Coastal Commission as part of its approval of the project. The
native plants in this location is intended to enhance and expand the habitat on-site, as conditioned by the City, and to
cohesively connect the City's Preserve (across PVDS at the Alta Vicente Reserve, also known as the Upper Point Vicente) to
the Hotel project site.
As you state, the City Council adopted Condition No. 100 limits the height of landscaping to one -foot along Palos Verdes Drive
South, adjacent to the project site's sidewalk. Specifically, Condition No. 100 states:
6/21/2011 1 01 3
Any on-site fencing along Palos Verdes Drive South shall be no higher than two (2) feet in height and shall
be modeled to generally resemble the fencing installed along Palos Verdes Drive West for the Ocean Front
Estates project. The landscaping on the project side of Palos Verdes Drive South in this general area, as
determined by the Planning Director, shall be limited to 1 -foot in height above the closest street curb
adjacent to the project site.
The above condition does not limit the height of vegetation within the median. The project applicant is required to adhere to
this requirement through regular maintenance of the site. This will be spelled out in greater detail in the Maintenance
Agreement that is scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at the beginning of 2009 (prior to the opening of the hotel). In
the meantime, in order for native vegetation to establish, the vegetation will need to grow beyond one -foot for approximately 6-
8 months (depending on how well the plant roots are established). AS Soon as the native
vegetation has been established, the project applicant will
conduct the appropriate maintenance to maintain the views
corridors conditioned by the Council and identified in the Local
Coastal Specific Plan.
If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or at 310-544-5228.
Sincerely,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Bird.
Rancho Palos Yerdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (Fax)
Aram@rpv.com
From: R MUCHA <patnbob1(Wcox.net>
Date: June 20, 2011 3:01:37 PM PDT
To: RPV-Mihranian Ara <AraM ..rovcom>
Cc: Misetich Anthony <anthony.misetich(o-)rpv.com>, Campbell <Brian.Campbell@rpv.com>, Lehr <citymanager rpv.com>
Ara,
Please consider the recommendation below when drafting the Resolution for a July 5 meeting.
As written, the Resolution assumes Coastal Sage Scrub as the preferred vegetation along PV Dr. South when in fact,
Deer Grass has been used consistently.
Bob Mucha
RPV Resident
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING
June 21, 2011
2) Direct Staff to bring back a Resolution for adoption at its July 5, 2011 meeting amending Condition No. 100 to
increase the maximum permitted height of vegetation along Palos Verdes Drive South from 1 -foot to 30 -inches;
6/21/2011 Q o
amending Condition Nos. 78 and 79 to establish a time period for trimming the vegetation along Palos Verdes Drive
South; and making any other amendments to the conditions of approval directed by the City Council as a result of
this 6 -month review;
PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION
The item 2) text is based on Staff assumption that ONLY Coastal Sage Scrub is permitted by Coastal
Commission Special Condition No. 7.13.6. In fact this Special Condition text states:
Species outside of expected shade canopies shall be predominantly coastal sage scrub plants.
The term predominantly does not exclude other species.
Currently "Deer Grass" is widely used and when mixed with coastal sage scrub in appropriate view
sensitive areas would meet Special Condition No. 7.13.6.
For example, using Deer Grass at the crest of the median in the migration zone together with Coastal
Sage Scrub on the median down slopes would meet the need for uninterrupted views and wildlife habitat.
Ironically, Deer Grass is growing naturally in the median crest at the Fishing Area Parking Lot i.e.
migration zone.
Coastal Sage Scrub is growing in the median between Terranea and the Salvation Army site; the coastal
view is obscured by these mature plants. This area is outside the migration zone and would be ideal for
Deer Grass.
6/21/2011 3 of 3
Teri Takaoka
From: EZStevens [erstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:21 PM
To: RPV Planning
Cc: cc@rpv.com; emiliob@rpv.com; Asst. City Manager Carolynn Petru:; Greg Pfost
Subject: Terranea - REFERENCE MAPS of the "Migration Zone" for the Gnatcatcher
From: R MUCHA [mailto:patnbobi@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:07 PM
To: Stevens Ed
Subject: REFERENCE MAPS
After driving PV Dr South many times I viewed two maps to get a view of the "Migration Zone" for the Gnatcatcher and
other wildlife. A Google map of the same area is emailed separately.
Reading the RPV Staff report, the following is stated:
a. The applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South that provide food and cover for wildlife, including
gnatcatchers, migration between the nearby offsite habitat areas to the northeast and northwest under consideration for
inclusion in the Citys Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)...
b. Since the adoption of the above condition by the Coastal Commission, the areas identified as being under consideration
for inclusion in the Citys NCCP are now part of the Citys Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Specifically, the area west of the
Fishing Access Parking Lot is referred to as the Vicente Bluffs Reserve and the area across Palos Verdes Drive South (Upper
Point Vicente) is referred to as the Alta Vicente Reserve.
c.The Coastal Commission indentified this area as Zone C - Roadside Enhanced Habitat Native Planting Zone to enhance the
habitat connectivity to the NCCP Preserve property across the street surrounding the Citys 5-10 civic center.
The RPV Conditions applied to Terrania, do not define a migration terminus location on the Terrania
site.
I can, by observation accept that the migration path from the wildlife habitat surrounding the coastal
walking trails funnels into a relatively narrow area between the west end of the Golf Course and the
east end of the Fishing Access Parking Lot.
Providing "food and cover for wildlife, including gnatcatchers" artificially in a narrow roadway median
or curbside between the commercially developed Terrania property and the Salvation Army property
hardly can be defined as establishing a migration path to the establish Reserve habitat.
:..
6/21/2011
J.
From: jim_knight@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:34 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: RE agenda item 5
Mayor and Council members
Terranea is up for review at your meeting Tuesday, June 21, and I would like commend the organization
for not only complying with the Conditions of Approval but for their level of excellence in operation and
commitment to working with our community.
As you may know, I worked with the development/landscape team at the inception and found them to be
very open to designing a more natural and drought tolerant landscape as well as implement a state of
the art drainage system implementing bio filters and bioswales to cleanse runoff. The water quality as
measured in the Heal the Bay reports actually improved after development. A feat not easily achieved
since they do take runoff from off site.
Jim Knight
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
FDXNews8.com
6/21/2011
0
From: L. Bilski [ldb910@intergate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 20114:52 PM
To: CC@rpv.com
Cc: gregp@rpv.com; Ed Stevens
Subject: Terranea Conditions of Approval
June 21, 2011
Terranea Six -Month Review - Please Continue
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am requesting that you CONTINUE this item to give the public proper notice and time to consider and comment
on changing any Conditions on this development.
The public was not aware of the City's intent to change any conditions of Terranea/Long Point at tonight's meeting
since the public notice and listserver notice did not include any mention of changing any conditions but there was a
sentence about an addition of a pelican statute.
The public has the right to review all conditions of this development in a sufficient amount of time to make an
informed decision regarding vegetation and view impairment at Terrenea/Long Point. The Staff Report on this only
became available to the public on Friday, June 17th.
Some of the Coastal Commission?s Conditions of Approval for Terrenea/Long Point are as follows:
7. RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF HABITAT AREAS:
C. General Provisions for the Proposed Site
1. Planting will maintain views from Palos Verdes Drive South and to and along the bluffs and shall be
consistent with the preservation of public views through the view corridors identified in the LCP for the project site.
8. LANDSCAPE PLAN???.
C. General Provisions for the Project Site
1. Planting will maintain views from Palos Verdes Drive South and to and along the bluffs and shall be
consistent with the preservation of public views through the view corridors identified in the certified LCP for the
project site.
Obviously, the Coastal Commission and our Coastal Specific Plan are both in agreement and therefore the
Planning Commission's height limitations are not in conflict with the Coastal Commission's Conditions of
Approval. With 100 different kinds of coastal scrub, there must be some that would be better suited to this location
than what is overgrown there now. Please produce the documentation from the Coastal Commission that is referred
to in this staff report relating to the foliage issues.
Thank you for all you do for RPV!
Lenee Bilski
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
a
6/21/2011
The 7
NNENBER G C �'O UNDATION
June 20, 2011
BOARD OF The Honorable Tom Long
D I R E C T O R 5 Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Wallis Annenberg 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Chairman of the Board,
President &CEO Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Over the last six months we have had the opportunity to better understand
both the opportunities and the potential issues of the site amid constructive
interactions with OGALS and NPS. Together, we continue to be inspired by
the caliber and quality of the design experts assigned to this project, Their
creative energy has led to a number of significant advances including making
Lower Point Vicente even more accessible to visitors with special needs, and
potentially reducing the size of the new, proposed Inteapretive Building and
surrounding hardscape by as much as 8,000 to 15,000 sq, ft. without sacrificing
the world-class programmatic vision of the project.
The City's Staff Report provides a thorough update on our progress this year
and offers a series of steps by which we can continue to work toward a
successful outcome. Moreover, we have supplemented our team of experts
adding Robert Uram, who was formerly an attorney with the Department of
the Interior and has more than 30 years of experience as a natural resource
specialist. He was able to join the recent meeting with OGALS and the NPS
and is confident that the application, when submitted, will meet 100% of the
stipulations and guidelines necessary for endorsement.
LOS ANGELES. CA
C O N S H O H O C K E N. PA Over the last few months, we have run a comprehensive series of educational
WASHINGTON. DC ads in both the Pi/ IV e)vs and the Deily B»e.Ze in an effort to help ensure that
the public knows the facts about the project. We find people are particularly
supportive when they are exposed to accurate information. There are those
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067 M310-209-4560 FAX 310-209-1631 www.annenbergfoundation.org
ANNENBERG LEARNER I ANNENBERG SPACE FOR PHOTOGRAPHY I EXPLORE I GRoW I PI ETABOLIC STUDIO
l 0 -f v2 7�
Dear Nlayor Long and Members of the City Council:
VICE PRESIDENTS
& DIRECTORS
On behalf of Wallis Annenberg and my colleagues at the Annenberg
Lauren Bon
Foundation, I want to confirm our unwavering comnutment to our close
working relationship with the City and community of Rancho Palos Verdes to
Gregory Annenberg
Weingarten
realize a 26 -acre Discovery Park at Lower Point Vicente.
Charles Annenberg
Since the City Council suspended the,local entitlement process last December,
Weingarten
directing City staff to work with the Annenberg Foundation to submit an
application to the National Park Service (NPS) and the Office of Grants and
Local Services (OGALS), we have been working diligently to review and, in
some cases, refine the project scope and design.
Over the last six months we have had the opportunity to better understand
both the opportunities and the potential issues of the site amid constructive
interactions with OGALS and NPS. Together, we continue to be inspired by
the caliber and quality of the design experts assigned to this project, Their
creative energy has led to a number of significant advances including making
Lower Point Vicente even more accessible to visitors with special needs, and
potentially reducing the size of the new, proposed Inteapretive Building and
surrounding hardscape by as much as 8,000 to 15,000 sq, ft. without sacrificing
the world-class programmatic vision of the project.
The City's Staff Report provides a thorough update on our progress this year
and offers a series of steps by which we can continue to work toward a
successful outcome. Moreover, we have supplemented our team of experts
adding Robert Uram, who was formerly an attorney with the Department of
the Interior and has more than 30 years of experience as a natural resource
specialist. He was able to join the recent meeting with OGALS and the NPS
and is confident that the application, when submitted, will meet 100% of the
stipulations and guidelines necessary for endorsement.
LOS ANGELES. CA
C O N S H O H O C K E N. PA Over the last few months, we have run a comprehensive series of educational
WASHINGTON. DC ads in both the Pi/ IV e)vs and the Deily B»e.Ze in an effort to help ensure that
the public knows the facts about the project. We find people are particularly
supportive when they are exposed to accurate information. There are those
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067 M310-209-4560 FAX 310-209-1631 www.annenbergfoundation.org
ANNENBERG LEARNER I ANNENBERG SPACE FOR PHOTOGRAPHY I EXPLORE I GRoW I PI ETABOLIC STUDIO
l 0 -f v2 7�
who have been told there would a crematorium on the property; that there would be hundreds of animals
there; that the majority* of LPV would be covered in concrete; that the Foundation would own the land;
that the land is part of the preserve; that the Foundation would be using the office space for work not
related to LPV; and much more. When we correct these misconceptions, people overwhelmingly support
the project.
We have continued to actively engage with the community at a wide range of meetings and events,
including everything from the PV Street Fair to gatherings in residents' homes, Seal Day at the Marine
Mammal Care Center, the PressFriends conference for youth at Terranea, the South Bay Audubon Society,
the San Pedro Rotary, the Rolling Hills Estates Earth Day celebration at the Peninsula Promenade, and the
Fair at Ernie Howlett Park. In the course of these events we have had the opportunity to speak with
literally thousands of people who live in Rancho Palos Verdes and on the Peninsula. We have been
encouraged by hundreds and hundreds of people of all ages who understand and support the discovery
park concept. In fact, we have recently been contacted by people who are interested in creating a "Friends
of Discovery Park" to help continue to build community support.
The number of letters to the editor supporting the project has been significant, and the .PV News has been
printing corrections to opposition letters that are not factual. There are more than 5,000 people who have
self -subscribed to our monthly eNewsletter, and we have scores of people who are eager to come to City
Council and Planning Commission meetings to show their support and speak on behalf of the Project
when the time is right.
We are confounded, however, by a handful of letters to you from a few community members who point
out that they have recently visited Lower Point Vicente and have seen people walking dogs, picnicking and
enjoying the property. They claim that Lower Point Vicente is already well --used and actively enjoyed.
We want to make sure the community realizes that current use of Lower Point Vicente is confined to the
existing parking and spaces closest to the coast (essentially west of the PVIC), while the vast majority of
the property to the east — well over 50% of the site -- is now almost completely inaccessible and vastly
underutilized. An implemented Discovery Park would greatly extend the amount of space at Lower Point
Vicente that the public could use and enjoy.
As we continue to converse with residents, the City= Council Sub -Committee, OGAIS and NPS, we
anticipate being able to return to Council this summer — ideally next month — with updated thinking about
the proposed infrastructure and program direction.
Again, this is a unique public/private partnership opportunity to plan the area's first recreation, education
and open space destination for families, educators and students. It would provide the setting for an
innovative interpretive program that promotes outdoor recreational use by helping visitors understand the
interconnected marine and terrestrial ecosystems that surround and define Lower Pt. Vicente.
Sincerely,
Leonard J.. be
Executive Director
I JA:mp
.9 or a.
From: lindorfer [lindorfer1@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:08 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
How about moving the Annenberg building across the street into the hillside on Upper Point
Vicente and connecting Upper and Lower by a pedestrian bridge over PVDS? Then Annenberg
gets their coastal access and no one gets their view blocked and Lower remains open.
Joe Lindorfer
6/20/2011
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RPV City Council:
LYNN SWANK [lynn.swank@cox.net]
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 9:55 AM
cc@rpv.com
Carolyn Lehr
Annenberg
I urge the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to tell the Annenberg Foundation that our City
will not allow the foundation to build a companion animal facility/shelter at Lower Point
Vicente. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has been held hostage long enough and it is time
to move on to other long neglected topics. Continued study of the Annenberg animal shelter
stifles other ideas for use of the site, consumes city resources, delays other decisions,
and needlessly perpetuates divisions in the community.
Other ideas for the site will not be considered seriously as long as the animal shelter is
pending. Thus, although RPV residents have presented other ideas for the natural use of
Lower Point Vicente, city staff and council refuse'ta explore alternatives with the
residents of RPV. Staff time, at the direction of city council, is devoted almost
exclusively to help the Annenberg Foundation. Any other proposal for the use of lower
Point Vicente is treated as superfluous as long as this project is alive.
For example, there have been no workshops to solicit other ideas. The City Council and
staff seem to rely solely on what they hear from the Annenberg representatives in
meetings controlled by Annenberg, feedback from residents is only about what a resident
thinks about the Annenberg plans, discussion is controlled and filtered by Annenberg, and
ideas for Lower Point Vicente which are different from the Annenberg plan are actively
discouraged. Isn't it time that other ideas are considered?
As another example, Staff time is being used to help the Annenberg Foundation prepare an
application to the National Park Service which must be filed by the city and and which
seeks to destroy or circumvent the intent of the NPS and federal government to keep urban
land available to all the public, for outdoor recreational use, although the proposed
change to the deed restrictions has never been approved by the city council. Shouldn't
Staff be devoting equal time to alternatives for Lower Point Vicente that are supported by
the residents and legal under current deed restrictions?
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Annenberg project, it is quite clear that it
currently is illegal and that,it is consuming resources the city can ill afford to spend.
The continued festering of the Annenberg shelter also perpetuates divisions in the
community between the Council and between residents. As an example, Staff has been
working diligently on a draft application on behalf of Annenberg which no resident has
seen despite repeated requests. Is this document a secret? Why isn't it public after
six months in the making at public expense? The Staff's secret work only heightens a
feeling that the City Council is working to circumvent the public's will. It is not a
healthy situation.
Nor is the situation helped by the Annenberg Foundation. When I was Chairman of the
Traffic Commission, the Foundation questioned my ability to conduct a fair public hearing
about traffic issues for the project because I had expressed the opinion years earlier, in
a public forum, that I did not think it was an appropriate project for lower Point
Vicente. Despite the obvious fact that the Traffic Commission was not taking a position
and was simply taking comments for later consideration by the Planning Commission. Untold
legal hours were expended on the Annenberg challenge to my ability to conduct the public
hearing. This was, of course, simply a sophomoric attempt at intimidation by Annenberg,
but it has not helped the project or public acceptance of it.
Also, the project is not helped by the free T-shirts, free coffee, free lunches, free
dinners and perhaps other freebies that accompany the Annenberg presentations. A costly
full page ad campaign misrepresenting its full plans for Lower Point Vicente also is part
of the popularity campaign and serves mostly to inflame opposition rather than to inform
1 t A
public debate.
No purpose is being served by continuing consideration of the project and much harm to the
fabric of the community is being done.
We do not need another interpretive center when a world reknown one exists 50 yards from
the proposed Annenberg building. Its time to call the question and move beyond Annenberg.
RPV does not need this project and the city council should so inform the Annenberg
Foundation of this decision.
Lynn Swank
RPV Resident
r�
From: Cinthia Joyce [cinthiajoyce@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:12 PM
To: David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov; Irene chansawang; cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project
I am writing you in support of the Annenberg Project. I believe this generous gift of an
elegant and educational museum would greatly enhance property values on the entire
peninsula. In hard economic times a cultural boon like this offered to the community
should be accepted wholeheartedly. The amount of thoughtful consideration to the needs of
the neighborhood in terms of unobtrusive use of space, the desire to please and not to
offend artistic and ecologically minded local residents is highly commendable. As an
artist myself, with knowledge of the site since one of my sculptures, "The Pacific Gray
Whale" stands in front of the currently existing museum, I feel that the location is
perfect for expanding upon the already good but too small cultural center.
Additionally, I think that the intention of housing the eight cats and
ten dogs in the living room settings is a creative and unique idea.
It will not only help provide nurturing and safe new homes for the animals, but will teach
people more about the domestic animals needs to inspire better treatment for animals which
may be acquired by people in years to come. As a young mother I used to take my children
to pet stores often to visit the animals.
There are not many places to visit domestic animals other than pet stores where they are
in tiny cages, and in fact, hardly have any animals any more. The Annenberg Project will
also provide marvelous exercise areas where the animals will be able to run free in a
contained environment.
The land upon which the site exists is already designated for public use, so no more space
is being used than was before. The big difference is that the land which was once
depleted of vegetation due to farming will be restored to its natural beauty with native
plants and as a result native animals will return to the site.
The buildings will provide areas for classes --possibly for gardeners to learn of native
plant cultivation, ecologically minded conservationists to learn about solar power as they
use on the site, artists to teach workshops, whale watchers to understand more about
our oceans and protect our seas. The possibilities are endless.
Please vote in favor of this marvelous an thoughtful boon to our society.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cinthia Joyce
www.Cinthiajoyce.com
From: Valerie Blitz [mailto:verikon@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:34 PM
To: Ara M; cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com
Subject: June 21 cc meeting - please vote to finally deny Annenberg's proposal for LPV,
terminate the application process, and stop the unauthorized wasting of valuable City resources
advocating for Annenberg
LOWER POINTE VICENTE 2011 No child (or adult) left inside!
I took photos on various dates in early 2011 at Lower Pointe Vicente Public Park.
Fortunately, the National Park. Service continues to protect this rare headland park for the
public to continue to enjoy per the deed restrictions. I cannot tell you how much it means
to thousands of parkgoers to have this unique outdoor open space passive recreational
seaside area to relax in, without the non-compliant, unwanted, and unneeded
development proposed by the Annenberg Foundation pushing to destroy the existing
natural environment and irreplaceable ambiance, and. to negatively impact this residential
community, in violation of the deed restrictions, the City's General Plan, and the LWCF.
At the June 2, 2011 cc meeting - please vote to finally deny Annenberg's proposal for
LPV, terminate the application process, and stop the unauthorized wasting of valuable
City resources advocating for Annenberg.
Thank you.
Valerie Blitz
o� I
I
q I /�
m
From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [cfw.cwanda@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:51 PM
To: bbaker@parks.ca.gov; david_siegenthaler@nps.gov; cc@rpv.com; aram@rpv.com; Brian Campbell
Cc: Jaakola, Jackie; Irene Chansawang
Subject: Continued Support for Annenberg Discovery Center in RPV
Dear Members of the City Council, Mr. Siegenthaler and Ms Baker,
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Since I may not be able to attend tonight's meeting to discuss status issues, and since there
may be no time allowed for public comments, please let me share my latest thoughts in continued support of this project. I know my neighbors are in
some cases against the project (perhaps for sort of political or ideological reasons), but I respectfully disagree, and hope to remain their supportive
friends in other endeavors.
As a member of the LA Triathlon Club these days, I have had occasion to ride bikes past the Annenberg Discovery Center site on pretty much every
weekend over the last five weeks. I have also ridden by the Abalone Cove park and run with my daughter through the PVIC area (adjacent to the
Discovery Center site. I would point out that the photos being offered by EC as representative of use of the Discovery Center site are, to a large
extent, not indicative of any use of the Discovery Center site as opposed to the PVIC amenities. In my observation, the acres proposed to be
developed for some $45 million by the Annenberg Foundation, creating numerous jobs and only using 4% of the land for a building footprint, are
unused scrub land. I do not consider overflow parking to be any sort of "highest and best use" of property that would be worth in excess of $1 million
per acre (if private land). Photos of picnic tables at Abalone Cove are pretty meaningless -that park is about 2 miles away from the Annenberg
Discovery Center. EC has no photos, that I have sewn, of any amenities at the Discovery Center site (trails, picnic areas, places to get water and food,
etc.) because there are no such amenities. It is beautiful coastline, with views that need to be protected (and will be, under the Annenberg plan) but it
is not any sort of actual park yet.
Without being too crass and commercial, I would like to remind the CC and the State and Fed authorities concerned that (1) we are in a recession with
say 13% LA -area unemployment or more and it is essential to get a stimulus program going, as Mr. Gross of PIMCO has recently made clear
(http://tpmdc.talkin.qpointsmemo.com/2011/06/pimco-founder-to-deficit-obsessed-congress-get-back-to-reality per); (2) real estate prices in PV are
already down 10% or so and could well drop another 8% in short order. Now is not the time to scare off investors like Annenberg that want to put large
sums of money into RPV, and create jobs, with abundant respect for treasured views and desires for open space.
Regards,
Chris Wilson
3250 Seaclaire, RPV
• Barbara Baker, OGALS: bbaker@parks.ca.gov
• David Siegenthaler, NPS: David Siegenthaleraanps.gov
• And the RPV City Council: cc rpv.com
Simply tell them that you support the project and would like them to do all they can to expedite its approval. Share with them what you like most about
the Discovery Park we propose: the outdoor recreational opportunities, the education about our links with all living things, the restoration of the land
with native plants and watershed management improvements, or whatever else you're excited about! It would be great if you could "cc" me, too!
Christopher F. Wilson, Esq.
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, California 90503
310 316 2500
fax: 310 543 2526
cfw.cwandaail.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.
6/21/2011
L IR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 20, 2011
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, June 21, 2011 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
J Second Amendment to Agreement
Email exchange between Don Richardson and Councilman
Campbell; Email from Tom Redfield; Employee Benefit
Compensation in response to request by Councilman
Campbell
5 Emails from: Bob Nelson; Edward Z Stevens; Bob Mucha
7 Emails from: Sharon Yarber; Martin Dodell; Pam Crane; Jan
Porter; Carole Stevenson; Janine Davis; Andrea Sala;
Arlene Zimmer; Denise Rorty; Jack English; Don and Pat
Tambini; Caryl Schwartz; Steven Crandell; Jeanine Cripe
Mauch; Edith Balog; Dr. Robert and Susan Chang; Linda
Lawler Freitag; Marianne Hunter; Patti Carrington: Judith B.
Herman; Linda J. Retz; Kirk Retz; Cassie Jones; Valerie
Blitz; Mary Jane Schoenheider; Email exchange between:
Mayor Long and George Neuner; Mayor Long and Dena
Friedson
8 Email from Tom Redfield (also listed under item 1)
Respectfully submitted,
Nix
Carla • - -
W:WGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110620 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
This agreement is the second amendment to the environmental consulting services
agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("CITY") and PCR Services
Corporation ("CONSULTANT"), dated January 18, 2011 ("Agreement"), which was
previously amended on May 3, 2011. This second amendment to the Agreement is
effective as of June 21, 2011 and is being made to expand the scope of services in order to
conduct a noise study for the Point View Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan Project.
Section 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 1. CONSULTANT's Services. Consultant shall perform
professional services by preparing Environmental Documentation for the
Point View Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan, as set forth in the
"Scope of Work" in the CONSULTANT'S proposal dated as received on
December 3, 2010 and attached hereto as Exhibit'A' and incorporated herein
by this reference. Consultant shall perform the additional professional
services related to traffic impacts for the Point View Agriculture and Golf
Course Master Plan project that are specified in the "Scope of Additional
Services" dated April 14, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'B' and
incorporated herein by this reference. Consultant shall also perform the
additional professional services related to noise impacts as a result of the
Point View Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan project that are specified
in the "PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A NOISE STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
POINT VIEW MASTER USE PLAN PROJECT, RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CALIFORNIA" dated June 7, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit'C'
and incorporated herein by this reference. These services shall include but
not be limited to the following:
(a) CONSULTANT, shall prepare, under consultation with the
CITY, the following for the proposed project; (1) data collection and project
description, (2) Draft Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
and Supporting Documentation (3) Revise IS/MND and Circulate Draft
IS/MND, (4) a Response to Comments on the Draft IS/MND, (5) a Final
IS/MND, (6) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (7) a Notice
of Determination as specified in Pages 6 though 15, inclusive, of Exhibit'A'.
The IS/MND shall be prepared in compliance with the "Scope of
Services" attached as Pages 6 though 15, inclusive, of Exhibit 'A' and shall
contain all items and Notices required by CEQA (as amended), the State
Guidelines, and CITY'S Local CEQA Guidelines.
(b) When requested, CONSULTANT shall attend and participate in
meetings with CITY staff as well as Public Hearings, which are necessary for
the preparation and completion of the environmental documentation. Any
R6876-0001 \1366453v4.doc
3�7
Second Amendment to Agreement between
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
and PCR Services Corporation
This agreement is the second amendment to the environmental consulting services
agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("CITY") and PCR Services
Corporation ("CONSULTANT"), dated January 18, 2011 ("Agreement"), which was
previously amended on May 3, 2011. This second amendment to the Agreement is
effective as of June 21, 2011 and is being made to expand the scope of services in order to
conduct a noise study for the Point View Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan Project.
Section 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 1. CONSULTANT's Services. Consultant shall perform
professional services by preparing Environmental Documentation for the
Point View Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan, as set forth in the
"Scope of Work" in the CONSULTANT'S proposal dated as received on
December 3, 2010 and attached hereto as Exhibit'A' and incorporated herein
by this reference. Consultant shall perform the additional professional
services related to traffic impacts for the Point View Agriculture and Golf
Course Master Plan project that are specified in the "Scope of Additional
Services" dated April 14, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'B' and
incorporated herein by this reference. Consultant shall also perform the
additional professional services related to noise impacts as a result of the
Point View Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan project that are specified
in the "PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A NOISE STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
POINT VIEW MASTER USE PLAN PROJECT, RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CALIFORNIA" dated June 7, 2011, which is attached hereto as Exhibit'C'
and incorporated herein by this reference. These services shall include but
not be limited to the following:
(a) CONSULTANT, shall prepare, under consultation with the
CITY, the following for the proposed project; (1) data collection and project
description, (2) Draft Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
and Supporting Documentation (3) Revise IS/MND and Circulate Draft
IS/MND, (4) a Response to Comments on the Draft IS/MND, (5) a Final
IS/MND, (6) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (7) a Notice
of Determination as specified in Pages 6 though 15, inclusive, of Exhibit'A'.
The IS/MND shall be prepared in compliance with the "Scope of
Services" attached as Pages 6 though 15, inclusive, of Exhibit 'A' and shall
contain all items and Notices required by CEQA (as amended), the State
Guidelines, and CITY'S Local CEQA Guidelines.
(b) When requested, CONSULTANT shall attend and participate in
meetings with CITY staff as well as Public Hearings, which are necessary for
the preparation and completion of the environmental documentation. Any
R6876-0001 \1366453v4.doc
3�7
meeting for which CONSULTANT is requested to attend by CITY beyond the
number of meetings identified in the "Scope of Services", CONSULTANT
shall be compensated on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in
the "Attachment — Key Personnel & Rate Sheet" contained in Exhibit 'A',
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(c) CONSULTANT shall supply CITY with the deliverables
described in the "Scope of Services" attached as Exhibit 'A', including the
following documents for the proposed project:
(1) Administrative Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)
(2) Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)
(3) Draft and Final Responses to Comments
(4) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(5) Notice of Determination
(6) Computer files for all documentation, with processing
documents in a format useable for the City's Website.
(d) All reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or
assembled by CONSULTANT or any subconsultants in connection with the
performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until
released by CITY to the public, and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not
be made available to any individual or organization without prior written
consent of the CITY prior to such release. All such reports, information, data
and exhibits shall be delivered to CITY upon demand without additional cost
or expense to CITY. All charts, tables, figures, and maps, which are
prepared with computer-based mapping or spreadsheet programs, shall be
provided to CITY in their original formats.
(e) CONSULTANT shall respond to those comments raised by
CITY staffs review of the documents in order to facilitate completion thereof.
Consultant shall also respond to all comments from the public, responsible
agencies, and/or other interested parties regarding the IS/MND. Letters
identifying the response shall be sent to each commenting party.
(f) This agreement and the scope of work to be performed by
CONSULTANT may only be amended in a written document executed by
both of the parties to this Agreement."
Section 2. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 3. Compensation. CITY agrees to compensate
CONSULTANT in full satisfaction for the services described in Exhibit 'A' a
fixed fee not to exceed sixty-four thousand, seven hundred and seven dollars
($64,707), a fixed fee not to exceed ten thousand, nine hundred and thirty
R6876-0001 \1366453v4.doc
dollars ($10,930) for the additional environmental analysis for the Point View
Agriculture and Golf Course Master Plan project described in Exhibit `B,'
including the optional task, and a fixed fee of fourteen thousand, eight
hundred and twelve dollars ($14,812) for the additional noise study, for a
grand total of ninety thousand, four hundred and forty-nine dollars ($90,449),
which includes all labor and subconsultant costs, as described in Exhibits `A,'
'B' and `C' and all expenses for printing, word processing, delivery, fax,
phones, mileage, etc. Prior to printing of any documents, CONSULTANT
shall verify with CITY the total number of documents to reproduce.
Not included in this fixed fee are expenses incurred for attending
meetings beyond those specified in Section 1(b) of this contract; analysis of
key issues in addition to those identified within the attached "Scope of Work",
changes in the project description, plans, or scope of work requiring
additional work; and printing additional copies of any document beyond the
number of copies specified in Page 2 of Exhibit `A'.
The actual costs of CONSULTANT'S services and expenses shall be
itemized on the Invoice form, and CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for said
undisputed services and expenses. Payments shall be made based upon
Consultant's monthly invoices up to the maximum amounts set forth in the
following schedule:
Benchmark Item
Maximum Amount of Payments
Data Collection/Preparation of Project Description
$4,400.00 + expenses
Draft IS/MIT and Supporting Documents
(Technical Studies)/ Workshop
$67,249.00 + expenses
Revisions to IS/MND and Public Circulation
$70,249.00 + expenses
Response to Comments/MMRP
$78,249.00 (including all expenses)
Receipt of Notice of Determination
Release of 5% Retention and final
invoice
'The maximum amount of each payment serves as a cap on the payments for work performed
pursuant to Exhibit `A' until the correlated benchmark item is completed to the satisfaction of City Staff.
Therefore completion of one benchmark item allows for billing up to the maximum identified for the following
benchmark item. All amounts of payments shall be less the 5% retention, unless sixty (60) consecutive days
of delays occur as the result of event(s), which the CITY determines were beyond CONSULTANT'S control. In
such case, CITY shall release to CONSULTANT the full amount of the payment forthe benchmark item(s) that
have been completed to the satisfaction of City Staff.
R6876-0001 \1366453v4.doc
Any work approved pursuant to Section 1(f) of this agreement shall be
included in the appropriate segment of the foregoing schedule, as determined
by the City, and the maximum billing amounts shall be adjusted accordingly.
Five percent (5%) of each bill submitted by CONSULTANT shall be
held by CITY in a retention account. The retained funds will be released to
CONSULTANT when the environmental documentation project is
successfully completed by the submittal of the final Notice of Determination.
If CONSULTANT is requested by CITY to revise or supplement the
environmental documentation with additional data, information or analysis
solely as a result of the CONSULTANT'S failure to comply with the
requirements of CEQA, or the State or local CEQA Guidelines (hereafter
referred to collectively as "CEQA"), CONSULTANT shall provide such
revision or supplement at no additional cost to the CITY. For purposes of this
Section, CONSULTANT'S "failure to comply" shall be based upon a written
communication from CITY to CONSULTANT advising CONSULTANT of the
particular items of CONSULTANT'S work that do not comply with the
provisions of CEQA, and which shall not be based on unwritten
interpretations of CEQA that were not delivered to CONSULTANT upon
commencement of this Agreement.
If changes to existing laws, rules, regulations or policies of any state,
federal or local governmental authority having jurisdiction over the project
occur, new, unforeseen issues arise, or comments on the documents are
received from attorneys other than the City Attorney during or following the
circulation of the draft environmental document, during the term of this
Agreement that require modification of the environmental documentation,
CONSULTANT will perform such additional services on a time -and -materials
basis, at the rates set forth within Attachment of Exhibit W.
The CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge and agree that the
terms of CONSUL'TANT'S compensation are not dependent upon the CITY'S
final action on these Projects."
Section 3. Except as expressly amended by this amendment and the First
Amendment to the Agreement, all of the other provisions of the Agreement shall remain.
in full force and effect as written in the Agreement.
R6876-0001 \1366453v4.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
-31
City Clerk
R6876-0001 \1 366453v4.doc
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
("CITY")
0
Mayor
PCR SERVICES CORPORATION
("CONSULTANT")
Signature:
Printed Name:
Title:
Exhibit 'C': Scope of Additional Services
R6876-0001 \1366453v4.doc
i
E t y
r t t 3 t
Y
June 7, 2011
Eduardo Schonborn
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A NOISE STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED POINT VIEW
MASTER USE PLAN PROJECT, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Martin:
PCR Services Corporation (PCR) appreciates the opportunity to submit this scope and fee
proposal for a noise impact study of proposed special events at the Point View Event Garden in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The work would be carried out through an amendment to PCR's
Agreement for Environmental Consulting Services with the City dated January 18, 2011. As
described below, this scope of work for a Noise Study is to support documentation being prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate environmental effects
associated with the proposed Point View Master Use Plan Project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
As part of the approvals being sought for the Point View Master Use Plan, York Point View
Properties (YPVP) is proposing certain improvements and activities centered around the existing
landscaped patio/garden area in the central portion of the site to complement a proposed golf course.
This area, referred to as the "Event Garden," has been used periodically over recent years for several
purposes, including the Las Candalistas (Walk On The Wildside) charity event, the U.S. Pony Club,
the filming of movies, television shows, and commercials, and for private parties hosted by the
owner. Historically, there have been about 10-20 events held on the site per year. Under the
proposed project, these uses would likely continue, however, the Master Use Plan would allow up to
30 events per year on the property. Events will include fund raising and charity events, private
parties, public and community events, weddings and receptions, corporate parties, outdoor
conferences, educational events.
The City is seeking services to conduct a noise study to -assess potential noise impacts
associated with outdoor events at the site on residential land uses in the area.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of services for the noise study will include the following:
PCR will define noise criteria based on applicable noise regulations and guidelines and
prepare a brief protocol for City review.
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130, Santa Monica, California 90401 INTERNET www.pernet.com TEL 310.450.4848 Fax 310.451.5279
Eduardo Schonborn
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
June 7, 2011 - Page 2
• PCR will conduct long-term ambient noise measurements at up to four locations over
72 -hours (starting Thursday June 9th through Tuesday June 14th) and short-term (15 -
minute) monitoring sessions at up to two locations to establish ambient noise levels in
proximity to potentially affected residential uses. Locations for measurements will
include the project site, including areas of the site proximate or adjacent to
neighboring residential properties. These noise measurements will be performed
when no outdoor events are scheduled at the project site. This noise survey will
provide the basis for assessing noise impacts associated with special events
anticipated under the proposed project using the City's noise standard and/or the
current ambient sound environment as a threshold.
• To evaluate outdoor event noise effects on nearby residential uses a simulated event will
be staged at the project site, tentatively scheduled for Friday June 17th. To simulate a
worst case event, a disk jockey (DJ) will need to be present with audio equipment to play
various kinds of music at PCR's direction. PCR can assist in procuring the services of a
DJ if needed and will provide guidance regarding equipment and how it should be
located and used. It is recommended that a number of guests be invited for the test event
to simulate other potential noise sources (e.g., clinking of glasses and plates, clapping,
cheering, attempts to talk over the music, etc.). Noise measurements will be conducted at
the stage area of the Event Garden and at property boundary areas near residential uses
during the mock event.
• PCR will prepare and submit a draft Noise Study that summarizes the results of the
tasks above. The results of the test event noise measurements will be used to develop
event operational guidelines including allowable noise level limits at the stage area to
reduce noise impacts at nearby residential uses. PCR will request City comments and
finalize. the noise study report.
SCHEDULE & DELIVERABLES
We propose to issue a 1St draft Noise Study within twelve (12) working days after completion
of site noise measurements and concurrence with the City regarding the appropriate thresholds of
significance to be used for assessing outdoor noise. A final Noise Study will be completed within
seven (7) working days following receipt of a consolidated set of City comments.
FEE
The scope of services outlined above totals $12,812, including PCR labor, equipment rental,
and reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses shall include instrumentation usage fee and
traveled mileage. In the event PCR contracts with a DJ, an estimated allowance of $2,000 is
provided which assumes an approximately 6 hour event as well as set-up and break -down time. The
amount ultimately invoiced will based on an approved estimate reflecting the contracted DJ's actual
Eduardo Schonborn
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
June 7, 2011 - Page 3
cost. The combined cost with DJ is $14,812. This fee will be billed in accordance with PCR's
current Billing Rates and Expense Charges and is based on the following assumptions:
Two site visits will be required to set and retrieve ambient monitoring equipment, with
access to the project site provided by the client.
■ Issuing one draft and final Noise Study.
■ Any additional meetings or visits required during the work would be billed as an extra
service at the hourly rate.
KEY PERSONNEL
Kyle Kim, Ph.D. is a Senior Engineer with notable professional and academic experience in
environmental acoustical consulting. During his career, Dr. Kim has conducted environmental
acoustics analyses for numerous projects in southern California and throughout the United States. A
resume for Dr. Kim is presented as an attachment. Dr. Kim will be supported by Vivian Liao and
other PCR staff as needed to perform the required analyses. Ms. Heidi Rous, PCR Principal and
Director, will direct the acoustical work, including quality assurance and participation in the
simulated event.
Should you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact us
at (310) 451-4488. Thank you for considering PCR.
Sincerely,
PCR SERVICES CORPORATION
Heidi Rous, CPP
Principal
Attachments
1 r
Kyl Kim, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Point View Noise Study
Eenses
M
_.,IN
ANNaF
E sem-
Senior
Reprographics
GIS/
$
50
Totals
$
Director
Engineer/
Engineer/
Acoustics
Graphics
Publication
Rental equipment
$
Task
(Acoustics)
Scientist I
Scientist
Intern
Specialist
s Specialist
$ 162
$ 117
$ 104
$ 50
$ 90
$ 80
Hours
Cost
Y:
Noise Survey
14
10
24
$
2,138
Simulation Event
10
12
12
34
$
3,624
Report
14
28
6
2
2
52
$
6,184
Equipment Rental
0
$
150
Subtask
0
$
-
ubtotal ask
110
12,096
TOTAL PCR LABOR
12,096
Eenses
M
_.,IN
ANNaF
E sem-
Reprographics
$
50
Delivery/Postage
$
36
Transportation
$
305
Rental equipment
$
260
TOTAL EXPENSES with
% markup
716
IGRAND TOTAL wit out optional tasks)
IGRAND TOTAL rwith optional tasks) $ 14,812
PCR
From: M and D Richardson [medon@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:15 PM
To: b.camp@cox.net
Cc: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Re: RPV City Councilman Newsletter
Dear Councilman Campbell,
I am responding to disagree with your logic regarding your decision to vote against the merit and CPI increases for city
employees.
Your explanation is rather boilerplate in nature and reflects a lack of understanding of basic workforce management and
motivation. No amount of executive rhetoric expressing appreciation and support for a workforce can offset the negative impact
of freezing wages, particularly when an organization - in this case, the city - enjoys solid financial footing due in part to
employee performance. Such behavior generally leads to erosion of employee morale and loss of respect for the executive.
Further, I note that you have elected to enroll in the city -sponsored health insurance program, as is your right, at a cost to the
city of approximately $13,000. Perhaps your "shared sacrifice" argument would have carried a bit more weight had you not
done so. I have no particular objection to the city paying for your health insurance, but I do believe that your actions regarding
your own compensation are inconsistent with your words regarding the compensation of others.
Thank you for the newsletter. I look forward to future editions. And thank you for taking the time to read this note and for your
service to the community.
Sincerely,
Don Richardson
On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this email because you have previously emailed RPV Councilman
Campbell. Don't forget to add b.camp(cbcox.net to your address book so we'll be sure to land in your inbox!
You may unsubscribe If you no longer wish to receive our emails.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
RPV Councilman Brian
Campbell June Newsletter
Fellow Residents,
This will be my first edition of a regular newsletter whereby I can
6/20/2011 1 of 3
1 he Annenberg Project
at Lower Point Vicente:
share some of my thoughts with you, and you with me, on current
issues and events here in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please don't hesitate to call or email me your comments or to
share your input and ideas as to how I can make this newsletter
better and more effective for you in future versions.
Sincerely,
Brian Campbell
RPV City Councilman
310-544-7400 office
b.camp@cox.net
City Budget Matters:
Call me fiscally tough; call me financially tight fisted; blame it on my
Spartan -like US Am fy infantry background, but don't tell me that I am
disconnected with the economic realities that most of our 43,000 residents are
dealing with every day. I deal with it too. While perhaps sounding trite, I have
always said that'We are all in this together". However, its a fact, and that my
personal and professional experience and background has a direct effect on
my decisions as your representative on the city council. I believe that every
extra dollar that the city has these days should be returned to the residents who
paid them in taxes and fees.
While in general agreement on the city budget as presented by the RPV city
staff and passed by the majority of the ay council last week, I was not in favor
of Merit Pia r or CPI ircreases for_our air em loyees that was agreed to,
I was simply in favor of keeping pay levels where they currency are for the next
12 months.
My position has nothing to do with the quaky of our employees or the generally
great work that they do. Its simply the economic times we live in and my view
that the ay employees that work for all of us are currently compensated fairly
and should also share a small portion of the sacrifices that RPV residents have
now endured for years; with no end in sight.
While I sincerely have the upmost respect for my colleagues on oouncl, I simply
don't agree with this decision.
Follow me on YouTube and Twitter:
Profile
Forward email
6/20/2011
Floor Area Ratio
Explanation
abf3
The Annenberg Foundation's
local RPV planning process has
been halted since this past
December so that the land use
restrictions at this unique ocean
bluff site can be resolved with
state and federal agencies.
The city of RPV is continuing to
closely monitor the process and
The Annenberg Foundation
continues to have discussions
with the California State Office
of Local Grants Services
(OGALS) and the National Park
Service (NPS). At such time as
clear direction comes to us from
both Annenberg and these
agencies in Sacramento, then
the city of RPV will revisit the
then -current design of the
project and how to proceed
forward locally.
Assuming the hurdles in
Sacramento are overcome this
will continue to be a lengthy
process and there will be
significant time for all residents
to weigh in and have their
voices heard.
The Annenberg
Project Website
Quick Links
RPV Council Web Page
11
cbmwtcoftwl
ray a +seta+ vyiaay
6/20/2011
This email was sent to medonCalcox.net by b.campOcox.net
Update Profile/Email Address I Instant removal with SafeUrisubscribeTM I Privacy Policy,
RPV Councilman Brian Campbell I City Hall I Rancho Palos Verdes I CA 190275
3 0� 3
From:
Tom Redfield [tmredfield@cox.net]
Sent:
Sunday, June 19, 2011 3:49 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru
Subject:
Recap of Planned Comments to the RPV City Council on June 21st. RE: Elimination of RPV's
Dedicated Traffic Enforcement Deputy
TO: RPV CITY COUNCIL
RE: PLANNED 3 MINUTE COMMENTS ON OVERALL SUPPORT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COUNCIL
OPTIONS.
Gentlemen:
Since sending you the detailed overview of my conclusions based on recent analysis and
updating all my info. on RPV's Traffic Enforcement Program, I would share my final/brief
conclusions. I felt it best I do so before the meeting since it is the very last item on
a very lengthy agenda. Again, Carolynn has completed an outstanding staff report for your
consideration.
She, the City Mgr., and you are all aware of the last minute, higher than projected annual
budget increase for 2012, the interest in offsetting much of this increase... So far, no
major problems on my part. I would briefly outline some "Nuances" for your
consideration... some of my add. conclusions.
Note: While you are concerned with the entire Regional Law Enforcement Plan ... my comments
are focused primarily on just the Traffic Shared Deputies, our Dedicated Deputy, plus the
Core Deputies.
KEY COMMENTS...
- Two reasons why I have no strong objection to staff recommendations eliminating the
Dedicated Traffic Deputy position is that 1) I have been assured by both Carolynn and
Sheriff Leadership..that for at least 2012 ... our residents will not notice any major
shifts in Knox's role. 2) While it is recommended that one of the three Shared Deputies be
eliminated, this also should not cause major concerns in RPV since they have not been
spending their fully allotted 60% time in our city. Note: This is well known.
- My preference would be to utilize the one-time Liability Fund savings of $158,000 to
partially offset the 6%- overall increase..the logic being is that optimum timing for
making reorganizational changes is after a careful review of the likely impact of
personnel reductions... before making the reductions. Note: Carolynn does suggest that a
revision of budgeting, etc.
should be done in 2012..1 suggest, if the budget permits, for no changes in either the
Shared Deputy or Core Deputy numbers for 2012..so the data base be accurate.
RATIONAL... Everyone agrees that the RPV Dedicated Deputy is an anomaly, an anomaly which
has caused several unintended consequences .... along with making
planning/budgeting/management more difficult. SPECIAL NOTE..I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THIS
UNIQUE POSITION HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL OF A FULLY DEDICATED, HIGHLY SKILLED,
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC DEPUTY. WHILE HE HAS CONTINUALLY LED IN CITATIONS BY FAR, HE HAS
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A DEPUTY TO CONCURRENTLY EXCEL IN
EDUCATION..LIKELY THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT OF THE 3 KEYS OF SUCCESSFUL TRAFFIC
CALMING..ENGINEERING, EDUCATION, & ENFORCEMENT. Note: Major Engineering focus is planned
to increase safety... the length of PVD East ... plus upgrading of bike lanes on PVD South.
Note: In add. to the need to do some major planning prior to personnel reductions of
Traffic Deputies, I also strongly
suggest that the Core Deputies not be reduced from 2 to 1. The Council needs to better
understand the great value of
the less visible role of a Core Deputy... particularly since the Principal at Penn.
H.S.. plans to upgrade his support.
- I just learned that the costly, highly trained Traffic Deputies are being used as
Traffic Coordinators at schools..vs. the traditional use of lower paid/lesser skilled
Crossing Guards. Note. I agree with Carolynn that this role is v.important..along with
solving the ongoing difficulty in the Sheriff Dept. in keeping them employed. Note: This
is yet another hit on the time by Traffic Deputies... that must be calculated into the job
description of Traffic Deputies.
- Two Special comments...
1)Deputy Knox has completed 27 yrs. of service. While we all hope he continues in that
role "forever" or until at least
I have passed from the scene, I believe that the process of integrating the dedicated
deputy role into the shared deputy
continue at the appropriate pace.
2)While Carolynn, the Sheriff leadership, and most residents feel Knox will likely not
ever be totally replaced in his
current role due to his years of focus in this role..his spending hundreds of hours of
personal time in this role—that
other Shared Deputies..will be only periodically signed to traffic duty ... will be
promoted or reassigned—that they are not
expected to spend hours of personal time on the job, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT MUCH OF THE
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE KNOX
HAS DEVELOPED CAN BE TRANSFERRED..EXAMPLES: HIS FOCUS ON BOTH EDUCATION & ENFORCEMENT,
HIS APPROACH TO TRAFFIC COURT
WHICH HAS DRAMATICALLY REDUCED CITATIONS BEING TOSSED OUT, HIS USE OF
TECHNOLOGY..CAMERAS, VIDEO, LASER RADAR, MOVING
RADAR, WORKING WITH KEY GROUPS ... I.E. MOTORCYCLISTS, BICYCLISTS, H.S. & COLLEGE
STUDENTS, ETC., ETC. Note also: I do
believe that the role of the Shared Deputies can benefit from job enrichment... vs.
simply driving around issuing cites.
2)More change but more great news. I was just notified by Sheriff leadership that a new
Traffic Sgt., Sgt.Tony Blanchard,
who recently finished Sheriff Training Program has been assigned to leading the Traffic
Enforcement portion ... and is highly
motivated in bringing new focus and energy to the role. Note: This also supports the
logic of not making unnecessary
personnel reductions until carefully analyzed and integrated.
BOTTOM LINE: IF POSSIBLE, MAKE NO CHANGES IN TRAFFIC OR CORE DEPUTIES UNTIL REALIGNMENT
PLANNING IS COMPLETED ASAP IN 2012. IF COST REDUCTION IS A MUST, THEN REDUCE 1 SHARED
DEPUTY. UNLESS DESPERATE, PLEASE DO NOT CUT YET ANOTHER CORE DEPUTY.
Respectfully submitted, Tom R.
`J
14WE CITY �`IJ i � ARE YOU CURRENT S CONTACT
INFORMATION 09PA MEN`R°�i STAMP RE 8 t 1fID 4 CO li�uss Li9CIPt wii p ? vomesMOJECTS
FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
VACATION: Ten (10) days per year, increasing to 12 days beginning the 3rd year and 15 days beginning the 6th year of service.
HOLIDAYS: Five (5) fixed holidays, one floating holiday, plus the period between and including December 24th and January 1 st.
SICK LEAVE: Up to 12 days per year. WELLNESS LEAVE: Employees are eligible to earn four and one half hours of paid
wellness leave for ten consecutive weeks of perfect attendance without using any sick leave time.
9/80 WORK SCHEDULE: Full time employees work 80 hours in 9 days and receive every other Friday off. City Hall is open
Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Medical, vision and dental coverage is provided. The City currently pays the entire premium for the
employee and '% the dependent care premium. The City also provides an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to all employees
and immediate family members.
LIFE INSURANCE: The City pays the entire premium on a life insurance policy at twice the employee's annual salary.
LONG TERM DISABILITY: The City pays the entire premium on long term disability insurance at 66.6667% of monthly earnings to
a maximum benefit of $5,000 per month, after they have been unable to work due to injury or illness for more than 90 days.
SHORT TERM DISABILITY: All employees participate in the State Short Term Disability Insurance program. The annual premium
is determined by the state and is based on an employee's gross annual pay. The premium is deducted from the employee's pay.
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT: The City will reimburse an employee up to $500 per fiscal year for tuition, fees and books for job-
related coursework.
EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAM: Employees are eligible to receive monetary awards of up to 5% of their gross annual pay in
recognition of exemplary performance, subject to the approval of the Department Head and. City Manager.
RETIREMENT: The City participates in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) using the 2.5% at 55 formula. The City
of Rancho Palos Verdes pays 6.5% of the employee's 8% share, with the employee contributing the remaining 1.5% of his/her
annual salary on a pre-tax basis. The City also makes additional contributions to the employee's retirement account that vary from
year to year depending on investment returns. Upon early separation prior to vesting employees may cash out or roll over into an
eligible account the Employee's portion (8,%) plus accrued interest.
RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS PROGRAM: The City maintains a mandatory Retirement Health Savings Program to provide a
post-retirement health benefit to employees. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes contributes $51.65 per pay period and the
employee contributes 1% of their salary on a pre-tax basis to a retirement health savings account. Participants can manage their
contributions among various offered funds. The retirement health savings account balance may then be used for health-related
approved expenses by the employee upon retirement or separation of service to the City.
CREDIT UNION: Credit Union services are provided through the F&A Credit Union.
MEDICARE: Federal law requires a 1.45% mandatory contribution for each new employee.
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BULLETIN DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED CONTRACT. ANY PROVISION
CONTAINED IN THE BULLETIN MAY BE MODIFIED OR REVOKED WITHOUT NOTICE. (9114/07)
L
W
City Comparison Matrix - Employee Benefits
Cl IN
Nionthh, Maximum
sickl/Vacation Leiwe 11cricar
Sick -12 days
"Q(�rit Pro0ann
Other Bonus I'logrilln
PERS F01,111t1k)
Emplo�'ee Contribution
[AIIJAM eU C0110 JIM11011
Vacation - <2 years -10 days;
Calabasas
$1,167
2-5 years -12 days;
10 step merit program,
No
2%@55
7.0%
0.0%
5-11 years -17 days;
2.5% per step
IS+ years - 22 days
Comprehensive (sick and vacation)
5 step merit program, 5%
Dana Point
$1,150
< 10 years -15 days
No
2%@55
7.0%
0.0%
>10 years - 30 days
per step
Goleta
$900
Sick -12 days per year;
2%@55
Vacation -10 days
sick leave -10 days
Hermosa Beach
$1204
Vacation - 5 years -12 days;
5 step merit program, 5%
No
2%@55
7.0%
0.0%
10 years -16 days;
per step
15 years -18 days
La Canada Flintridge
$815
Sick -12 days;
2%@55
Vacation - 5 years -10 days
Sick -12 days
l-
Bonus
2%@55/ up tot%ofan
Laguna Niguel
$1,120.00
Vacation - <3 years -10 days;
5 step merit program,
plan- up to 5% of
employee's annual base
7.0%
0.0%
>3 years -15 days;
5% per step
salary
Amy in deferred comp.
>10 ears - 20 da
No fared merit increases,
(—$1,400) No Maximum
Sick days
salary range with
Malibu
City pays all employee
n -12 days, all employees
Vacation
do
maximum 5% increases
No
2%@55
7.0%
0.0%
contributions
based on performance
reviews
Sick - 6 days
Palos Verdes Estates
$1,036
Vacation - 5 years -14 days;
5 to 7 step merit program,
No
2%@55
7.0%
0.0%
10 years - 20 days;
5% per step
15 years - 20 days
Sick- up to days a year
Uf►to 5°l0 of their;
Vacation =
gross annual gay in
Rancho Palos Verdes
$1,349
< 3 years` ` 10 days;
recognition of
2:5%055
6.5%
1.5%
>3years -12 days;
exemplary
>6 ears -:16 da .
verformance
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Comparison Matrix - Employee Benefits
1 San Juan c:apistrano participates in me urange county Retirement System Jociipsj not tat-rbm
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Sick - 4 hours every month
Vacation -1 yr 10 days
2 yrs 11 days
3 yrs 12 days
current salary freeze, no
Rolling Hills Estates
$920
4 yrs 13 days
fixed merit increases
No
2%@55
7.0%
0.0%
5 yrs 14 days
6-9 yrs 15 days
10 yrs 20 days
Sick Leave -12 days
Vacation Leave -
0 - 3 years: 10 days
5 step merit program 5%
Management- up to 5% of
San Juan Capistrano
$1,045
4-7 years 16.5 days
salary, classified- $100
2.7% @ 55
7.64%-3.6%i
0%-3.6%1
8-10 years 18.5 days
per step
recognition bonus
11-19 years 20.5 days
20+ years 21.5 days
Sick -12 days;
6 step program, 5% per
Vacation - 0-5 years -12 days;
step. Increases based on
Walnut
$1,250
6-1016 da
years'
obtaining Satisfactory or
No
2%@55
11+ years - 20 days
higher on yearly
evaluation
1 San Juan c:apistrano participates in me urange county Retirement System Jociipsj not tat-rbm
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Nelsongang@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:30 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: TMajcher@LoweEnterprises.com
Subject: Ref: June 21: Public Hearings Item 5: Terranea 6 Month Review
Council,
copy Todd Majcher, Terranea
You have our Sea Bluff HOA letter commending Terranea (attached to Staff Report).
I have just read our Staff Report and am surprised staff recommends trimming the native plants to 30".
Based on below I would suggest you consider modifying Condition 100 to specify plant heights be observed
annually by PVPLC with respect to view corridor obstructions and trimmed where and as they suggest.
Five reasons not to trim to 1 foot or 30 inches:
1. In your next drive along PVDS note you can clearly see the ocean and Catalina with the coastal scrub the it is. For
me they don't obstruct any view.
2. The various biologists state to trim to Condition 100s specified 1 foot height is not healthy for these plants, one
recommends 36" height.
3. 1 suspect our Coastal Commission would look askew at their native plantings being modified as Mr. Stevens wants
without their review or coment/approval.
4. PVPLC grew these, knew how tall they get and I suspect would like them to stay the way they are.
5. You are approving a 13 foot tall pelican, can't we just let these plants grow?
I'll try to get these comments into the pubic record Tuesday but ... may not make it.
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
6/20/2011
From: EZStevens [erstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:11 AM
To: RPV Planning
Cc: cc@rpv.com; tmajcher@LOWEENTERPRISES.com; thaack@destinationshotels.com; Greg Pfost;
emiliob@rpv.com
Subject: Please read what is happening to our Open Coastal View Corridor - Deny City approval of Teranea's 6 month
Review
Dear Residents of RPV,
We are losing the battle of maintaining our Open Coastal View Corridor to Terranea & also to the
OceanEstates development @ Hawthorne along PV Dr. S. I cannot believe that gnatcatchers will build
their nests right next to a heavily travelled & very noisy road way. The gnatcatchers have a nice big
open quiet area North of PV Dr S. up on the hill side to build their nests. We must stop this nonsense
before we lose this battle for our future generations to enjoy what is left of our Open Coastal View
Corridor for ever. We give Terranea approval to allow the vegetation to grow from 12 inches to 30
inches. The vegetation is already at 30 to 40 inches high in sections along PV Dr S. It is
just a matter of time that the hedge will be 3 to 5 feet high completely blocking our Open
Coastal View Corridor that the City promised to protect.
Please do not allow this to happen.
Edward Z Stevens
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEVELOPMENT
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & Cl
JOEL ROJAS,
DIRECTOR
JUNE 21, 2011
TERRANEA RESORT AND SPA - 6 MONTH REVIEW
OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC AMENITIES PLAN TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A PELICAN
SCULPTURE AT THE PUBLIC PARK
REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER - A \
Prepared By: Ara Michael Mihranian, Deputy Community Development Direc-
RECOMMENDATION
DATE:
SUBJECT:
1) Receive and file the 6 -month review of the compliance and adequacy of the Council
adopted Conditions of Approval for the Terranea Resort and Spa with direction to
the applicant to take the following actions: a) Install additional trail markers along the
Bluff Top Trail and b) Install an additional mutt mitt station at the trail entry point of
Nantasket Drive;
2) Direct Staff to bring back a Resolution for adoption at its July 5, 2011 meeting
amending Condition No. 100 to increase the maximum permitted height of
vegetation along Palos Verdes Drive South from 1 -foot to 30 -inches; amending
6/20/2011 /4 3
Condition Nos. 78 and 79 to establish a time period for trimming the vegetation
along Palos Verdes Drive South; and making any other amendments to the
conditions of approval directed by the City Council as a result of this 6 -month review;
As previously stated, the City has received complaints over the past two years from Mr.
Stevens regarding the applicant's non-compliance with Condition No. 100 as it pertains
to the 1 -foot height limit for the plantings along the Palos Verdes Drive South parkway
and median. Mr. Stevens asserts that the overgrowth of the vegetation is impairing the
public's view of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina from the Palos Verdes Drive South
roadway. From the onset of Mr. Stevens' initial compliant, Staff requested that the
applicant address this matter.
The vegetation planted along the Palos Verdes Drive South parkway and median is
based on a condition by the California Coastal Commission that requires the vegetation
in this area to be coastal sage scrub. The Coastal Commission indentified this area as
"Zone C - Roadside Enhanced Habitat Native Planting Zone" to enhance the habitat
connectivity to the NCCP Preserve property across the street surrounding the City's
5-10
civic center. Coastal Commission Special Condition No. 7.13.6 states (see attachment):
The applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South that
provide food and cover for wildlife, including gnatcatchers, migration
between the nearby offsite habitat areas to the northeast and northwest
under consideration for inclusion in the City's Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP) program as depicted in Exhibit 24. Species
outside of expected shade canopies shall be predominantly coastal sage
scrub plants. Tree canopies shall be limited to ten percent of the area. All
plant materials shall be native to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Since the adoption of the above condition by the Coastal Commission, the areas
identified as being under consideration for inclusion in the City's NCCP are now part of
the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Specifically, the area west of the Fishing
Access Parking Lot is referred to as the Vicente Bluffs Reserve and the area across
Palos Verdes Drive South (Upper Point Vicente) is referred to as the Alta Vicente
Reserve.
When the project was approved by the City Council in 2002, it was envisioned that the
roadway and median landscaping would be ornamental plantings similar to other
coastline developments. As such, the vegetation in this area was restricted to a
maximum height of 1 -foot to help protect views for motorists along Palos Verdes Drive
South. However, as noted above, the Coastal Commission subsequently imposed
Condition No. 7.13.6 on the project which required the landscaping along the roadway
and median to be coastal sage scrub. In speaking to wildlife biologists on this issue,
Staff understands that coastal sage scrub will not thrive nor be considered viable habitat
for the dispersal and foraging of the California gnatcatcher if it is limited to 1 -foot in
height. In fact, according to the applicant's biologist (see attachment), "trimming these
plants to 12 inches from the ground would reduce the opportunity for successful
foraging and remove cover provision altogether, which would be out of compliance with
the intent of the resource agency conditions listed above." Thus the applicant's biologist
recommends that if trimming is to occur, "a minimum plant height for maintaining
foraging and cover opportunity in this area would be 30 -inches from the ground and,
most importantly, trimming should only occur outside of the California gnatcatcher
breeding season (February 15 through August 30)." Staff also consulted with PVPLC
biologists who are currently working on a coastal sage scrub re -vegetation project at the
Alta Vicente Reserve, on viable height limits for coastal sage scrub. According to the
PVPLC's Conservation Director, it is recommended by various biologists that coastal
sage scrub maintain a minimum 3 -foot height limit to provide adequate habitat for
dispersal.
6/20/2011
The Coastal Commission conditions were adopted in 2003 subsequent to the Council's
project approval in 2002 and were accepted by the City Council on October 7, 2003. At
the time the Council reviewed and accepted the Coastal Commission's Conditions, Staff
reported there may be cases where the City's conditions and the Coastal Commission's
conditions will both address a particular aspect of the project. In such cases, the stricter
condition or mitigation measure shall govern. This was based on Council adopted
Condition No. 7.13.6 which states that "in the event that a condition of approval is in
conflict or is inconsistent with any mitigation measure for this project, this stricter shall
5-11
govern." Therefore, in this case, the Coastal Commission Condition is stricter than the
City's condition and shall govern in terms of the permitted plant species and the lack of
a specified height limit.
In order for the Council adopted Conditions of Approval to accurately correspond to the
Coastal Commission's conditions for the planting along parkway and median of Palos
Verdes Drive South, Staff recommends that the City Council amend Condition No. 100
to change the height limit of the vegetation along the Palos Verdes Drive South parkway
and median from 1 -foot to 30 -inches, as recommended by the applicant's biologist.
This new maximum height would be 6 -inches lower than the maximum height
recommended by the PVPLC, and would still provide adequate views of the Pacific
Ocean and Catalina Island from Palos Verdes Drive South (views from the roadway trail
are not impaired by the vegetation in question). In addition, Staff recommends that City
imposed Condition Nos. 78 and 79 be amended to include a description of the roadside
habitat area required by the Coastal Commission and the trimming period for
maintenance to occur (September 1 through February 14). In the event trimming is
required to occur during the bird breeding season, it is recommended that a condition
be added that requires a qualified biologist inspect the vegetation to ensure no nests
exists. With this recommendation, Staff believes that the landscape and hardscape
conditions are being met.
6/20/2011 5 of 3
From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:14 PM
To: 'Carla Morreale; 'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW:
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)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(@_rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/Mv
Do 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: R MUCHA [mailto:patnbobl@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 20113:02 PM
To: RPV-Mihranian Ara
Cc: Misetich Anthony; Campbell; Lehr
Subject:
Ara,
Please consider the recommendation below when drafting the Resolution for a July 5 meeting.
As written, the Resolution assumes Coastal Sage Scrub as the preferred vegetation along PV Dr. South when in
fact, Deer Grass has been used consistently.
Bob Mucha
RPV Resident
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING
June 21, 2011
2) Direct Staff to bring back a Resolution for adoption at its July 5, 2011 meeting amending Condition No. 100 to
increase the maximum permitted height of vegetation along Palos Verdes Drive South from 1 -foot to 30 -inches;
amending Condition Nos. 78 and 79 to establish a time period for trimming the vegetation along Palos Verdes
Drive South; and making any other amendments to the conditions of approval directed by the City Council as a
result of this 6 -month review;
PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION
The item 2) text is based on Staff assumption that ONLY Coastal Sage Scrub is permitted by Coastal
Commission Special Condition No. 7.13.6 . In fact this Special Condition text states:
Species outside of expected shade canopies shall be predominantly coastal sage scrub plants.
The term predominantly does not exclude other species.
o� a
6/20/2011
Currently "Deer Grass" is widely used and when mixed with coastal sage scrub in appropriate view
sensitive areas would meet Special Condition No. 7.13.6.
For example, using Deer Grass at the crest of the median in the migration zone together with Coastal
Sage Scrub on the median down slopes would meet the need for uninterrupted views and wildlife habitat.
Ironically, Deer Grass is growing naturally in the median crest at the Fishing Area Parking Lot i.e.
migration zone.
Coastal Sage Scrub is growing in the median between Terranea and the Salvation Army site; the coastal
view is obscured by these mature plants. This area is outside the migration zone and would be ideal for
Deer Grass.
6/20/2011
From: sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 10:53 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carla Morreale; Carol W. Lynch
Subject: Annenberg
Dear Council,
City's Involvement with the Application
I am confused, not because the "preliminary draft application" was posted on the City's website (which it was not
because of the concern that the people in RPV are simpletons who cannot differentiate between a formal
application and a draft), but because the City's conduct in dealing with the NPS and OGALS is confusing. How so?
First, let us look back to the adoption of the Coast Vision Plan. It is manifestly clear that adoption of the plan,
which included a possible animal care and adoption center, did not in any way, shape or form constitute express or
implied approval of the Annenberg project, so the Annenberg project is not a project that has been "blessed" or
approved by the City and is NOT a vision of the Council or the community. The Plan is merely a conceptual
planning tool and guide, nothing more.
The granting of approval for Annenberg to submit an application for a CUP for the project was likewise not any
sort of approval of the project. If one watches the September 2, 2008 Council meeting wherein such approval to
apply for a CUP was granted, it is once again manifestly clear that such approval did not constitute any sort of
approval of the project. Indeed, the Council members who were conceptually opposed to the project (Wolowicz and
Gardiner) were assured that granting permission to seek a CUP did NOT constitute any type of approval of the
project, and but for such assurances they would no doubt have voted against that agenda item.
Who is the Applicant?
As we all know, the Planning Commission has not made any findings as to the project, and neither has the Council.
Therefore, there is no tacit or express approval by the City at any level of the project. Consequently,
notwithstanding Mayor Long's belief to the contrary, the staff is not furthering the policy goals of the Council by
advocating for the project, since there are no such policy goals re: the project in place. Why then is staff vigorously
advocating for the project? Since I am not able to actually see a copy of the "preliminary draft application" that was
submitted to OGALS, I cannot confirm who the "applicant" is on the application. However, I think it is safe to
assume that the applicant is the City, since it is the fee owner of the property, and Mr. Rojas and the NPS have both
said that the NPS will only deal with the City as applicant. Is it not misleading to OGALS and NPS to have the
City apply for something, albeit preliminarily, that the City has not approved at the local level? Obviously,
Annenberg needs to be able to converse with representatives of OGALS and NPS since it would be the
actual developer of the proposed project and is the best party to answer any detailed questions that might be posed,
but in the end it is the City that is seeking approval for that which the City has not approved and for which the
residents are largely opposed. This is why I am confused. The City is seeking approval through an application
for something that the City has not approved.
What are the Council Members' Positions?
To their credit, Mayor Long and Councilman Stern have made it unequivocally clear that they fully support the
project, as currently proposed, and approve of it being located at Lower Point Vicente. Likewise, to his credit,
Councilman Wolowicz has made it clear that while he might consider approval of the project at another location
within the City, he is adamantly opposed to it being located at Lower Point Vicente. It would certainly be nice if
Councilmen Misetich and Campbell got off the fence, stopped evading the question of where they stand, and simply
acted honestly, as have the other three, by letting us know which way they would vote if the vote were put to them.
6/20/2011
7/
A Public Vote?
Speaking of voting, rumor has it that the Council will be considering placing an initiative on the ballot in November
to "let the people" decide. As a staunch supporter of democracy that idea sounds good, but is this really just a way
for some of the Council to avoid having to take a position that might jeopardize their re-election efforts, or tarnish
their legacies? The land was given to the COUNTY of Los Angeles by the federal government to be used for a
REGIONAL public park for the PUBLIC, not for the residents of RPV. Indeed, but for the fact that lead
contamination was discovered at the site during the construction of the PVIC expansion, and the resulting
settlement between the County and the City of RPV which resulted in the property being conveyed to the City, the
property would still be owned by the COUNTY. Should not the residents of the County, and all of the cities within
it, have an opportunity to vote on the use of the REGIONAL park that was gifted by the federal government to
them? As you have been informed, both from supporters and opponents of the project, people from all over the Hill,
the South Bay, other portions of CA and indeed from other states and countries have signed petitions and weighed
in with their views. A vote on a ballot measure posed only to the residents of RPV would deny the general public of
the right to decide what should be done with this regional park.
Further, what would the initiative ask? Since the project could continue to morph into something vastly different
from its present configuration, would any changes made subsequent to a vote vitiate the result? Would it seek
approval of the project as a public facility? Would it seek approval of a conversion, and if so, of how much of the
land? Would it seek approval and acceptance of the proposed substitute property? In that vein, what potential
substitute properties are even being considered? We know staff is looking at potential replacement properties -
where are they?
Finally, to what purpose would the outcome of such a vote be put? At the end of the day, the deed and grant
restrictions, POU, zoning and General Plan all govern the property. Let's assume that the majority of residents vote
in favor of the project. That result would have no impact on the deed restrictions or POU. Would the goal be to try
to use that result to persuade OGALS and NPS that they should amend the restrictions and POU to permit the
project? Would it be used to persuade OGALS and NPS that a conversion should be approved? Let's assume the
majority of residents vote against the project. Would the Council accept that result, allowing this nightmare to at
long last come to an end?
Agricultural Use
If you examine the zoning ordinances that apply to Upper and Lower Point Vicente you will note that agricultural
uses are permitted on the land, hence the decades long use of the property by Japanese farmers was a permitted use,
not a misuse of the land. Indeed, the farming began before WWII, was interrupted when the Japanese were
wrongfully interred and relocated, was resumed after the war ended, was suspended on Lower Point Vicente while
used as a Nike site, and was continuing at the time the property was conveyed by the federal government (the first
farm landlord) to the County. The farming use was in place at the time the City acquired the property from the
County. The General Plan even speaks to the treasure that this last vestige of our City's history provided. The
General Plan speaks of the beautiful views that fields of flowers and beans provide, and how such use and views
were in keeping with the goals of the City to maintain open space for all to enjoy forever. Had Annenberg not come
along with money to acquire Preserve land, and promises of more "gifts" to the City, Mr. Hitano would surely still
be providing a beautiful view corridor for the residents of the world to enjoy when visiting our magnificent coastal
bluff property.
It has been said that such commercial, for profit agricultural use of this public property was wrong. While I
disagree, let us assume for argument's sake that it was. What of it? Should we allow another, far more egregiously
wrong use replace a prior wrong? Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Stewardship and Compliance - What are you waiting for?
It is true that the City has not been a good steward of the property following the ill advised decision to terminate the
farming lease. Once the City gained possession of the land free of the encumbrance of the farming lease, it had a
6/20/2011
duty to turn the property into the regional park it was intended to be, and not allow it to become overgrown with
weeds so as to be able to justify the Annenberg project on the basis that the Foundation will clear the weeds and
make it accessible. Nonsense. Clearing weeds, putting in a few trails and a bioswale would be a minimal expense to
the City. To suggest that we need the Annenberg project in order to turn the property into something useful is
ludicrous. It is a fact that the entirety of the property is currently accessible to all but the disabled. A trail or two
would remedy that limited inaccessibility. Besides, did you see the recent article in the Wall Street Journal about
the necessity, beauty and value of weeds? I will provide each of you with a copy at the meeting for your reading
pleasure and enlightenment.
Why has the City failed to apply any of the Conze donation (nearly $400,000) to make improvements to the
property? Will any steps be taken to enhance the property before a decision is made on the Annenberg application?
Is Annenberg already in de facto control of what does, or more importantly does not, take place on the City's
property?
What is the Real Agenda?
We do not need indoor "education" in a 51,000 square foot building to learn about nature, or about cats and dogs
and how they are a part of the animal kingdom. There is no nexus between a whale and a dog, other than the fact
that they are both living creatures. Why not put some rabbits, skunks (odor glands removed), foxes, peacocks,
horses and possums on the site as they have more to do with the uniqueness and history of RPV than dogs and cats?
Is Council's support prompted perhaps because of a desire to have a much nicer, though not any larger, venue for
Council and Planning Commission meetings until a new City Hall is constructed? Is Council hoping that the City
will reap some financial rewards through the leasing of the building for weddings and other private functions?
There is an agenda here, and Council is not being forthright with the community about what is driving this effort.
Have any offers of additional "gifts" by Annenberg been made, at least impliedly, for other things on the City's
wish list (e.g. a new City Hall) in consideration of support for and approval of this huge, unwanted project?
Status of the "Non -Conditional" Additional "Gifts"
Annenberg has already separately received approval to complete the PVIC parking expansion, including enlarged
driveway, parking, lighting and bioswale (actually half of a swale). The estimated cost of these additional
"improvements" is approximately $4.5 million. In addition, Annenberg agreed to gift funds to pay for additional
exhibits at PVIC. All of these gifts were to be given to the City without regard to whether the proposed companion
animal project was approved. What is the status of these gifts? The last act necessary to the efficacy of the approval
for the PVIC expansion is putting in place an agreement with the Coast Guard for en easement to use its property
for overflow parking. The Coast Guard provided a draft 7 page agreement to the City Attorney back in October of
2010. What is the status of that agreement? Surely our City Attorney has had ample time to review and comment on
this short draft document over a nearly 8 month period. It seems pretty obvious that no steps are being taken to get
this agreement finalized so as to avoid putting Annenberg in the position of not living up to its promises. The PVIC
exhibits have been placed on hold. Why? It is patently obvious that these "gifts" are, indeed, conditioned upon
Annenberg obtaining approval for the proposed companion animal project. This disingenuous conduct has to make
us wonder what other assurances made by Annenberg cannot be relied upon, such as the programming and the uses
to which all of the offices and board room facilities will be put.
Personally, I am opposed to the commencement of the PVIC parking expansion project (and I have previously
made that abundantly clear to Council in a prior communication) because it was obviously designed solely to
dovetail with the 51,000 square foot building, and if there is no building the design of the "improvements" would
actually be inappropriate for the site. The Planning Commissioners were concerned about whether separately
approving the parking expansion constituted an impermissible splitting of a project under CEQA, but our City
Attorney opined (wrongly in my opinion) that since a parking expansion had previously been approved, the revised
Annenberg plan could be separately approved. Clearly the two projects are inextricably intertwined and the one
should never have been approved prior to the approval of the other.
Justify to Taxpayers the Expenditure of Staff Time
6/20/2011
The Council's decision to suspend the entitlement process was, in large part, prompted by a desire to cease using
costly staff time to process a CUP application for a project that has huge, and seemingly insurmountable legal
obstacles to overcome. Staff was only authorized in December of last year to move forward with a formal
application, yet none has been filed to date. If a NEPA study is required to submit a formal application, then
Annenberg should have been working these past 6 months on obtaining such a study so that a complete formal
application could be submitted and acted upon with finality. Staff continues to confer regularly with Annenberg,
OGALS, NPS and even takes trips to Sacramento, only to continue to be told "preliminarily" by NPS that the
proposed project does not comply with the deed restrictions or the POU. Staffs estimate (which is probably low) of
57 hours having been expended since December is nearly thrice what they estimated (20 hours) back in December.
How on earth can the Council continue to sanction this waste of staff time and taxpayer money when the project, as
proposed, cannot and will not be approved as a public facility? What revisions to the project have even been
considered by Annenberg in order to assuage the concerns that have been repeatedly raised by OGALS and NPS?
Further, staff is less available to do the rest of the work it is charged to do for the residents because of this
expenditure of their time on one, extraordinary application.
Conversion - Where Do You Stand? We Have a Right to Know!
Now, Annenberg is seeking to have Mr. Siegenthaler's and Mr.Murray's "preliminary" decision overturned by the
Regional Director of NPS, but there is little likelihood that such effort will be successful. It is patently obvious that
a conversion application will have to be pursued. Does the Council intend to even consider that option? We know
where Mssrs. Long, Stern and Wolowicz would stand, but we do not know what Mssrs. Campbell and Misetich
would say. So I ask them directly - do you support a conversion of some or all of the property? We have a right to
know what you think. Admittedly, a final answer might well be conditioned on whether comparable replacement
property could be found (which it cannot, since this is the only headland in the City) and how much of the land
would be converted (it is my considered opinion that if a conversion is sought it would have to be for the full 26
acres that will be affected by the Annenberg project and "managed" by Annenberg, and not a mere few acres "lost"
to the building's footprint and the hardscape), but it is time for all of you to let us know what the Council is going to
do next, and what you would or would not support.
Please, stop giving lip service to the concept of "transparency". Live it by your actions.
What. I Request of You
For the foregoing reasons I hereby request that on June 21 st you bring this process to a close by making the finding
that this proposed project does not comply with our General Plan or the vision that this community has for the
precious coast land. Please end the wasteful spending of staff time and tax dollars pursuing this project that does
not comply with the deed and grant restrictions or the POU, much less our zoning and General Plan. Please decide
that a conversion should not be pursued. Instead, please apply the Conze trust donation funds to the site, clear the
weeds, put in a trail or two, ask the Annenberg Foundation to make its donation of the bioswale and PVIC indoor
and outdoor exhibits - gifts that are truly wanted and needed by the community.
Thank you,
Sharon Yarber
6/20/2011
June 20, 2011
Martin Dodell
5751 Capeswood Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-375-5038; 310-619-4526 (Cell)
mdodell(a,verizon.net
VIA EMAIL: CCA
RPV.COM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I write to strongly urge your support for the Annenberg Foundation's Project at LPV.
This extraordinary gift to the City, the Peninsula and all of the South Bay should not be
refused. The Project has benefits that far outweigh the complaints about using "precious
open space", of which we are gloriously blessed with additional miles along our
magnificent coastline.
Last year, as a trustee of the Peninsula Education Foundation, I and an overwhelming
majority of the trustees, voted to support the acceptance and creation of this facility. We
all recognized the unique educational opportunities that we could provide to our local
PVPUSD students who were interested in Veterinary Medicine. Where else in Los
Angeles County could high school students have direct learning experiences with support
from the Veterinary Medicine departments of schools like UC Davis and U of Colorado?
The opponents of this project complain about everything they can think of from the size
of the hardscape to the bathroom facilities. The demeaning name calling that has gone on
is embarrassing and reflects badly on what most Peninsula residents find as acceptable
behavior. Since the majority of PVPUSD students come from RPV, any action to defeat
this project will only harm our own citizens and your voters. You cannot in good
conscience deny support for this project as it will only bring benefit and further luster to
our own community.
The nay -sayers have chosen to create a great noise and uproar over a non -issue. Let the
State and Federal organizations accomplish their due diligence and then work
cooperatively with the Annenberg Foundation to bring this gem to our coast line.
Consider what a success the Interpretive Center has become and then consider the further
success of Terranea and the Trump facility, all of whom had their endless detractors.
This project is right for Rancho Palos Verdes and right for its citizens.
Respectfully,
Martin Dodell
FAI
From: Pamela Crane [pamcrane@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:00 PM
To: cc@rpv.com; bbaker@parks.ca.gov; david.siegenthaler@nps.gov.
Subject: Annenberg Support
To All Concerned Parties,
As a life long resident of the peninsula, I'm writing to you, once again to offer my whole hearted support of the Annenberg
Project.
I love every aspect of Discovery Park, and feel that it would be a tremendous asset to our community for generations to
come.
Discovery Park would not only be an incredible learning center, that would compliment the existing Palos Verdes Interpretive
Center, but would make PVIC a more vibrant facility
The synergy that would be created between these two centers is what makes the location of the Annenberg project so key.
The benefits of Discovery Park are innumerable... it would restore the natural beauty to much of the area with native plants,
which now has been consumed by invasive non natives, it would increase the amount of picnic areas and add 2.5 miles of
walking trails. By doing this, Discovery Park would make this property more accessible to more people (not take away from
the people as many of our opponents are claiming)... Although I realize that the pet adoption aspect of the project for some
reason seems to be one of the major issues of those opposing this project, it is one of the most important aspects to me. The
interaction we have with domestic animals plays an important part in the lives of most families. Education on choosing the
right pet and caring for your pet is critical. Looking at the extreme over crowding in county shelters today is proof of this. The
majority of dogs (and cats) in shelters today are good animals and are there for no fault of their own, just an unfortunate
choice of their owners It is heartbreaking to know that only a small percentage of animals in shelters ever find their way out.
From the first time I heard about the Annenberg project, I have been supportive of it. Although this project has gone thru many
revisions since it was first proposed, the heart and soul of the project has not changed. The revisions that have been made
have come primarily from the community and have made Discovery Park even better. As testament to this, many of our
opponents have even commented the Annenberg Foundation have been good listeners.
I truly feel that, if this project is allowed to move forward, many if not most of those who are opposing this project, will find their
fears were all for not. They will find Discovery Park the world class park, learning center and
the jewel of the peninsula that those of us supporting have always known it would be.
I urge you to please let this incredible gift to our community move forward
Sincerely,
Pam Crane
10 Caballeros Rd
Rolling Hills, Ca.90274
pamcrane@cox.net
7
6/20/2011
From: J. Porter [momporter71 @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:45 PM
To: CC@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg's proposal
Please do not approve the Annenberg Proposal for an animal care center.
Lower Pt. Vicente Park should remain a park for public outdoor recreation of
people! At least that's the way most of our neighbors read the RPV
General Plan. Animal Care Facilities do not need the ocean view
and public land.
Jan Porter
6/20/2011
Carole K. Stevenson
25900 Oak St. Unit 116
Lomita, Ca 90717
June 18, 2011
Dear Friend,
The purpose of my letter is to show support for the Annenberg Project at Lower Point
Vicente. I have been aware of this proposed discovery park and I am in favor of moving
forward with this worthwhile project immediately.
The Anneberg Project is a place that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and interests.
Located near the Interpretive Center, the project blends the marine with the terrestrial
life and that of domestic animals. Where else can one go and experience the ocean
creatures and land animals in such close proximity?
As an educator, I see this as an invaluable resource and learning site for all who are
interested. What a wonderful place where people can "understand how we are
connected to the sea, the land, and the life of the region".
As a parent, I delight at the opportunities afforded my children and grand children. We
are frequent visitors to the Interpretive Center where there is a plethora of educational
exhibits about the sea and ocean life. What is missing is the terrestrial life and that of
domestic animals. This can easily be remedied through the generous life offered to us
by the Annenberg Foundation.
The proposed recreational and educational amenities, both outdoor and indoor, would
be a welcome, positive contribution to our community. The upkeep will also be provided
by the Anneberg Foundation for the operations and maintenance of the project. This
philanthropic gift will benefit our families for generations to come just as the Interpretive
Center has.
What a wonderful opportunity we have here. Let's make sure we benefit from it.
Thank you.
Carole K. Stevenson
From: Janine Davis Danineldavis@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:10 PM
To: bbaker@parks.ca.gov; David-Siegenthaler@nps.gov
Cc: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project Support
To Whom it May Concern,
I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting this Tuesday, but wanted
to express my support of the Annenberg Project in writing. I frequently walk
the cliffs by PVIC and the planned site for Annenberg, and it would be lovely
to have more trails to meander through. The land right not will only be
beautified and still kept in a natural state. In addition, as an animal
lover, I think it's a unique opportunity to provide education to people on
how to car for our domestic pets. Finally, I have two teenagers, and cc -
manage a volunteer group, and would love to have another local organization
where our kids can volunteer their time.
Thank you,
Janine Davis
310 466 4071
janineldavis@yahoo.com
0
6/20/2011
From: sala5@cox.net
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:34 PM
To: cc@rpv.com; bbaker@parks.ca.gov; David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov
Cc: haakola@annenbergfoundation.org
Subject: Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
I am writing to you in support of The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Discovery
Park. As a 40 year resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, I am excited at the opportunity
that this project brings to our beautiful Peninsula. The current site is unattractive and
overgrown with weeds. I can imagine what the site will look like when the Discovery Park
is built -- native plants, hiking and running trails, manicured landscaping and a world
class destination for residents and visitors. Not to mention the educational,
recreational, volunteer and civic opportunities the center will provide to our community.
The Annenberg Foundation is known for making every project they support the best it can be
and will invest time, money and whatever resources necessary to ensure this will be a
first class project -- when they put their name on a project, you can be assured it will
be! A partnership with The Annenberg Foundation should be embraced. Our
benefit for years to come and we are lucky to be the recipients of this
Please approve this project swiftly and let's work together to create a
relationship with The Annenberg Foundation. Thank you for your time and
message.
Kind regards,
Andrea Sala
community will
wonderful gift.
long term
attention to my
1�1
From: Arlene Zimmer [crea_tech@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:32 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: The Annenberg Project
I support the project and would appreciate all that can done to expedite its approval. Among the many, what I like most about the proposed
Discovery Park is the outdoor recreational opportunities, the education for youngsters who have never, and might never, discover their links
with all living things, the restoration of the land with native plants, and watershed management improvements.
With thanks for your consideration,
Arlene Zimmer
6/20/2011
From: Denise Rorty [drorty@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:17 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: communications@annenbergfoundation.org
Subject: Re: Annenberg
Having discovered this project in the works at Lower Point Vicente is a breathe of fresh air. I would hate for such
a innovated project to be placed on hold because of red tape. In economic times when new projects and ideas
need to be implemented, what a wonderful gift this project would give to locals.
The Terranea Hotel keeps giving back to our community and this project would do the same. Let's complete it
before all the become old and environmental revisions necessary. This is a state of the art building which can be a
center for the community to learn about "green" options to save energy and money within households, a center
for families to adopt pets, and a center for learning/observing our aquatic backyard.
I support this project.
Denise Rorty
Rolling Hills Estates
6/20/2011
From: JACK ENGLISH Uackrenglish@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:11 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Attachments: 091MG_7798_3-1-1. jpg
ONLY THE ANNENBERG FAMILY :CAN PUT THIS. PROJECT TOGETHER WITH THE
CLASS & STYLE IT DESERVES..................IT'S A GOOD THING!....... HAT'S OFF TO
WALLY & FAMILY, & ORGANIZATION ...... & THANKS................JACK R.
ENGLISH ... FILM & TV PRODUCTION ...... P.O.BOX 2081 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF
90213..........r®�
6/20/2011
From:
Don Tambini [dtambini@cox.net]
Sent:
Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:50 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
Jaakola Jackie
Subject: Annenberg Project
Dear RPV City Council,
My wife and I are very much in favor of the proposed Annenberg Project. As residents in the Golden Cove
neighborhood for 42 years, we believe the project will enhance our area educationally and esthetically. Anything
that you can do to expedite the project will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Don and Pat Tambini
6/20/2011
s
From: caryl schwartz [pvcaryl@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 7:17 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: I support the Annenberg Project at lower Point Vicente
I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for the past 15 years. I feel the Annenberg's proposed Discovery Park at lower Point Vicente
would be a tremendous asset for the community. I would appreciate anything you could do to expedite the process.
This is an area that I frequently wallk with friends and my dog. Much of the land is inaccessible. The proposed additional trails landscaped
with native plants will create a lovely environment for the residents and guests to enjoy.
My family and I fully support the entire Annenberg Project and request that you do whatever is in your power to move this project
forward.
Thank you,
Caryl Schwartz
pvcaryl@verizon.net
6719 Monero Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
6/20/2011 •
From: Steven Crandell [steven@crandell.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:41 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
Dear Council Members and Staff,
I write in support of the proposed park. I understand it will provide new educational opportunities. I also like the theme of
linking coastal life together — marine and land animals (wild and domestic — including, and especially, humans!)
But the big reason is it will make much more of a beautiful spot accessible to residents and visitors.
The coast is a place of peace and beauty. This plan will increase the amount of land available for people to enjoy.
It also improves drainage and will care for indigenous flora and fauna.
And one of the best parts is that the Annenberg Foundation is making the improvements and the maintenance a gift. That's a
great opportunity for the area.
Please help make this project a reality.
Thank you,
Steven Crandell
805 680 8091
6/20/2011
From: jeanine mauch Deanine.acres@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 8:04 PM
To: cc@rpv.com; bbaker@parks.ca.gov; Jaakola Jackie; David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov; mauch jeanine
Subject: Point Vicente Project
I am in support of the Discovery Park Project at Lower Point Vicente. The project will enhance the site to improve
recreational and educational activities. Restoring the land to a native plant coast sage scrub will invite our native
plant and animal species to recolonize this property formerly cleared for military use . This project is an incredible
gift to the citizenry of the area. Please work on bringing this project to fruition.
Jeanine Cripe Mauch
Director Emeritus, Center for Marine Studies at Fort MacArthur
6/20/2011
From: EBPIGGY@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 20114:45 PM
To: DavidSienenthaler@nps.gov
Cc: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project
I am writing to tell you that I support the Annenberg Project. I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for 44 years
and my house looks down on the proposed development.
I can only speak for my family but I know that all of my children and grandchildren will be frequent visitors if it is approved.
Thank you. Edith Balog
0
6/20/2011
From: susan chang [sured@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:55 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project
The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente has our wholehearted support - the Annenberg
Foundation's wonderful gift to the PV community and our community's wonderful gift to the
greater Los Angeles community.
Dr. Robert and Susan Chang
Palos Verdes Estates
M
From: Linda Lawler Freitag [IIf6522@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:46 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project
Dear RPV City Council:
I wish to make clear my support for this magnificent gift to our community, to our children and to future generations. I can
hardly wait to experience what it has to offer. Please do not let it slip through our fingers!
Linda Lawler Freitag
6/20/2011
From: William & Marianne Hunter [2hunter@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 1:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Annenberg proposal
Dear Council
My family and I ask you to vote to request the Annenberg Foundation find a different location for
this project. It would be wonderful if they would volunteer to do that and still give funds to
landscape ( remove pest plants and add natives and trails) to the coastline park we already enjoy.
Below is the brief message sent to Ara for the staff report.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:05:01 -0700
Subject: Annenberg proposal
From: 2hunter(acz�,cox.net
To: aram@rpv.com
Dear Sir, I have been following the Annenberg Project now for many months. I have changed my
stance from ambivalent to opposed as the controversial issue has come under scrutiny. I have
written many letters to the local papers, my City Council and to neighbors regarding the
Annenberg Project in RPV on City owned land.
The building and it's uses are inappropriate to THIS site, in my understanding of the law and in my
opinion.. There are no circumstances in which I can see devoting California's precious coastline to
a project of this use. RPV/Peninsula residents do not need assistance in understanding how to care
for their pets. (our pets, including mine, are embarrassingly pampered in comparison to the
impoverished people of the world!). We have access to pet adoptions. The programs proposed by
the Annenberg Foundation ( authors of many good works!) is not site appropriate. It could
function just as well in any other local, and therefore should NOT be placed on the coastline. The
business office space is an unfortunate affront to the PUBLIC use of this land, set aside for
PUBLIC recreation.
I urge you to reject the Annenberg project for this site. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marianne Hunter
6/20/2011
From: William & Marianne Hunter [2hunter@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 12:28 PM
To: jjaakola@annenbergfoundation.org
Cc: City Council
Subject: Questions
Dear Ms. Jaakola,
I have had mixed feelings about the Annenberg -RPV project from the beginning and am dismayed
that I still do. This weekend there was an exchange of emails from both sides. It was not helpful
to me, as both sides have some very strong arguments for their positions: Annenberg's altruistic
proposition vs. Citizens legal and environmental concerns of preserving, improving the open
coastline. It seems very clear to me that there could be a win-win here and, in my ignorance of the
discussion so far, I don't know why it can't work.
The only real opposition to this project that I hear, is it's location. All the argument about function,
size, hardscape, offices etc, etc boil down to where it is. I don't think one person who is fighting
so vehemently against the project would have a problem if it were still on the Peninsula, but on the
other side of PV Dr, especially if it were smaller.
`There is a very large parcel of land across the road from the current site that is under habitat
restoration now. It is used as farm land. It has a fantastic ocean view, but is not on the so hotly and
rightfully defended coast side. It is not a view blocker, or neighbor disturber or on a land slide.
Has this other location been explored as a possible site solution by the Annenberg Foundation? If
not, why not? If yes, what were the problems with this or other alternate sites?
Another possible solution just occurred to me. The Montessori School located at Golden Cove ( a
quite large facility) is moving away, according to rumor. It certainly isn't as romantic a site, but I
don't see the objection to any of the purposed uses there. It has parking and it has the benefit of
built in visitors. Or, Ladera Linda school site?
The stated purpose of this center is altruistic and forward looking. For the sake of argument let's
say that is the full story ( and that allegations of private use of public lands are mistaken). The only
goal for the foundation then should be getting this built. I am not happy with the plan as it stands
because of it's location. My objections are that the building seems unnecessarily large, overly
luxurious and it duplicates services. Some of the emails I received this weekend are from
intelligent people who simply do not get ( or believe or trust) the actual ( not possible) uses of this
building which they perceive as still vague and, with some validity, seemingly grandiose private
spaces.
Instead of talking at each other in the paper, emails and public forums, I propose a private but
documented sit down with only a few each representing the Foundation and those opposed to the
project. Without it being a public forum, I believe there would be a more productive exchange of
ideas; more civility, less grandstanding and more willingness to discuss reality. I do not in gny
way propose myself as a participant as I don't know nearly as much as I should and I really
6/20/2011 7.
wouldn't want to!
It seems such a waste of energy, time, intellect and emotion are being spent on this issue, which
could be solved to everyone's satisfaction, I believe. I don't believe that anyone in this argument is
uncaring about the Peninsula or the welfare of animals great or small. Neither do I believe for a
minute that anyone I know who is in opposition of it is doing so to keep non-residents from the
area. I hope that the Foundation, whom I do not know, is also thinking only of the benefits it can
offer and not of benefit to itself. There is an allegation of selfishness being used against both sides.
Why not clear the air face to face? If you sit down as people, if you must look into each other's
eyes as you speak, I believe it would be helpful.
I just can't help offering my best thoughts on the matter.
Sincerely,
Marianne Hunter
P.s. I have blind -copied this to 3 people. These are only my personal feelings and ideas, but I have
no objection to it being forwarded to anyone else
Marianne Hunter
http://www.hunter-studios.com
6/20/2011
From: Patti Carrington [pattiscarrington@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:29 AM
To: aram@rpv.com; CC@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente
On the direction of our city counsel, staff is continuing work on a project that should have been shelved.
The people of RPV DO NOT WANT /T, but apparently the City Counsel does.
They are spending time and money to pursue the construction of a commercial building for the use of the
Annenberg group on a site that would not be consistent with the federal restrictions on the parkland
according to the Nat'l, Park Service.
They should just go for the alternative location at upper Pt. Vicente.
Is our city for sale? When will this end?
6/20/2011
From: Judy Herman Uudyherman@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:59 PM
To: cc@rpv.com; aram@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg proposal
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
Ara Mihranian, Principal Planner
The wide open spaces spared from development and ocean views are what draw visitors and residents alike to
Rancho Palos Verdes. Don't let the Annenberg Foundation pave over our bluff -top public park at Lower Point
Vicente. The fact that private land has been developed along the coast is precisely why we must not give over
public land to development in this city founded to protect our coastline.
There is no need for a 50, 979 square foot complex devoted mainly to pet care and adoption
on a scenic coastal bluff top where locals and visitors enjoy picnicking and playing in the
fresh ocean air. The large building along with an additional proposed 1,000 square foot out
building, hardscaping and roads for emergency vehicles, mean that the project would sprawl
over Lower Point Vicente.
The federal government, however, conveyed the land to the city with the requirement that it
be used for public outdoor recreation.
This proposed "gift" comes at too high a price. How will the City pay for its legal defense
against the federal government, which sees the plan as a violation of the land conveyance
agreement? The much higher price we would pay would be the loss of irreplaceable coastal
open space.
The Annenberg Foundation has modifiedits plans several times. We ask for one more
essential modification: move the project to a more suitable site.
Sincerely,
Judith B. Herman
Rancho Palos Verdes
6/20/2011
From: Linda Retz [Iretz@ljratty.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 10:47 AM
To: David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov; bbaker@parks.ca.gov; cc@rpv.com
Cc: Kirk Retz
Subject: Annenberg Project
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I support wholeheartedly the Annenberg Project proposed for Lower Point Vicente in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. I feel
confident that it will be a great source of pride for our community and will provide far greater public access to the park site
known as Lower Point Vicente than that which exists now.
I am extraordinarily enthused about the education the Foundation will provide as well. The Palos Verdes Peninsula (where
my husband and I live) is a rare community that has been able to hold onto its open space, clean air and wildlife in the urban
sprawl known as Southern California. However, I feel that it is under constant threat from people moving into the area who
don't understand how to co -exist peacefully with wildlife and how important it is to preserve this beautiful environment.
The Project will provide education about our natural surroundings and give us a fine example of
environmentally friendly architecture not seen anywhere in our community before.
I urge you to approve the Project as soon as possible.
Linda J. Retz, Attorney at Law
21535 Hawthorne Boulevard
Suite 200
Torrance, California 90503
t: 310.944.9700
f: 310.944.9722
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments to it may contain confidential communications between a lawyer and her client. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this e-mail is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail or by telephone at (310) 944-9700 and destroy this e-mail and any
attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.
6/20/2011 -
From: Kirk Retz [kirk@bbisurflaw.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:55 PM
To: 'David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov'; 'bbaker@parks.ca.gov'; 'cc@rpv.com'
Subject: Annenberg Project At Lower Point Vicente
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I live in the Palos Verdes Peninsula in California and am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed
Annenberg project at Lower Point Vicente. For decades, this property has been inaccessible to the general public as it was
leased to a farmer for his private use. This project will open approximately 25 of the 26 acres at the site to public outdoor
use, restore the land and natural plants and greatly enhance the existing watershed management. I especially like the
bioswales which replace concrete drainage ditches that dump runoff oil and other pollutants directly into the ocean.
I also believe there is a tremendous need to educate the public about the interrelationship between humans and animals.
Our actions, including those with our domestic animals, impact both terrestrial and marine wildlife. In return the actions of
animals impact us. This project provides an opportunity to learn more about these issues. The project also provides
numerous outdoor educational opportunities including a Native American Tongva Village, an archeological dig and history of
the peninsula. The planned building is an educational experience in itself. It is the most environmentally sensitive structure
I have seen. Planting the roof with native plants, partially placing the building underground, using solar energy and other
technological advancements will provide an example of how a structure can be built in conjunction with nature instead of
against it.
Finally, this project serves a compelling public need. The Annenberg Foundation has reached out to our community through
numerous workshops where they have listened to our needs and explained the project. As a result of these workshops, the
Foundation modified the project to meet our specific community interests. The project will work closely with the Palos
Verdes Interpretive Center to further its mission, includes spaces for public gatherings and city council meetings, allows the
public to enjoy nature through walking trails and picnic benches and provides an environment to encourage native birds and
wildlife to flourish in the area.
I strongly urge you to expedite the approval process for this project. I cannot think of a more responsible use of this land.
Kirk Retz
6/20/2011
6/17/11
Councilmen,
This is a letter regarding the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and I apologize
in advance for its length. Unfortunately, 300 word letters in the newspapers and 3 minute
time limits at council meetings will be the death of evolution, as complex and important
subjects cannot be put into sound bites, yet negative attacks are only about the sound bite.
I have been to the Interpretive Center and its surrounding area many, many times. Every
time I am there, I see people enjoying the site with their dogs. Rain or shine. They also
see the whales, dolphins, land and sea birds and the small mammals of the peninsula. As
a veterinarian, I can appreciate the interconnectedness of all the animals in, on, around
and -above the peninsula. This interconnectedness is real and even children are capable of
appreciating how our companions fit into the big picture- where they live, how they
survive and why we need them. The same holds for our wildlife and the beings in the air
and sea. It is also important that children learn the difference between wildlife and
domesticated animals. The notion that companion animals aren't appropriate for the site
is ignoring the very large numbers of visitors who currently use the area day in and day
out with their dogs.
Nationally, 65% of the population has a dog or a cat. That number is even higher on the
peninsula and it is my experience that the residents are very passionate about their pets.
The fact that there will be amenities that will be will be useful to all our residents gives
the project a broad reach. Interestingly, in this economy, the pet industry in the United
States actually grew 5% in 2009, as people have been looking a little more inwardly at
what is important to them. More residents will benefit from this project than almost any
other project the City could propose. It reaches ALL age groups and genders and is not
seasonal.
With respect to the companion animal component, I have seen the project's plans and I
understand what is trying to be accomplished. Incorporating good training practices and
good animal husbandry practices into early childhood education can go along way toward
keeping people happy with their pets and not abandoning them to the streets and shelters.
What we are currently doing is not working and a new paradigm is in order. The number
of animals housed at the project is small, less than I/3 of the number of pets I might have
on a busy day just across the street. They will be cared for on-site by their own
veterinarian. Theoretically this should be something I see as "competition" but in reality
it is a collegial resource I look forward to utilizing.
From a medical standpoint, I can only refer you to www.zoobiquity.com if I have not
done so already. The medical relationships between people and animals do not draw
lines at wildlife vs. companion animal.
The classroom or auditorium space planned for can be used by all residents- not just
those with an interest in the animals of the peninsula.
The hard facts: The numbers of animals that are put to death simply for being born is
astounding. Los Angeles City alone kills on the order of 60,000+ animals each year. I
believe this includes pets, feral animals and injured wildlife. Our pathetically bankrupt
state spent $250 million over the last ten years on cast-off pets, killing over half of them.
Veterinarians suffer a particular mixed blessing in that we are legally the only people,
along with certain assistants in certain cases, allowed to do such mass or individual
taking of lives while at the same time being able to relieve interminable suffering.
Compassion fatigue is rampant in my profession when we are tasked with this
responsibility. What our society has been doing to stem the tide of death in healthy
animals has merely kept it a bay. Children are very smart and eager to learn about their
world. This subject is not understood or taught in the home unless the parents take
particular time and effort to first educate themselves- and this is not done frequently
enough. The new paradigm of teaching compassion and care for all animals starting very
early in a child's schooling must be allowed to take place. It will start to have its impact
in the next generation.
This is an opportunity to make a difference and to educate children throughout the
country and around the world. Not taking the opportunity for lack of understanding of
the project or the issues being tackled or because of selfish or fearful beliefs ensures the
problem's survival. Our State and local governments have not been able.to solve this and
aren't expected to have more funds to even continue on the current ineffective course.
I urge you to at least educate yourselves in this area and do your part in your own lives to
help people understand the connections between all the critters we share the peninsula
with.
The project you see today is the culmination of over five years' work by a team of
incredibly visionary, creative and thoughtful people. There are so many truly
great programs that can be achieved here and the reality that we also get to help
animals is simply icing on the cake. This project is really about people and the
future.
The site is already a place of learning. Whoever thought of this idea of an "interpretive
center" in this location had a moment of inspiration. It is only a natural extension
of our concern and stewardship for the local history and marine life that we
extend that vision to include our abundant wildlife and all the other animals we
share our lives with. I do not think that Peninsula residents separate their concern
for their pets from their involvement with all of our local critters. We share our
gardens with raccoons, opossums, sparrows, owls, gnatcatchers, butterflies,
skunks; peacocks, Labradors and cats. Walking man's Best friend in the Preserve
is one of the highlights of life on the Peninsula for many people.
The site can become even more a place of beauty. I think detractors are overlooking the
amount of open space that will be planted and restored in this project. The site is
currently not an example of a good place for wildlife and the plans do include
extensive plantings and trails that make the area beautiful as well as useful to all
stakeholders.
The heart of the project, however, is its programs- what we can do and accomplish there.
The programs one can envision touch people from the smallest child's first
experience with the idea that "we care for and about animals" to the oldest
seniors' desire for joyful companionship and everyone else's reason to get out and
exercise and experience nature. The incredible planning that has gone in to this
project allows all of its benefits to be exported through education, training and
technology to local schools, humane and environmental associations and then
around the world. We can serve as a center for psychosocial studies involving the
relationships between animals and man. For example, I would expect this to be
the premier resource anywhere for learning how to have a healthy connection with
animals- all animals. One of the top reasons some animals are relinquished to
shelters is because of their behavior- the puppy that seemed like such a cute idea
at the time never got trained and is now the destroyer, or the barker or the biter.
Starting early and nipping that problem in the bud will automatically "rescue"
more animals than you can imagine.
Other examples of programs involve students at every level, whether they are interested
in outdoor activities with animals, sciences or the arts. There can be vocational
and volunteer programs for every age. The blend of marine, native wildlife and
companion animals almost lends itself to too many programs for our small
community. That is where the exportation of knowledge allows us to establish a
modest facility and impact an almost limitless number of people. I know this can
get pigeonholed as a "shelter" project but that is just about the last thing it is.
Most shelters house 75-150 or more animals in almost jail -like conditions. If we
can keep those shelters empty through teaching people how to deal with animals
correctly in the first place, then the small number of animal holding spaces here
will have been well worth the investment. .
Lastly, our humanity is defined by how we treat others. It may sound grandiose or
idealistic, but it is real. Veterinarians are taught in veterinary school how to recognize
signs of animal abuse and we are required by state law to report such findings. Not so
much because of the inhumanity to the animals, unfortunately, but because it is a marker
of inhumanity to man- often to children. Promoting a healthy human -animal bond starting
at an early age is only going to make this a better world. We have the technology being
proposed here today and the ideal resource in the making. The way our society treats
animals is directly related to the way we treat people. We are blessed on this peninsula
with a quality of life and a reverence for life that allows us to nurture our legacy to the
world.
Frankly, it is an opportunity to put this community at the forefront of something that is
bigger than any of us and reaches farther into the future than any of us can possibly
know. It is not a project for the small-minded and shortsighted.
Cassie Jones, DVM
31234 Palos Verdes Drive West
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
From:
Valerie Blitz [verikon@cox.net]
Sent:
Monday, June 20, 2011 3:50 PM
To:
Ara M; cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com
Subject: June 21, 2011 meeting - Annenberg's non-compliant proposed project at Lower Pointe Vicente
Ara, City Council, and Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes
Please inform me who wrote the e-mail below, and who authorized it to be sent out over the
internet. It is sheer deception to state that "no application" has been filed with these agencies when
RPV has at least submitted a preliminary draft application to OGALS. Your lack of transparency
regarding Annenberg continues to be disingenuous, and downright appalling. I know more of the
details of the top secret Federal Government / Navy Seal raid on Bin Laden and his compound in
Pakistan than I do about my own City government dealings regarding Annenberg's proposal. It is
shameful and very telling that you have pursued the non-compliant Annenberg proposal for LPV
enshrouded in non -disclosure to the citizens of RPV, and the public whose precious open space
passive recreational park is at stake here while they are kept in the dark.
Annenberg's proposal for Lower Pointe Vicente is clearly in violation of the mandatory restrictions of
the deed. We are so grateful that the National Park Service takes its statutory obligations seriously
and professionally, and are so appreciative of having its oversight as a safeguard against moving
forward with this proposed Annenberg fiasco which some RPV City officials have wrongfully
attempted to ram down our throats, and have not acted to protect the interest of the public. If you are
even scheming about the possibility of putting Annenberg's proposal to a city-wide vote, that would be
yet another giant waste of time, money and resources .... a vote "for" is not only highly unlikely, but
would remain meaningless for a project that is in violation of the mandatory deed restrictions, the
City's General Plan, and the LWCF Act. As rich and powerful that Annenberg might be, in a
democracy a popularity vote, thankfully, cannot overturn the laws, restrictions, and regulations that
govern it.
Thank you.
Valerie Blitz
On Jun 16, 2011, at 8:27 AM, rrovlistserver@ipv.com wrote:
Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente— Status Update
On June 21, 2011, the City Council will receive a status update report on the current
discussions with the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) and the National Park
Service (NPS) on the potential filing of a future application. At this time, no application
has been filed with these agencies..
The Staff recommendation will be to solely receive and file a status update on the project
and Staff will not be asking the Council to take any action on the project at its June 21 st
meeting. The June 21 st City Council Staff Report will be posted on the City's website by
this Friday. A list -serve message will be sent out announcing the availability of the staff
report.
6/20/2011
Teri Takaoka
From: Valerie Blitz [verikon@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 20114:19 PM
To: CC@rpv.com
Subject: Fwd: June 21, 2011 meeting - Please post
Importance: High
Opinion
Letters February 3
Thursday, February 3, 2011 11:16 AM PST
Annenberg
To the Editor
Ms. Beckman, who admits to consulting for Annenberg in her Jan. 27 letter, completely ignores the
fact that Annenberg proposes to take over a public park on ever -diminishing rare coastal bluffs
deeded in perpetuity for outdoor recreation, not indoor education.
Since Ms. Beckman takes pride in being an educator, I wonder if she has taken the time to educate
herself and other supporters about the legal impediments to this proposal and its noncompliance
with Rancho Palos Verdes❑ zoning ordinances, general plan, the deed, et cetera.
I ask Ms. Beckman and her supporters to set aside their companion animal agenda for a moment.
How about a little of that empathy you advocate directed toward us humans who so love this
undeveloped coastal land as if it were our Tara? Could we have a bit of the compassion you
espouse and some understanding of the thousands of people who gain strength and enjoyment
from this irreplaceable precious open land, and could not bear to see it gone with the wind? And
what about instilling a little respect for the laws that are designed to benefit all living things? Do you
care how we humans would feel if we were to forever lose that which we hold most dear, because
some private entity with more power and more bucks decided that our protections were
inconsequential and so convinced community leaders ❑ perhaps with the enticement of some
future financial assistance for one endeavor or another?
History is an important part of education, any good teacher will tell you, so perhaps Ms. Beckman
and other supporters of this immense indoor companion animal complex, poised to take over the
publicus treasured LPV-by-the-Sea, should study up on the Cityos history, and remind themselves
and teach their children that taxpayers spent millions of dollars to acquire PRIVATE land to secure
rare coastal open space from development, not so that RPV could turn around and allow the
Annenberg Foundation to develop other already PUBLIC (and even more rare) coastal parkland.
The Annenberg Foundation can buy PRIVATE land for its pet project, and supporters can pitch in
to make it happen elsewhere. Letos not set a precedent for turning our PUBLIC parklands over to
PRIVATE entities and capitulating to special interests.
Valerie Fay
Rancho Palos Verdes
Opinion
Letters February 10
6/20/2011 7
Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:35 AM PST
Annenberg
To the Editor
In her letter on Jan. 27, schoolteacher and Annenberg consultant Julie Beckman makes a
compelling case for programming, but, like most Annenberg project proponents, she fails to
address critical land use and ethical issues.
This coastal -bluff parkland was granted without charge by the Federal Government with explicit
conditions (called deed restrictions) that it be used in perpetuity for public outdoor passive
recreation with emphasis on the attributes of the Pacific Ocean. It was given to preserve ever -
diminishing open -space land in the coastal zone to be used as a grassy park where children can
run and play, families can picnic, and individuals can look for whales and dolphins and see exhibits
about marine life and the siteos history.
It was not given for the benefit of any private organization, such as the Annenberg Foundation,
attempting to circumvent deed restrictions and the cityos existing general plan and zoning in order
to realize its own dream.
There is no need, just because Wallis Annenberg says, OI want to do the Mayo Clinic for
companion animals, O to build such a facility where it would rob the public of its precious parkland.
The proposed facility would include a 51,000 -square -foot indoor dog -and -cat -care -and -adoption
building and also would cover many more acres with hardscape, parking and extra -wide roadways.
The Annenberg Foundation is a private entity with the wherewithal to purchase property to build its
pet project elsewhere. Or perhaps its funding could best benefit the many other companion animal
facilities in our area, such as the new 76,000 -square -foot Harbor Animal Care Center just minutes
away.
This would be a good time for Ms. Beckman and other fine teachers in our community to offer
students civics lessons. Ambassador Annenberg, Wallis Ds father, believed that every citizen has a
civic duty to oneos country. Julie Beckmanos lessons could include responsible land
development, the rule of law, and the importance of preserving our precious public open -space
coastal parklands for this and subsequent generations.
Murray Blitz
Published in PV News 2/17/11
During these momentous weeks in Egypt and "Funisia, as we Americans reflect gratefully that we are a country
protected by the rule of law, let' is hope those few remaining proponents of Annenberg 's non-campliant attempt to
gain control of Lower Pointe Vicente for its pet project are inspired to rise above personal desires, and stick with
the facts.
Annenberg'_:s proposal is inconsistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) General Plan and disregards a motivating factor upon
which our City was founded, protecting coastal -zone open space. The City: is General Plan Map designates Lower Point Vicente as
Recreational -Passive, defined as: F.Recreational- Passive ::::; facilities are mostly unstructured in order to allow the natural ecosystem
to function with the least amount of human disturbance.' Passive sites are typically used for nature studies, hiking trails,
picnicking areas, eta
Annenberg' s proposal is inconsistent with the deed restrictions that RPV agreed to forever enforce when it took ownership of the
park. The deed restrictions include: :This property shall be used and maintained f2ar the public purpose f2..)r which it was conveyed
in perpetuity as set forth in the program of utilization0 O The purpose for which it was conveyed is public parkland. The program
of utilization provides a passive recreational outline for the parkas development. An acre -sized building, focused on our
relationship with companion animals, and more acres of extensive hardscape are inconsistent with the deed restrictions and
program of utilization.
Annenberg Os proposal is inconsistent with the protections provided by the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF). These
protections are the result of the City having accepted LWCF funds for prior development of the park. The LWCF protections
prohibit the City from using the property for any purpose other than outdoor public recreation.
The National Parks Service and the State Office of Grants and Local Services are responsible for oversight and enforcement of
the deed restrictions, the program of utilization, and the LWCF protections. These agencies have already written letters to RPV
informally informing the City that Annenberg Os proposal in non -conforming.
LetDs join forces and move forward with maintaining this coastal gift within the parameters of the governing documents. We can
get started with a very generous untouched donation of almost $400,000 from the Conze Trust, to enhance the park as it was
intended for the outdoor passive recreational enjoyment of all in this magical setting of sun and sea, whales and wind, pelicans and
plants, pathways and picnic places, freshly growing grass and ancient geology.
Valerie Blitz
Rancho Palos Verdes
6/20/2011
Opinion
February 24 letters
Thursday, February 24, 2011 10:57 AM PST
Annenberg
To the Editor
Fortunately in this country we have a National Park Service, upon which the public relies to protect public parklands and enforce deed
restrictions such as the ones Annenberg persists in proposing to violate at Lower Point Vicente, even though it has been notified by both
NPS and OGALS that its proposal is nonconforming.
Now, with utter disregard not only for the public, but both NPS and OGALS, Annenberg has expanded its propaganda campaign to
include a deceptive ad in the Feb. 17 PV News, as quoted below. Quite honestly, when you see the facts next to their fiction, upstanding
citizens can only be amused by Annenberg os failed attempt at deception, starting out with its misleading claim that its noncompliant plan
was proposed "with the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes." The many residents I know are totally against Annenberg os unneeded
proposal that could be built anywhere.
It is unthinkable that anyone would even consider cementing over any of this public park with a noncompliant 51,000 -square -foot view -
obstructing dog -and -cat complex, and acres of extensive plazas, extra -wide roadways, and more parking lots, usurping a huge area
where children and adults would be precluded from open -space activities that the park was meant for, such as picnics, play, strolling, and
having oneos own experience in nature, thereby belying Annenbergos false impression intimating that "96 percent of the land will be
devoted to open space." Furthermore, 1 would not want the whole ambiance of the place changed by this foundation imposing its idea of a
park onto me with its denatured purported "new way of discovering the world around you."
Apparently itos Annenberg itself that needs to "discover" that LPV Park was already invented by nature, that its advertising is deceptive in
that the existing park already offers "a free family destination", "clear views of the ocean and whales," "undisturbed views of the ocean for
generations to come," and, for many of us, "the best of all things on the Hill," and when people like me come here for outdoor passive
recreation as the seaside park was intended, we do not seek activities such as "a workshop on (companion) animal behavior," and we will
not allow Annenberg to diminish or take away this protected natural unique gift of land.
In my day, true selfless philanthropists did not have to lobby, advertise and attempt to circumvent the law o they were appreciated for
donating as needed for the benefit of the donee, not as desired for themselves, and usually without their name marketed everywhere.
Since Annenberg will not donate to our precious park without paving it over, perhaps it should pack up its glossy brochures and go,
instead of spending all this money on itself, fighting a losing battle that it simply cannot win.
Valerie Fay
Rancho Palos Verdes
6/20/2011
From: Mary Jane Schoenheider [penpeople@easy reader. info]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:22 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Annenberg Project At Lower Pt. Vicnete
June 20, 2011
I continue to support the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente project and would like you to do all you can to
expedite its approval.
As I have stated in past letters to the RPV Council, The Annenberg Project fits perfectly adjacent to the Point
Vicente Interpretive Center as an enhancement to the center. What an opportunity we have in the proposed
Discovery Park with its outdoor recreational opportunities, the education links with all living things, the restoration
of the land with native plants and watershed management improvements. What a beautiful educational facility we
could have on a piece of property that is at present completely unusable for recreational activity including
picnicking. The proposed additional walking trails will certainly be enjoyed and used by the many people that enjoy
this activity.
As a 44 year resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula who also supports the open space throughout the Peninsula, the
proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente only enhances the recreational use of our coastal area for many
of us who live locally or for those who come from elsewhere to enjoy the beauty of our coast.
Mary Jane Schoenheider
Palos Verdes Estates
mjsels@aol.com
Mary Jane Schoenheider
Publisher Peninsula People
Phone: 310-372-4611 Ext 121
Direct: 424-212-6612
Fax: 424-212-6788
Email: peneople easyreader.info
Become a Fan on Facebook: ht.._:1/www.facebook.com EasyReaderNews
Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/EasyReaderNews
http://www.easyreadernews.com
6/20/2011
Teri Takaoka
From: Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 20114:54 PM
To: george neuner
Cc: Ara Mihranian; cityclerk RPV; citymanager-RPV; B Baker; David Siegenthaler
Subject: Re: Annenberg
George, I inadvertently replied to all before including the city council. As you know I cannot communicate back and forth
with other councilmembers so if you continue to copy them on our e-mails I will no longer be able to respond. Note that I
have left them off this time. I have also removed your subject line reference to deception. No one is trying to "take over" the
land or deceive anybody. And I still think you do not understand what is being proposed. It is also still ironic to me that you
are dismayed by this proposed use but apparently comfortable with a private for-profit farm denying public access and
public use of this public parkland. I challenged you before to name even one location where the Annenberg Foundation has
built a facility for the purpose of taking over public land for a private use and you admitted you could not do so. Why then do
you insist on hypothesizing that such a thing would occur here. I am aware that the opponents of the project think that
Vanity Fair maganize interviews are a good source of information. I don't agree. I am also aware that if Annenberg changes
its proposed plans the proposed changes are simply ignored by the project opponents. On the other hand you could make
constructive proposals for further change to make the proposed project better. What are those constructive suggestions? I
would urge you and other opponents of the project to try to be more constructive in your comments. While many of your
comments have certainly been appropriate, some have not been. And many of the comments I receive from opponents are
completely inappropriate. Rest assured all such comments will ultimately be made public so that everyone can understand
some of what motivates the opposition to this project --a flagrant desire to minimize access to public lands that the city of
RPV holds in trust for all --and in particular for the state and federal taxpayers who paid for more than go% of it. It is not
right for us to demand that this public land be "tea gardens" and picture window scenery for wealthy homeowners living
nearby. And coming up with contrived reasons to shield the real issues doesn't fool me and I suspect won't fool many others
either. If all the feigned concern about this land as "pristine natural open space" were real, people would have stood up and
helped me end the lease of much of the land to a commercial for-profit farm many years ago. Tom Long Mayor, Rancho
Palos Verdes
-----Original Message -----
From: "George Neuner"
Sent 6/20/20113:25:34 PM
To: "RPV City Council"
Cc: "Ara Mihranian" , "cityclerk RPV" , "citymanager-RPV" , "B Baker" , "David Siegenthaler"
Subject: Re: Annenberg's Deception
Dear Mayor Long,
I certainly do NOT admit I have no basis for suspecting that the executive offices and indoor parking spaces are for
Annenberg Foundation use. I've expounded on this in numerous prior letters. The architectural floor plans speak for
themselves. To claim that one third of the building is for normal staff support is a cover-up. It should go without saying that
just because Annenberg may not have used their gifted buildings also for their private purposes in the past, does not prove
that this could not happen at Lower Point Vicente.
Remember that Annenberg instigated this project. In 2007 their primary objective was to build an animal clinic for cats and
dogs. In October 2009, Wallis Annenberg was quoted as saying she wants to build "the Mayo Clinic for companion animals"
at LPV. (See: http://www.vaniiyfair.com/style/features/2009/lo/wallis-annenbeEg2oogio?currentPage=� ) The animal
clinic is, by definition, Annenberg Foundation business. When many voiced objections to it at this location, Annenberg
revised their plans by adding some community facilities, museum exhibits and offered to landscape the former farm, hoping
to make the project more palatable. The enormous lobbying campaign, much of it misleading, being pursued by Annenberg
(over 175 presentations to date) is obviously intended to sell the project to RPV residents when, in fact, it was never called
for.
I'm dismayed that you do not seem to recognize what Annenberg is really up to, namely, to take over this most desirable and
rare piece of coastal Palos Verdes property.
George Neuner
Los Serenos Docent 7
6/20/2011
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Long
To: geode neuner ; RPV City Council
Cc: Ara Mihranian ; cityclerk RPV; citymanager-RPV ; B Baker ; David Siegenthaler
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Annenberg's
Dear George,
I don't know why you would consider the scenario you hypothesize (a building partially for private use) plausible when you
admit you cannot point to any examples of the Annenberg Foundation doing such a thing in the past. I suspect you simply
are not understanding what is proposed. In any event all public buildings have portions of the square footage reserved for
staff support. Moreover, plans are not entitlements. If when and as applications proceed forward I am sure that steps will
be taken to address any real concern about the building being used for private benefit.
As for the prior use of the land as a farm, those with knowledge of good land stewardship have suggested to us that the
farming did in fact badly degrade the land. Moreover it meant that acres and acres (not just a small percentage of the
land) was entirely removed from public use for decades. If, indeed, you support public use of this land where was your
concern before when it was privately used for decades with no adverse reaction from the community? Your silence and
that of others on this very issue when I was seeking support to end the lease of land to a private for-profit farm does cause
me to wonder about your comments here. Again we can discuss the land use issues but to ascribe the motives you acribe to
the Annenberg Foundation when you admit you have no basis for doing so strikes me as inappropriate.
Tom Long
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
-----Original Message -----
From: "George Neuner"
Sent 6/19/20111:50:02 PM
To: "RPV City Council"
Cc: "Ara Mihranian" , "cityclerk RPV" , "citymanager-RPV" , "B Baker" , "David Siegenthaler"
Subject: Re: Annenberg's
Dear Mayor Long,
As far as I know, Annenberg's architectural plans have not changed from those shown on the city website dated 10/30/09.
The only changes I'm aware of since I saw the original plans in 2007 are the addition of some outdoor exhibits requested
by Los Serenos, and enlargement of the building from about 30,000 to 50,000 square feet to include an auditorium and
two classrooms. After this change, Annenberg advertised the building as a community educational facility and
minimized discussion of the animal shelter aspect that was heavily questioned by many.
I'm disheartened to hear that others who oppose the project may have made misrepresentations. I have tried to
be accurate in my comments and hope you don't group me with those who may have not have been. I can understand that
some may get carried away by this very emotional issue involving the potential loss of one of most desirable undeveloped
open spaces on the PV coast.
I remember very well the farming of this land years ago. I don't consider the land "badly degraded" by it. Aesthetically, the
farm with its fields of crops and table flowers (and no structures), was not unattractive. It was far less intrusive than the
51,000 square foot, two story building Annenberg proposes. Today, nature has reclaimed this land and, to many, it is
beautiful open space along the coast. Even in its undeveloped state, I've seen people use it for nature walks and exercising
their dogs.
I can't say the Annenberg Foundation has a practice of building facilities for their own benefit, other than the name
recognition and reputation enhancement coming from Annenberg signage on impressive buildings. I have particularly
admired their sponsorship of some of my favorite TV programs on PBS and their support for preserving the Portuguese
Bend slide area. Neither can I say for sure that Annenberg intends to use this project for Annenberg Foundation business.
6/20/2011 C� or V
But the facts and evidence we have (primarily the building plans, their vague, evasive answers when questioned and a
surprisingly large lobbying effort) makes the scenario in my previous letter seem quite plausible.
George Neuner
----- Original Message
From: Tom Lona
To: George Neuner
Cc: clehr rpv.com
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Annenberg's
George,
The presence of the items you cite in plans (even if true) doesn't mean that such plans are what would ultimately be
approved if entitlements were allowed. There is nothing "deceptive" about having various proposed plans for a project
or changing the plans. Indeed the fact that Annenberg's plans have changed over time shows that they are responsive to
constructive suggestions. I would encourage you to focus on such constructive suggestions. The irony of opponents of
the project complaining about deception is not lost on me. My mailbox is full of misrepresentations about the project
from its opponents. Some of those same misrepresentations were shared with the National Park Service. Most e-mail's
from most opponents of the project contain grossly inaccurate information about the project.
Much of the 26 acres we are referring to was used as a private for profit farm for decades and pretty badly degraded as a
result. Where was all of your distrust and suspicion that I see below during that time? And if indeed it is the practice of
the Annenberg Foundation to build buildings for private use disguised as public buildings, can you show me even one
building erected by the Annenberg Foundation that justifies your mistrust?
Let's try to have a reasonable dialogue about proper land use not cluttered with disparagement of a non-profit institution
that has done a lot of good in a lot of places. Whatever the community decides to do, let's at least try to look like
somewhat reasonable people so that we might have a chance of attracting positive attention from non-profit institutions
again in the future instead of driving them all away with unusual conspiracy theories and outright defamation.
Tom Long
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
-----Original Message -----
From: "George Neuner"
Sent 6/18/20112:57:07 PM
To: "RPV City Council"
Cc: "Ara Mihranian" , "cityclerk RPV" , "citymanager-RPV" , "David Siegenthaler" , "B Baker"
Subject: Annenberg's Deception
Dear Sirs:
Past letters in the PVP News from Joan Barry, a past president of Los Serenos, and on the Annenberg website from
Leonard Aube, Executive Director of the Annenberg Foundation, complain that some opposed to the project have their
facts wrong and are spreading misinformation. However, the architectural plans for the project reveal truths that have
been cleverly suppressed by Annenberg. The detailed plans cannot be found at the Annenberg website, for good reason.
They can be found at www.savelpv.com and at the RPV city website at:
http://palosverdes com/rpv/planning/Annenberg/Architectural-Plans-lo-3o-og.pdf .
The plans for the proposed 51,000 square foot building show offices for about 20 to 25 people, including 13 computer
workstations. Rooms labeled "Executive Office Suite," with a door leading to a private bathroom, and
❑Conference/Boardroom El are shown on the second floor. Five offices have ocean views. The two largest (plus the
boardroom) have doors to what is labeled "Conversation Terrace," which also has an artificial turf dog exercise
area. Access to this office complex is controlled by three reception rooms, one on the second floor and two on the first
floor. A separate elevator leads from the office complex to a gated, indoor parking garage for 27 cars. An additional
enclosed garage within the garage is shown for one vehicle. These are the facts.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that very specific design criteria were given to the architect for
6/20/2011 3 a L{
accommodating particular individuals and their cars. When asked who intends to occupy the approximately one third of
the building devoted to executive offices and indoor parking, Annenberg representatives give vague answers. The
Annenberg website and newspaper ads smoothly gloss over the subject. Since Annenberg, not the city or Los
Serenos, would operate and manage the building, it's quite obvious that Annenberg intends to set up foundation
operations here.
Annenberg is spending an enormous amount of money on lobbying for their project - full page newspaper ads, website,
newsletters, Facebook page, and over 175 presentations to date at local organization meetings. This alone should make
one suspicious. Is Leonard Aube, Executive Director of the Annenberg Foundation and a RPV resident, working so hard
promoting this project so he can have a new ocean view office at this beautiful coastal location close to his home?
When I first heard of the project in 2007 I thought it quite strange that Annenberg would want to build a pet animal
clinic at this site. After doing some research on Wallis Annenberg, CEO of the Annenberg Foundation, it makes sense.
Wallis is an extremely wealthy single divorcee living with four dogs. Like many older women living alone, her companion
animals, as well as her children, are probably most precious to her. Although she now has foundation offices in Century
City, this rare, coastal site in Palos Verdes, with such spectacular ocean views and away from the congestion and traffic of
Los Angeles, would be a great place to build another office. Her dogs would have a half acre exercise facility (shown on
the landscape plans) to romp and play while she conducts foundation business with her children, the foundation
trustees. Putting an animal clinic in the building would provide convenient regular grooming and veterinary attention for
her dogs. Her friends would really be impressed when she hosts sunset cocktail parties on the ocean view terrace. Private
gala events could be held in the great lobby, grand circular staircase and auditorium. No matter that this property is a
public park and not for sale. With billions at her disposal, her lawyers can take care of those details. And, with shrewd
marketing and advertising, she could pass the whole project off as a philanthropic gift to RPV without people suspecting
it's also for her, her children and her dogs.
The truth is that nearly all of what Annenberg promises already exists at Lower Point Vicente - plenty of parking, picnic
sites, hiking trails, open grassy play space, a museum with marine and native history exhibits and learning facilities for
children. Lower Point Vicente already is the "Discovery Park" and "Education Center" that is touted in Annenberg
publicity. No one previously thought an animal clinic was needed there. The park now provides a wonderful destination
for local residents and visitors from around the world. The undeveloped, wilderness portion of the park is, for
many, precious open space. Annenberg and others are wrong to call it inaccessible or unsightly. This is part of their
campaign to justify their taking over this portion of the park. Although some may not enjoy walking through knee deep
grasses, many nature aficionados do. A park doesn't need to have every square yard artificially landscaped to be beautiful
and enjoyed.
There are good reasons why so many oppose the project. But many others are being taken -in by the Annenberg
propaganda and lobbying blitz. Please review the actual plans and consider the true facts. Once the Annenberg
bulldozers move in, it is too late.
George Neuner
Los Serenos Docent
6/20/2011 7 0 � Y
From: dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:55 PM
To: Tom Long
Cc: CC@rpv.com
Subject: Re: The Proposed Annenberg Project -- City Council Meeting on June 21, 2011
To Tom and All -- I forgot to say that the Terranea and Trump properties were never deed -restricted and are
privately owned lands.
On" Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:49 PM, dena friedson <dlfriedson mail.com> wrote:
To Tom from Dena -- My letter quotes recent comments made by the NPS. The NPS authorized the Interpretive
Center and its expansion as being consistent with the requirements of the deed restrictions, including the POU.
See letter of October 30, 1996, sent by Pete Sly of the National Park Service to Ron Rosenfeld, the Director of
I Recreation and Parks for RPV at that time. Keith Steinhart of the State Department of Parks and Recreation sent
a letter of approval on October 31, 1996. Both these letters were in response to Ron Rosenfeld's letter of
October 10, 1996, describing the proposed expansion. Can you explain the last three lines on Page 7-3 of the
staff report for Tuesday's meeting?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Tom Long <tomlong@.palosverdes.com> wrote:
Dear Dena,
The purported non -conforming uses you complain of could be extended to the interpretive center that is
currently located there. Should we vote to have it dismantled as well? How do weddings comport with your
view of the deed restrictions? Parties? A souvenier shop? A museum? Simply put, none of them comport
with your reading and so all must be abolished. The PVIC was supposed to be a "wooden picnic structure."
Anything more than that must be torn down.
It's fine to have coastal facilities such as Terranea and Trump as well as large homes for those who can afford
them. But the rest of the people must be relegated to wooden picnic structures and maybe some parking spaces
(although as I recall you oppose those as well.)
But thank you for sharing your views. I recognize that PVE has no improved parks (other than what the school
district has provided) so I can understand your preference. But it isn't typical of how most cities are.
Tom Long
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
-----Original Message -----
From: "dena friedson" <dlfriedson@gmail.com>
Sent 6/19/20115:34:28 PM
To: CC@rpv.com, dlfriedson(cr�,gmail.com
Cc: "Joel Rojas" <joelr�a7rpv.com>, "Ara M" <aram�rpv.com>
Subject: The Proposed Annenberg Project -- City Council Meeting on June 21, 2011
To: All City Council Members
From: Dena Friedson
6/20/2011
Re: The Proposed Annenberg Project -- City Council Meeting on June 21, 2011
The planning staff has worked very hard to follow the directions of the City Council. It appears, however, that
the applicant still does not understand the comments made by the National Park Service representatives with
respect to the federal government's deed restrictions on Lower Point Vicente. In his letter to the National Park
Service, the Annenberg Foundation attorney is asking for a meeting in order to promote a facility that houses
domestic pets and other non-compliant uses.
In public statements and in letters to Rancho Palos Verdes, David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service has
advised that "The non -outdoor recreation components of the present proposal include facilities for pet care,
pet training, pet adoption services, education that is not directly related to the park site, facilities for
general community, civic, and governmental functions, and office, parking, and other support structures
related to those non -conforming uses." (See letter of October 8, 2010.) Yet according to the staff report, the
Annenberg Foundation is evaluating its project to see if it can be "scaled back in size, including its footprint
and hardscape, while still achieving a world class educational and recreational facility that doesn't
compromise the programs that are to be offered to the public." (See Page 7-4.)
An Annenberg website continues to advertise the following indoor rooms and activities: student internships
with veterinarians; spaces for classes, community and civic meetings, and events; interactive art and video
educational exhibits and distance -learning webcasts; workshops and classes on pet care; companion animal
adoption services; and a theater as a community resource for participating in lectures, community meetings,
and web -conferencing with high-definition multi -media, and a nice ocean view through a window. This list of
indoor offerings is like David Siegenthaler's list of non -conforming uses.
These types of services are not needed at Lower Point Vicente. What is there now is more than sufficient.
Buses from inner-city areas and neighboring communities bring many children to study the natural outdoor
environment, to see the whales, to run and play, and to have picnics. People from all over the world visit
Lower Point Vicente and comment on the passive recreational beauty of this public parkland. The Interpretive
Center contains site -related exhibits for those folks that want to go indoors. Docents lead tours inside and
outside. There are well-qualified veterinarians and pet adoption groups in the vicinity. Most children on the
Peninsula are raised with loved, well-mannered pets that are treated as family members.
Why is the Annenberg Foundation so determined to build on Lower Point Vicente? Its glamorous structure
would provide a wonderful education center elsewhere in an urbanized community that has no such facility. A
conversion on this deed -restricted property should not be considered as an option.
Please call a halt to this seemingly endless struggle. Please vote on June 21 to ask the Annenberg Foundation
to find a different location for its proposed project.
6/20/2011