“MICHAEL KEMPS
”Had I been on the City Council in 2012, I would not have supported the sale of parkland. This action was deceitful. The CC&R’s are clear and enforceable, which is why CEPC has largely prevailed. Fortunately, the case is near settlement at the time of this writing. I would not have voted to appeal the 2015 Superior Court Judgement, as I would not have supported the 2012 decision to begin with. PVHA and the City are duty bound to enforce the 1939 deed. The sale of parkland was inappropriate and illegal, and never should have occurred.””

“JENNIFER KING (incumbent)
”Please note that while my response to each question is in my own words, the “background” prefacing each question was provided by PVRRG. Unfortunately, a number of these inquiries presuppose a conclusion which I do not believe accurately captures the issue at hand or the views of many PVE residents. Because I believe each candidate for City Council should be required to clearly articulate his or her view on all of the important issues facing our City, I have not attempted to “correct the record” but have instead focused my answers on the underlying issues which I believe are at the heart of each question. I strongly believe that our parkland is an invaluable resource and a critical component of what makes our City special and unique. I have consistently sought to and will continue to protect our parkland. By successfully appealing the CEPC judgment, the City Council achieved two important goals. First, we successfully protected our parkland from being managed by a private resident, accountable to no one and lacking oversight from the greater community. And second, we reversed a judgment that would have required the City to pay attorney fees to CEPC’s lawyer, saving the City over $200,000.””

“VICTORIA LOZZI
”I do not support the sale of parklands. Encroachments should not be tolerated and need to be handled in a manner that is fair to all residents. Given the ongoing litigation about this particular transaction, almost all discussion has been in closed session which has been very frustrating to residents. They have been provided with very limited information from the City and the City Council has failed to explain/justify its actions to the satisfaction of the community. In the March 2017 election, residents made it clear that they were against the sale of parkland and the City Council candidates pledged their support to protect the parklands and resolve this issue, yet it has not been resolved. I am surprised that this is still ongoing and concerned with the continuing risk and cost to the City.””

“KEVIN MCCARTHY
”I have no knowledge regarding the information the City Council had or considered when making their decision in 2012 and 2015. That being said, as a resident I treasure our parklands, open space and expansive views and I am committed to preserving the natural beauty of our city. The goal is to maintain our city in its purest form. As a Council Person I would ensure our parklands are protected for our community to enjoy. My plan going forward is to hear from all interested parties on relevant issue. It is the Councils responsibility to listen to all the information, ask questions and base their decisions on applicable regulations and case law and to balance those with opinions and recommendations from residents, staff, the City Attorney and subject matter experts. In the end, our job as a Council is to do what is best for the City as a whole. I can assure you that I love this City and all decisions will be based on what I believe is best for the City of Palos Verdes Estates and its residents. “”

“DAVID MCGOWAN
”Against because I believe the designated parklands are and should be permanent assets of the community and ought to be maintained into perpetuity. They define the character of the community and should be available for community enjoyment.

The current litigation has become complex, lengthy and costly. I am not privy to the details of the litigation, but it appears to be unproductive. Accordingly, I believe that mitigating damages via a settlement should take priority over continued litigation.””

“BETTY LIN PETERSON (incumbent)
”I do not have an answer for how I would have voted if I were on the Council in 2012. I think it would be unfair to answer without actually being present during those meetings. As of the decision in 2015, since I was on the City Council, I was part of the unanimous decision to appeal the Superior Court Judgment which was later deemed erroneous by the Appellate Court. As this is an ongoing litigation, I cannot discuss this matter further. However, my objective is to protect our parklands and coastline, maintain the beauty of Palos Verdes Estates, and to upheld 1940’s Deed Restrictions.””