We care about preserving Palos Verdes Estates parkland as Open Space. The genesis for this website was a transaction in 2012 wherein the City of Palos Verdes Estates City Council (PVECC) and the Palos Verdes Homes Association (PVHA) unanimously approved the sale of 1.7 acres of parkland to a homeowner to expand their private property at 900 Via Panorama. This was accomplished despite a clear and irrefutable prohibition in the underlying deed against selling such land to a non-public entity. It was part of a broader Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provided some significant benefits to the community. However, the sale of City/PVHA owned parkland to a private individual without appropriate consent of PVE residents was unprecedented, and the sale violates the deeds and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions established at the formation of Palos Verdes Estates in 1923 and confirmed with even stronger language in 1939 when PVE was incorporated and parkland was transferred to PVE. Ninety years ago (1923), 849 acres of 3200 acres were set aside to be parkland/open space; in the relevant 1939 deed when PVHA transferred the property to the City of PVE, these restrictions were strengthened to keep it parkland "forever" and prohibit sale other than to a public entity duly empowered with maintaining the land for public use. Further, these deed restrictions explicitly bind all future owners of the property.
Citizens for Enforcement of Parkland Covenants (CEPC) was formed in 2013 to advocate the reversal of this illegal sale. Having tried unsuccessfully for several months to convince the PVHA and PVECC to “do the right thing,” CEPC filed suit in LA Superior Court in May 2013. In the following 20 months, the defendants have tried to have the case dismissed by delaying court dates and filing demurrers and motions to strike. On November 4, 2014, Judge Barbara Meiers denied these challenges and ruled that our lawsuit has sufficient merit to move forward to a trial.
If you are interested in the details, here is the chronology:
In early February 2013, neighbors on Via Panorama and Via Mirada first became aware of the sale of parkland to a private owner when the private owner applied for rezoning from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single-Family Residential); this triggered a grass-roots mobilization in which 100 residents submitted letters in opposition to the re-zoning.
At a hearing of the PVE Planning Commission on February 19th, 2013, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend against the re-zoning. However, the issue was revisited and voted upon at a PVE City Council meeting on March 12th, at which time the Council decided to create a new zoning category to specifically address conditions within the MOU for "open space owned by private owners." This former City-owned Parkland property would be the only property currently covered by this new zoning category; in addition, the City drafted codes that would allow the City to permit the construction of structures such as gazeboes, barbecue, walls and a sports field on the property as was promised in 2012's MOU between Palos Verdes Estates City Council, Palos Verdes Homes Association, Palos Verdes Unified School District and a representative of the owner of 900 Via Panorama.
A group of concerned members of our community called the Citizens for Enforcement of Parkland Covenants (CEPC) believes the sale of parkland is inappropriate and illegal since 1) parkland should not have been sold in the first place, and 2) the sale of parkland to a private individual is a dangerous precedent that needs to be reversed. CEPC asked the City and Homes Association to reconcile their actions with the legal requirements of the restrictive covenants and 1939 deed, but the City and Association did not provide any explanation to justify how the covenants could simply be disregarded.
The new zoning category was scheduled for the May 21, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. However, the matter was pulled and instead the City met in closed session on May 14th to review the legality of their past actions. CEPC members were hopeful that the City and Association would ultimately do the right thing and unwind this ill-conceived arrangement with the owners of 900 Via Panorama. However since they did not do so, CEPC filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief in Los Angeles Superior Court to have the transaction reversed.
The defendants filed "demurrer" responses that were accepted by the Court on October 28th with "leave to amend." CEPC filed an amended petition on November 7, 2013, with subsequent “demurrer” responses by the defendants. For details and links to the legal documents and arguments, see "Recent Updates" below and the Documents tab. The PVHA argued that they have the "right but not the duty" to enforce the restrictive covenants, thus transforming what we believe is their obligation to maintain all parkland for public use "forever" to a matter of discretion; they stated that the sale of parkland to private owners fell under this “discretionary” power. The City has argued that they have no duty to enforce the restrictions, even though the PVECC passed a resolution in 2005 indicating otherwise (see below); in addition, the City argues that it has full "police power" and hence has no obligation to be bound by the deed restrictions that they freely and openly accepted when they received the property in 1939/1940. We of course disagree with these arguments, and further find it disturbing that the City of PVE and the PVHA are embracing such disregard for the public interest by selectively enforcing the law -- thus signaling that no parkland is safe from being sold. The encroachments built on this property over the past 38 years by the resident who was allowed to purchase the parkland are also clearly in violation of PVE Municipal Code (see Photos). Please refer to their court filings below for their full arguments, which should enable you to come to your own conclusions.
The hearing on the amended demurrer in our writ of mandate case was held on Friday January 3rd, 2014. The scope of the hearing was very narrow: Judge O’Brien only ruled on one of several legal theories and did not, for example, rule on whether the sale of public parkland to a private person constitutes an "ultra vires" act in violation of the law. The Judge announced that he intended to sustain the demurrer on the writ of mandamus claim because he “did not see evidence of a ministerial duty” which required PVE City and PVHA to follow the protective restrictions. The PVHA had argued that they had the "right but not the duty" to follow the CC&Rs, and they based this on the word “shall” in the CC&Rs claiming that it actually means “may” and hence is optional. The Judge apparently accepted that argument, much to our surprise and amazement. Really? Merriam Webster dictionary says “shall” is “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.” Contrary to the belief held by many members of our community, the PVHA and City have now gone on record as stating the enforcement of land use restrictions is now a matter of discretion, and they have no obligation to follow the law. It remains to be seen what problems this may cause the PVHA and City when they later attempt to enforce the same restrictions at issue here.
On January 8th, 2014 Judge O’Brien issued a written ruling in favor of the defendants, with no leave to amend. We were disappointed by the outcome but resolved to see this case through on the remaining claims.
Meanwhile, the Palos Verdes Homes Association held their annual meeting on January 14th, 2014. The agenda of that meeting was to vote in their Board of Directors. Since the five board members on the ballot were all in their positions at the time of the decision to sell this parkland on Via Panorama to the Luglianis, many of us voted against the current slate. As a further signal that many owners do not agree with the PVHA decision to interpret their mandate as one that can selectively enforce the protective restrictions on parkland, several dozen people attended the annual meeting to express their concerns, and several gave speeches. However, since a quorum was not established, the Board of Directors assumed another year of service.
A new Judge (Barbara A. Meiers) was assigned to hear the rest of the case, and on April 1, 2014 the first court session was held. Judge Meiers said she thought it most appropriate to focus on the underlying deeds, and not on whether the acts by defendants were consistent with past enforcement activities. She also thought it best to tighten up the arguments and asked for a fresh Second Amended Petition which would reflect all that had been revealed in the discovery process and also eliminated past enforcement descriptions. CEPC complied and on June 17, 2014 CEPC filed the Second Amended Petition.
Since that time, the City of Palos Verdes Estates, the Palos Verdes Homeowners Association and the Luglianis have filed a series of legal challenges to our lawsuit asking that the case be dismissed without a trial. On November 4, 2014, Judge Barbara Meiers denied these challenges and ruled that our lawsuit has sufficient merit to move forward to a trial.
The specific arguments from the defendants that were rejected by the Judge when she denied their demurrer included:
Severance and Bifurcation Would Violate the Single Judgment Rule: Defendants argued that the earlier “writ mandamus” ruling in favor of the defendants somehow created “the law of the case” and was grounds for preventing the court from allowing the rest of the action from continuing. Judge Meiers disagreed, finding that the earlier ruling was limited to the question of whether there was clear evidence of a ministerial duty, which is a much narrower question. It did not affect the court’s ability to proceed.
Public Trust Doctrine is Inapplicable as a Matter of Law: Defendants argued that the parklands were held for a defined, narrow population of only PVE residents, and hence the deed did not create a public trust. Judge Meiers rejected this argument, asking in the court session “Are there signs posted stating that anyone not a PVE resident could not access or use the parklands?”
PVE City Can Dispose of Parkland Because It is not Using It: The City argued that it is authorized by law to control and dispose of real property for the common benefit, and since the City has determined they are not using the parkland, there is no problem selling it. Unfortunately, this ignores the stipulation against sale in the underlying deed, and hence Judge Meiers rejected this argument during her verbal comments in the hearing.
PVE Has “Police Powers” and Hence Is Not Bound by Private Contracts Such as Deeds: Again, Judge Meiers seemed to reject this argument during her verbal comments in the hearing, although she did not specifically comment in the ruling.
The next step in the litigation was to get a trial date; given the court’s backlog, that likely was not likely to be before fall 2015. So on December 5, 2014 we took the offensive and filed a Motion for Summary Judgement, which should accelerate the process; March 25, 2015 was set as the date the motion would be heard.. The Defendants responded by filing an ex-Parte motion to delay the process by six months to allow the Defendants more time for discovery. The Judge rejected most of their arguments, but nevertheless reset the date for the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgement to May 29, 2015 at 9:30 am. In her comments, the judge made the following observations:
The Defendants did not need more time to do discovery on standing of all members of CEPC, since standing of one (Harbison) was sufficient and that should take "seconds" to confirm.
The Defendants did not need more time to engage an expert witness to evaluate all the relevant deeds and give guidance to the court on which deeds should prevail because the Judge said that she could read the documents herself and it was her role to apply the law including the determination of which deeds should prevail
The Defendants had 2 years to complete discovery, and that giving them more time because they had done little other than file motions to delay taking this to trial was not warranted
On May 29, 2015 the case was finally heard, and the Judge issued a tentative ruling in our favor. ON June 29th, the court issued its ruling -- accepting our Motion for Summary Judgement and finding in favor of CEPC as Plaintiffs. The ruling affirms that the City and Association did not have the power to give away public parklands and that they were in violation of deed restrictions that specify our parks remain public parks “forever.” The transfer of parkland is to be rescinded, and the "illegal encroachments" removed.
We are disappointed that the PVHA and City chose to drag this out to further waste taxpayer money and postpone the inevitable. The discovery process has produced much documentation that makes our case even stronger, and for examples of this correspondence see Smoking Guns tab. The most important excerpt of the underlying legal documents is on the Quotes tab. At some point we hope they realize that we are not going to back down and they need to face the consequences of their actions and follow the law like everyone else.
This website will keep concerned residents informed of the facts and coordinate a response. If you would be interested in signing a letter, and/or adding your name to our email list so you can be notified of future developments, you can do so on the How You Can Help tab.. You can also use this website to download documents about the transaction and rezoning request as well as read relevant Press articles.. Finally, if you would like to make a contribution to CEPC, please email us at email@example.com.
7/23/15 Blog entry in PV Patch -- click here
7/14/15 Comments from the public and City Council on CEPC case. There were two speeches made by members of the public -- for Dick Fay's remarks, click here; for Renata Harbison's remarks, click here. Three Council members (JIm Goodhart, Jim Vandever, and John Rea) then then responded quite negatively, and those comments are transcribed here. If you'd like to listen to the audio of the whole session, click here. We found the comments by the three Council members inaccurate, so on July 22nd Renata and John Harbison sent a letter to City Council to point out and correct those inaccuracies and misleading statements; that letter can be found here.
7/9/15 Harbison Letter to PVE City Council. For letter sent to PVE City Council members to correct inaccuracies in the statements of the City Attorney in the Peninsula News article published today, click here.
7/9/15 Article in Peninsula News on "Judge Rules Land Swap Deal Illegal". For this front page article, click here.
7/6/15 Harbison Letters to PVE City Council and PV Homes Association. For letter sent to PVE City Council members encouraging them to be well informed before deciding on whether to appeal, click here. For a similar letter send to the Directors of the PV Homes Association, click here.
7/2/15 Article in Daily Breeze on "Judge Rules Palos Verdes Estates Land Swap With Wealthy Homeowner Was Illegal", click here. For comments from the public on this article, click here and scroll to the bottom of the web page and click the box "view comments".
6/4/15 PVHA Intent Clarified. The Defendants have argued that PVHA has full authority to interpret the intent of PVHA when it transferred parklands to PVE in 1940 including the "forever parklands' clauses those deeds. The Judge stated that she did not think they have that latitude. Today we obtained from a public records request a letter in August 2010 from Sid Croft, the attorney for PVHA, in which he stated the PVHA was strongly opposed to re-zoning Lots C & D. In his letter, Croft quoted and attached a letter written in 1940 by Charles Henry Cheney, one of the original architects for the Palos Verdes Project tin the 1920s. In that letter, Cheney speaks passionately that "our park system is the central feature and most distinguishing feature of the city plan." To read the whole letter, click here. Why the radical reversal by PVHA since 2010?
5/29/15 Court Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Barbara Meiers indicated a tentative ruling in favor of CEPC. We will post the final ruling as soon as those documents are received, but for highlights, click here. For the full transcript, click here.
5/26/15 Defendants Objected to Facts Introduced by Plaintiffs, by filing three additional documents. For Defendants' Joint Evidentiary Objections to Reply Declaration of John Harbison and Motion to Strike, click here. For Defendants' Joint Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, click here. For Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, click here.
5/22/15 CEPC Reply to Defendants Arguments. For the narrative in support of MSJ, click here. For John Harbison's Declarations in Support of MSJ, click here. For CEPC's Response to Declarations of Lore Tilburg and Sid Croft, click here. For CEPC's Response to Defendants' Joint Evidentiary Objections, click here. For CEPC's Reply to the Separate Statements of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of MSJ, click here. For CEPC's Opposition to the Defendants' Joinder, click here. For CEPC's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant City of PVE Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, click here. For CEPC's Evidence in Opposition to the Defendant City of PVE Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, click here. For CEPC's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendanat CIty of PVE's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement, click here.
5/22/15 Defendant City of PVE Reply in support of their MSJ. For the reply, click here.
5/15/15 Defendants submit their responses to our MSJ. For the Joint Opposition Narrative, click here. For the Declaration of attorney Lore Hilburg (expert witness), click here. For Declaration of Sid Croft (Attorney for PVHA), click here. For the Declaration of Dan Bolton (engineer for the Luglianis), click here. For the Declaration of Sherri Repp-Loadsman (Planning and Building Director of PVE), click here. For the Declaration of Brant Dverin (attorney for PVHA), click here. For the Defendants' Joint Evidentiary Objections, click here. For the Separate Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to MSJ, click here. For the Compendium of Non-California Authorities in Support of Defendants' Opposition to MSJ, click here. For PVE City's Opposition to the MSJ, where they asked to be excused, click here.
3/13/13 Defendant City of PVE Files Cross-Motion for MSJ to be removed from the case. For the narrative cross-motion for MSJ, click here. For the Volume of Evidence in support of their MSJ, click here. For the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, click here. For the Proposed Order, click here.
3/5/15 Second Ex Parte Application to Set Briefing Schedule and Single Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgement: This second filing by defendants was submitted again to delay the next stage in trial. For the Defendants' application, click here. For the Plaintiff's response, click here. For the transcript of the hearing including the Judge's responses, click here. For the Order setting up the next hearing on May 29 at 9:30am, click here.
2/26/15 Ex Parte Application to Set Briefing Schedule and Single Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgement: This filing by defendants was submitted to delay the next stage in trial. For the Defendants' application, click here. For the Plaintiff's response, click here. For the Judge's denial, click here.
12/16/2015 Defendants send letter indicating they plan on citing the Marketable Title Act as justification that they do not need to honor and follow deeds. What is interesting about this strategy is that PVHA (with the same Board Members) successfully won a suit wherein they argued that the Marketable Title Act does not apply. Now PVHA is arguing that they should be allowed to sell under the Marketable Title Act. This reversal flies in the face of the doctrine of judicial estoppel (which means that once you have taken a position in litigation and prevailed you may not thereafter take the opposite position). You can read more about that doctrine in a case -- click here. For the PVHA's attorney's letter stating this new strategy, click here.
12/5/2014 CEPC Files Motion for Summary Judgment: The purpose of the motion is ask Judge Meiers to rule on the central legal question of our lawsuit: does the City of Palos Verdes Estates have the power to sell public parkland to a private party? The motion is scheduled to be heard in February. For Memorandum in Support of Motion click here; for Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion click here; For Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment click here; For Proposed Order click here
11/20/14 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on "Judge Denies Challenge to PVE Parklands Suit" -- click here
11/4/14 Favorable Court Ruling on Defendants' Demurrers and Motions to Strike. Since June 2014, the City of Palos Verdes Estates, the Palos Verdes Homeowners Association and the Luglianis have filed a series of legal challenges to our lawsuit asking that the case be dismissed without a trial. On November 4, 2014, Judge Barbara Meiers denied these challenges and ruled that our lawsuit has sufficient merit to move forward to a trial. For Judge Meiers' decision, click here.
11/4/14 Defendant Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission. As we proceed to the next stage of preparing for trial, CEPC has asked defendants to confirm certain "facts" so that the trial process is more efficient. This summary presents the response fo the three defendants to each of the requests. We found the degree of denial of the obvious somewhat shocking, but you should form your own conclusions. -- click here
6/23/14 Los Angeles Times Article "Crossing the Line" about PVE's Initiative in 2005 to Enforce Parkland Encroachment -- click here
6/17/14 Second Amended Petition: This condensed document restates and clarifies the multiple legal documents previously filed by CEPC and included in this website. The Judge asked us to condense our arguments and focus on the legal basis of the sale of parklands based on the written restrictions in the deeds and Protective Restrictions, and we have complied. It is simpler to follow, and will be the basis upon which the Court rules. click here
6/4/14 Letters to PVHA and PVE City Council about "Open Space Action Article in 1969 -- click here for a very relevant article published in 1969 on PVE Open Space and the intentions behind the Protective Restrictions. Click here for a letter referring to this article sent to PVHA Directors and click here for a similar letter sent to the PVE City Council
5/14/14 PVE City Supplemental Brief to Support Demurrer -- click here
4/11/14 Tentative Ruling by Court on Defendants' Demurrers and Motions to Strike. This tentative ruling reflects Judge Meiers' first impressions on the case, and the merits of the arguments presented. -- click here.
4/9/14 Article in Daily Breeze on "Palos Verdes Estates adopts parklands policy for first time in its history" -- click here
3/28/14 Letter to PVHA Board clarifying the legal basis for the CEPC lawsuit, and pointing out that the information in the 1940 deeds (that had been illegally withheld from the discovery process by the PVHA and PVE CIty) clearly proved that PVHA had to abide by the stronger restrictions it placed on the property when it wrote those restrictions into the 1940 deed transferring the Via Panorama Parkland to the City of PVE. Under those more stringent restrictions, the property must "be used and administered forever for park and/or recreation purposes only" and "shall not be sold or conveyed, in whole or in part, ... except to a body suitably constituted by law to take, hold, maintain and regulate public parks." Further, it binds all future owners (including PVHA) of the property to those restrictions. Therefore, PVHA clearly acted illegally by selling the property to a private individual for his own private use. -- click here
3/15/14 Correspondence Notices from City of PVE Citing Encroachments and Demanding Remediation 2003 - 2011: This file contains letters during the period 2003 - 2011 from the City of PVE Code Enforcement Officer and Public Works Director citing illegal encroachments by the Luglianis and demanding they be removed. When the MOU was developed in 2012 and the City of PVE, PVHA and the Palos Verdes Unified School Districts together were paid $2 million by the Luglianis, enforcement efforts were dropped. The City now has asserted in Court Filings in our case that the City has no obligation to enforce its Municipal Code in this matter, even though its own Code specifies that "shall" is "mandatory". For the letters, click here.
3/13/14 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News: "Draft Parklands Use Policy Still Deficient" -- click here
3/11/14 Deeds and Resolution transferring Tract Containing Panorama Parkland from PVHA to City of PVE in 1940: These documents impose more stringent conditions on the parklands, including "parkland forever" language and "prohibition on sale of parklands. For Deed of portion of Lot A in Tract 8652, click here. For Deed of portion of Lot A in Tract 7540, click here. For the Resolution 12 in City Council Minutes accepting the parklands from PVHA, click here.
3/10/14 CEPC Files Appeal on Writ of Mandate: Click here for the brief. For the attachments mentioned in the brief, click here for volume 1 and click here for volume 2. (The attachments are large files so please be patient)
1/17/14 Timeline and Summary: For a two-page summary of this issue with a timeline of events over the past 39 years, as well as one page of photos of the property in question and the encroachments on that property, click here.
1/2/14 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News: "2013 Year in Review" -- click here
1/8/13 Status Update on the Court Case: The Court issued a ruling on the demurrer motion, and we responded by filing an amended petition. The court then issued a similar ruling without leave to amend on the amended petition. We have decided to seek appellate review of this decision. Here are the documents and a brief summary of each:
- 7/15/13 Lugliani et al file briefing to support demurrer (click here). Lawyers representing the Luglianis argued that the Palos Verdes Homes Association has a right but not a duty to enforce the parkland restrictions; therefore they don’t need to pay any heed to the restrictions whenever they decide to ignore them. This is a creative argument, but it falls apart because PVHA’s bylaws written in 1923 specifically say they have a duty to enforce. The lawyers also argued that we did not have any standing to sue because we did not participate in the MOU. This is also incorrect, because as a taxpayer and resident we are a party to the protective restrictions that we seek to see followed and enforced. They also claimed that it was an issue of one neighbor disgruntled with the actions of another neighbor, which is also incorrect since 121 residents from many areas across PVE have signed letters objecting to the sale of parkland.
- 7/16/13 PVE City files briefing to support demurrer (click here). The City Attorney argued that any municipality has full “Police Power” and cannot be bound by any private contract, even one to which they were a signed party and specifically accepted the “forever parkland” clauses.
- 10/11/13 CEPC flies its response to demurrer by Lugliani et al (click here) and demurrer by PVE City (click here). Our briefing refutes these arguments, and makes some additional ones. For instance, we cited a staff report and Resolution passed in 2005 that specifically states that the City will enforce removal of all encroachments and defend the Protective Restrictions; those documents are also available on the website for your reference. We also cite a case where the City tried to build a maintenance facility on parkland and the courts enforced the parkland covenants over the City’s objections; thus they cannot remake claims that have already been decided by the courts. For supporting exhibits for the response to Lugliani et al demurrer, click here. For supporting exhibits for the response to PVE City demurrer, click here.
- 10/18/13 PVE City and Lugliani et al file their replies to CEPC response. For PVE City reply, click here. For Lugliani et al reply, click here.
- 10/28/13 Court Ruling on the Demurrer (click here). In favor of the defendants: “The demurrers to the third cause of action for writ of mandate are sustained with leave to amend on the ground that there is no ministerial duty shown in the pleading.” Note that this ruling only affected one of our three legal theories in the petition.
- 11/7/13 Amended Petition by CEPC (click here). We filed an amended petition (First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief) with the court. It addresses the issue of ministerial duty more specifically than the original petition filed last May and removed the PVPUSD as a party to the suit. Through the discovery process, we were able to obtain information that supported our contention that the City and Homes Association have a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and deed restrictions that govern us.
- 12/5/13 Lugliani et al files briefing to support demurrer on First Amended Petition (click here for demurrer, and click here for motion to strike portions of the First Amended Petition).
- 12/5/13 PVHA changes laws firm (click here) and files briefing to support demurrer (click here). Their new argument is that "shall" in the Protective Provisions really means "may", and thus they have a "right but not a duty" to enforce the restrictions and protect parkland from sale or encroachments.
- 12/6/13 PVE City files briefing to support demurrer on First Amended Petition (click here).
- 12/19/13 CEPC files Responses to Defendants' briefings. For opposition to Lugliani click here. For opposition to PVHA, click here. For opposition to PVE City click here. Other documents filed include Opposition to Lugiani Motion to Strike (click here), Request for Judicial Notice on Lugliani Demurrer (click here), Request for Judicial Notice on PVHA Demurrer (click here).
- 1/7/14 Judge O'Brien ruled in favor of the defendants in the writ mandamus part of the case saying he saw "no ministerial duty" that requires the CIty and PVHA to abide by the deed restrictions. We have decided to seek appellate review of this decision
11/19/13 PVE submitted a draft of a new Housing Element plan to the state that asserted that parkland CC&Rs would not allow other uses of that land (including low income housing). So the City is using the CC&Rs when it suits them, and then ignoring them when it does not suit them. Click here for the two-page excerpt from the Housing Element plan that refers to CC&Rs. For the entire document in the “full packet” (it is a large file so please be patient), click here.
10/13/13 PVE Staff Memo and Resolution passed in 2005 on parkland encroachments: We just uncovered this PVE staff report from 2005 which articulates a clear policy by the City of PVE for removal of unauthorized encroachments in the City's parklands. Contrary to what our City has said this past year defending its decision to sell parkland, the memo says "The City wholeheartedly accepted" the deed restrictions in the Protective Covenants. Further the City passed a Resolution R05-32 on removing encroachments that it is clearly now violating in this illegal sale of the Via Panorama parkland. -- click here
10/2/13 Letter to PVE City Council about 900 Via Panorama owners blocking fireroad access with a storage container, in violation of deed restrictions (photos included) -- click here
9/17/13 Blog entry in PV Patch -- click here
8/15/13, 8/22/13, and 8/29/13 Letters to the Editor, Palos Verdes Peninsula News: We believe municipal codes, as well as the covenants and restrictions that guide our City should be applied equally to all residents, without prejudice. As such, John Harbison submitted a Letter to the Editor of the Peninsula News, and the letter asked why all City Councilmembers sought prosecution of a group of people that had cleared brush from the Douglas Trail (a neglected responsibility of the City) while ignoring 38 years of extensive digging and grading on the parkland adjacent to 900 Via Panorama. This letter was published on August 15, and one resident (Catherine White) published a response the following week. Concerned that she had missed John’s point, he wrote a follow-up letter to set the record straight, and that was published on August 22nd. All three letters are attached -- click here
8/20/13 PVE Planning Commission Meeting: John brought up the issue of encroachments on public pathways and pointed out that there was an encroachment next to a residence seeking approval for revisions on Via Guadalana. While the Planning Director indicated that the Planning Commission normally addresses encroachments when applications are submitted, the lack of a policy addressing these issues made it beyond the Planning Commission’s purview to deny the revisions in this case. The Planning Commission thanked John for his comments and indicated they wanted to be involved in the policy discussion -- click here
7/23/13 City Council Meeting on "Determination of the Scope and Process to Develop a Parklands and Trails Policy": Both John & Renata Harbison made presentations, along with a few other residents in support of maintaining access to parkland, trails and paths. However, there were speeches by residents living next to trails and/or the Del Sol fire road who were very vocal in their desire to shut down trails and access to parkland. Comments by the City Councilmembers seemed to signal they are moving towards reducing or closing access to the parklands around the Del Sol Fire Road and the “Douglas Trail” (originally called the Paseo Del Sol Trail on the 1926 City Map. Since those two tracts of parkland combine to represent about 30% of all parkland in PVE, and some of the other parkland tracks have no public access, we find this disregard for public parkland access very disturbing. Parkland and trail policy and will likely be an agenda item for a City Council Meeting this fall, so stay tuned. -- click here
7/17/13 Letter to PVE City Council in response to inaccuracies in the "legal matters' page of their website -- click here
7/8/13 Comments delivered by Jeffrey Lewis to the PVE Parklands Committee Meeting: In the public comment portion of the agenda, Jeff Lewis (attorney for CEPC) asked why the Parkland Committee was not involved in any way in the 2012 MOU involving the sale of parkland at 900 Via Panorama, despite their charter at the time which was to make “discretionary decisions regarding the maintenance, development and preservation of the City's 500 acres of Parkland and unimproved right-of-way....”. Jeff also pointed out that the PVE City website had re-written the Parkland Committee charter in August 2012 to exclude all references to parkland. He based this on a screenshot of the older website obtained at the “wayback machine” website. Interestingly, the following morning, PVE City’s webmaster added code to their website to disable compatibility with the wayback machine. Was this an attempt to evade scrutiny and destroy evidence? While this behavior by our City seems shocking, it was ineffective since we have screen captures of the earlier charter before the website code modifications were made. -- click here
7/5/13 Letter to PVE City Council with photos of the Via Panorama parkland property being enjoyed by over 200 residents for July 4th fireworks -- click here
7/4/13 Ad in Peninsula News for CEPC -- click here
6/27/13 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News: "Citizens’ group files suit against PVE, PVPUSD and PVHA" -- click here
6/25/13 Article in Daily Breeze Article: "Palos Verdes Estates Residents Sue Over Land Swap" -- click here
6/24/13 Press Release about CEPC petition to Los Angeles Superior Court -- click here.
5/20/13 Wall Street Journal Article on "Why Homes With Open Space Command Big Bucks" -- click here
5/17/13 Public Service Announcement from PVP Watch Newsletter -- click here
5/13/13 CEPC petition to Los Angeles Superior Court for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief -- click here.
5/14/13 Agenda for Palos Verdes Estates City Council Meeting references the closed session discussion of CEPC letter. After the closed session, the Mayor or City Attorney will give an oral report in the public session -- click here
This issue was added to PVE Planning Commission Agenda for May 21, 2013. However, it was pulled from the agenda. Instead the PVE City Council met in closed session on May 14, 2013
- Notice as sent to nearby residents -- click here
- Notice published in PV News, in which the City's plan to create a separate zoning for privately-owned Open Space is described -- click here
4/12/13 Public Service Announcement from PVP Watch Newsletter -- click here
Letters to the Editor Palos Verdes Peninsula News on this Issue
- Renata Harbison's Response to Robert Calvert's Letter 4/4/13 -- click here
- Robert Calvert's Letter 3/28/13 -- click here
3/22/13 Letter sent to Palos Verdes Homes Association: Articulates why the transaction is illegal and provides all the supporting deeds and documentation to support that -- click here
3/16/13 Article in PalosVerdesPatch: "PVE Council Denies Zoning Change" -- click here
3/13/13 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News: "Controversy regarding privately owned parkland is far from over" -- click here
3/12/13 PVE City Council Hearing was held on Tuesday March 12, 2013. For press coverage:
- 3/15/13 Article in PalosVerdesPatch: "PVE Council Denies Zoning Change" -- click here
- 3/13/13 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News: "Controversy regarding privately owned parkland is far from over" -- click here
3/12/13 Four page summary of the legal aspects of the issue -- click here
Tract 8652 Protective Restrictions Palos Verdes Estates Excerpts (these pages are the definitive restrictions, and show the sale of this parkland was illegal) -- click here
3/12/13 100 Residents have sent letters opposing this! Sign and return the Statement via fax (310) 349-3381 or email (firstname.lastname@example.org) to be counted!
- Notice of City Council Meeting on March 12th, 2013 -- click here
- Detailed Statement by John & Renata Harbison about 900 Via Panorama Rezoning Application for PVE City Council Meeting 3/12/13 -- click here
- Statement signed by 50 PVE Residents about the 900 Via Panorama Application for PVE City Council Meeting 3/12/13 (which you can download and sign) -- click here
3/8/13 Public Service Announcement from PVP Watch Newsletter -- click here
1940 Deed and PVE City Council Resolution #12 specifying parkland use "forever" -- click here
Deed - Sale of Area A from PVHA to Via Panorama Trust -- click here
2/21/13 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News:"Commission Recommends Denial of Zone Change for Private Parkland" -- click here
2/18/13 Article in Palos Verdes Peninsula News: "PVE Commission to Consider Zoning Change for Controversial Open-Space Land" -- click here
2/17/13 Article in Daily Breeze: "Palos Verdes Estates Commission to Consider Zoning Change for Controversial Open-Space Land" -- click here