Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_12_17_04_Conversion_Agricultural_Use_Pt_Vicente_ParkCrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER~ DECEMBER 17, 2013 UPDATE REGARDING CONVERSION PROCESS FOR AGRICULTURAL USE AT POINT VICENTE PARK CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER c..Q__,. Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst(}) RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to proceed with 1) the appraisal of the farm site at Point Vicente Park and 2) the development of a refined list of replacement property alternatives for the City Council's review on a future agenda; and provide additional direction to Staff as appropriate. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council initially received a report on the request to reassign and extend the agricultural lease at Point Vicente Park on December 4, 2012, at which time the City Council directed Staff to explore the possibility of converting the original farm site so that Federal use restrictions would no longer apply and agricultural use could continue in perpetuity. Staff recently met with representatives of the National Park Service (NPS) and the General Services Administration (GSA) and received further direction regarding the conversion process. The identification of suitable replacement property (or properties) is of key importance before the conversion process can begin in earnest. BACKGROUND Earlier this fall, the issue of the conversion was raised by interested parties in relation to the City's acquisition of the Malaga Canyon property for public open space purposes. The October 1, 2013, City Council Staff report included a Staff memorandum summarizing the ineligibility of the Malaga Canyon property to serve as replacement property for the conversion at Point Vicente Park due to the fact that Federal grant funds were being used for the acquisition. Also, beginning on October 2, 2013, Staff began providing periodic updates on the status of the conversion process to the City Council and interested parties as a part of the Weekly Administrative Report. 4-1 MEMORANDUM: Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park December 17, 2013 Page2 DISCUSSION After many weeks of attempts to arrange a meeting to discuss the conversion process at Point Vicente Park-interrupted by the Federal government shutdown in October 2013 that closed NPS offices for the better part of two (2) weeks-Staff was able to meet (via teleconference) with representatives of NPS and GSA on December 9, 2013. The primary purposes of the meeting were: 1) to discuss with GSA the special requirements for the appraisals to be conducted on the 5.5-acre farm site and any proposed replacement property; and 2) to solicit input and guidance from NPS to assist in identifying suitable replacement property for the conversion. Property Appraisals The City's contract appraiser participated in discussions with NPS and GSA about the appraisal requirements for both the farm site and replacement property. In order to provide a meaningful basis for comparison, the "date of value" for both appraisals would need to be roughly the same. In addition, both appraisals would need to determine the properties' fair market value under their highest and best use, assuming that the current use restrictions imposed on the farm site under the Program of Utilization (POU) did not exist. At the conclusion of these discussions, GSA offered to forward to the City's appraiser the guidelines for preparing an appraisal as a part of a conversion request. It became apparent that the City needs to identify a replacement property (or properties) soon so that all of the appraisals can be done roughly concurrently. However, Staff believes that it would be very helpful in the City Council's future consideration of the fiscal viability of the conversion process and the identification of suitable placement property to have an appraisal of the farm site prepared as soon as possible. If the appraisal of the farm site occurs now, it could be updated in the future when the appraisal for a replacement property is conducted. Therefore, with the City Council's concurrence, Staff intends to direct the City's appraiser to proceed with the appraisal of the 5.5-acre farm site in accordance with the guidelines provided by GSA. Potential Replacement Properties for Conversion NPS reiterated that replacement property would have to be newly and specifically acquired for the purpose of replacing the farm site, and would need to be of both: • Equal fair-market value to the area to be converted; and, • Reasonably-equivalent recreational utility and location to the area to be converted. As the City Council will recall, the concept of using the Malaga Canyon property as a potential replacement site for the conversion at Point Vicente Park was determined to be infeasible due to the use of Federal grant funds used for the acquisition. Therefore, Staff has been forced to look elsewhere in the City for candidates for replacement property. 4-2 MEMORANDUM: Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park December 17, 2013 Page3 In a Weekly Administrative Report update on October 16, 2013, Staff noted that an open space acquisition "wish list" developed in conjunction with the draft 2004 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan (which was not adopted by the City Council) was being used as a starting point to identify potential replacement properties (see attached "Appendix F, Potential Property Acquisitions"). A few of these properties may be suitable candidates for consideration, but Staff believes that many of them will not be available or acceptable to NPS for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to): • Properties for which development entitlements have been granted or construction completed since 2004; • Properties located within gated communities that would not provide access to the general public; • Pr.operties that were already owned by the City in 2004; and, • Properties that have been acquired by the City since 2004. Staff has also informally identified a few larger, undeveloped properties for possible consideration as replacement property, including the common open space lots of a number of planned residential developments (PRDs) in the City. In discussions with NPS, however, it was determined that privately-owned common open space lots in PRDs would be ineligible for consideration as replacement property since these lots were required by the City and created specifically for the purpose of maintaining open space. Therefore, Staff intends to continue narrowing down the list of potential replacement properties for presentation to the City Council on a future agenda. At that time, and only with the City Council's concurrence, Staff would begin to reach out to private property owners for the purpose of identifying a willing seller (or sellers). Shortly after the conference call on December 9th, NPS forwarded to Staff the application requirements and environmental screening form that apply to conversions under the Federal Lands to Parks program (see attachments). Staff was also provided with a copy of a 1977 letter from NPS to the City wherein it was noted that the agricultural use at Point Vicente Park would not be allowed to continue as a long-term use of the property (see attachments). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Mr. Hatano, his daughter and son, the farm's foreman, Mr. Martinez, and several other interested parties have been advised of the City Council's consideration of this report at tonight's meeting. Also attached to tonight's report is additional e-mail correspondence on this topic that was received subsequent to the March 19, 2013, City Council meeting. CONCLUSION Staff intends to continue working with NPS and GSA on the conversion of the existing farm site at Point Vicente Park, as originally directed by the City Council on December 4, 2012. Staff will continue to provide periodic updates on the process through the Weekly Administrative Report until such time as City Council action is required to proceed with the conversion process. As discussed above, Staff also intends to 4-3 MEMORANDUM: Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park December 17, 2013 Page4 proceed, with the City Council's concurrence, on two (2) aspects of the conversion process: • The appraisal of the farm site in accordance with GSA guidelines; and, • The development of a refined list of replacement property alternatives for the City Council's review on a future agenda. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the two (2) actions listed above; and provide additional direction to Staff as appropriate. ALTERNATIVES The City· Council's direction at previous meetings has been to pursue the necessary steps to retain the existing agricultural use at Point Vicente· Park. Based upon public testimony and City Council discussion at tonight's meeting, different and/or additional alternative courses of action may be identified. FISCAL IMPACT In the near term, the City expects to continue to receive $100.00 per year for the use of the farm site. This revenue may change depending upon the success of the conversion process and the amount of rent that the City Council ultimately agrees to charge Mr. Martinez. With respect to the conversion process, the funding for the acquisition of the candidate properties is expected to be borne by the City's General Fund. The total additional costs related to the conversion process have not been budgeted and cannot be reliably estimated at this time. Staff has previously estimated that replacement property alone could cost as much as $1,500,000 per acre, which estimate will eventually be supplanted by the formal appraisal of the replacement property in question. In the short term, however, costs associated with the preparation of the farm site appraisal and the identification and screening of potential replacement properties should be covered under the City's current FY 2013-14 budget allocation. Attachments: • Potential Property Acquisition "wish list" from 2004 (labelled "Appendix F") • Federal Lands to Parks Land Exchange Requirements • March 1977 letter from NPS regarding Point Vicente Park site • Public correspondence since March 19, 2013, City Council meeting M :\Municipal F acilities\Hatano Farm Lease Agreement\20131217 _HatanoLease_ StaffRpt.docx 4-4 AppendixF Potential Property Acquisitions* DRAFT: 6/18/2004 Vacant -Moratorium Vacant I OSH? Vacant Parkin Lot Parkland Vacant Vacant Vacant/OSH Partiall Develo d Vacant Vacant/OSH Vacant Vacant Trails rivate Vacant? *Note: The Open Space Planning, and Recreation & Parks Task Force compiled this list of parcels that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes might consider acquiring for open space preservation, passive recreation, or active recreation. Information is subject to verification. Page 89 4-5 Federal Lands to Parks Land Exchange Requirements A change in property use can, when fully justified, be accomplished by substituting alternative new park and recreation lands of equal or greater market value and recreation value for the land to be released from restrictive use conditions of the deed. It requires the prior approval of the NPS Regional Director and the GSA. The procedure of exchanging land requires the following measures to fully protect the public interest: To begin the process: 1) Submit to NPS a project description, justification, and environmental screening form. 2) We determine whether or not the proposal appears to be viable, and the proposed replacement propefo/ meets eligibility criteria. 3) We discuss the scope of the environmental analysis/NEPA process with public involvement that will be required. 4) Applicant signs Memorandum of Agreement regarding conduct of the NEPA process, deliverables, approvals, etc. 5) Applicant begins public process and gathering additional documentation required. Summary of Documentation needed to complete a land exchange: A. Properly authenticated documents from the Grantee evidencing desire to substitute land of equivalent fair market and recreational value. B. Appraisal reports for both parcels. Replacement property must be of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. +Replacement property: 1) cannot have been previously used as a public park; 2) if already owned by the Grantee, it must not have been purchased for the purpose of making it a public park, nor subsequently dedicated for public park or open space preservation; +the appraisals must be reviewed and accepted by GSA (or the military, if it is a BRAC disposal property) and NPS. +appraisals must conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and additional appraisal instructions applicable to land exchanges under FLP; + further consultation with NPS and/or GSA regarding the appraisal instructions and statement of work is required. C. Justification including assessment of public recreational utility of the land proposed for exchange and its replacement. This analysis should include an assessment of public need and demographics, similar to that provided in the original public benefit application. It should also reference City, State or other local comprehensive outdoor recreation plans in its statement of FLP Land Exchange Requirements Page I of2 4-6 need. Justification must be provided regarding how the proposed new park(s) will meet an identified need for public park and recreation opportunities. D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of substitute property indicating it is environmentally safe and not latently contaminated (additional assessment needed if warranted by Phase I). E. National Environmental Policy Act Assessment of environmental effects of proposed release of park and recreation use covenants on former surplus property (potential impacts from displacement of recreational opportunities, impacts to remaining parkland, etc. but not including assessment of potential impacts of future uses of the released site), and assessment of potential impacts of new park development at the replacement property. A public process and environmental impact analysis must be conducted by the Grantee -at least equivalent to an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, and an Environmental Impact Statement if indicated by the EA. This compliance should include consultation under the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act(§ 106), consultation under the Endangered Species Act (§7), analysis pursuant to the Environmental Justice executive order and Civil Rights Act, and any other federal laws that apply. If replacement property is contiguous with existing park and the conversion portion is small enough, the action may qualify under a categorical exclusion. Further consultation with NPS regarding format of the EA and level of analysis is required. F. A copy of the State, city, or county recreation map or plan showing the present park land in relationship to the proposed substitute land. G. A copy of the legal description for the proposed replacement property and of the proposed property to be converted if it is to be only a portion of the original grant. H. The Program of Utilization and a development schedule for each property proposed for substitution. I. An official acknowledgement of the requirement to apply, in perpetuity, to the new property, all restrictions contained in the deed of conveyance of the surplus property. J. Title history report. The Deed of Release for the land to be converted to other uses, and the Declaration of Restrictions to impose Federal Lands to Parks covenants and restrictions on the replacement property will be drafted by the National Park Service. FLP Land Exchange Requirements Page2 of2 4-7 FEDERALLANDSTOPARKSPROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING FORM (ESF) (Updated September 2008) Today's Date: Date Form Initiated: This form may be modified to fit your needs, but you must ensure that the form includes information detailed below. A. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Project Type: Project Location: County, State: Project Leader: B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION (Attach to this form maps, site visit notes, agency consultation, data, reports, categorical exclusion form (if relevant), or other relevant materials). Preliminary drawings attached? Yes No Background information attached? Yes No Target project start date: Is project a hot topic (controversial or sensitive issues that should be brought to attention of the Federal Lands to Parks manager)? Explain: C. RESOURCE IMPACTS TO CONSIDER 1. Geologic resources -soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc. Ex lain: 2. Air quality Ex lain: 3. Soundscapes (noise impacts) Ex lain: 4. Water quality or quantity Ex lain: 5. Streamflow characteristics Ex lain: 4-8 6. Marine or estuarine resources Explain: 7. Floodplains or wetlands Explain: 8. Land use, including occupancy, income, property values, ownership, type of use Explain: 9. Rare or unusual vegetation-old growth timber, riparian, alpine Explain: 10. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat Explain: 11. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat Explain: 12. Unique or important fish or fish habitat Explain: 13. Introduce or promote non-native species (plant or animal) Explain: 14. Recreation resources, including supply, demand, visitation, activities, etc. Explain: 15. Visual and aesthetic resources Explain: 16. Archeological resources Explain: 17. Prehistoric/historic structures Explain: 18. Cultural landscapes Explain: 19. Ethnographic resources Explain: 20. Socioeconomics, including employment, occupation, income changes, tax base, infrastructure Explain: 21. Minority and low income populations Explain: 22. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies Explain: 23. Resources, including energy, conservation potential, sustainability 4-9 Exvlain: 24. Urban quality Exvlain: 25. Long-term management of resources or land/resource productivity Exvlain: 26. Other important environmental resources (e.g., geothermal, paleontological resources)? Exvlain: Comments: D. MANDATORY CRITERIA 1. Have significant negative impacts on public health or safety? Exvlain: 2. Have significant negative impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas? Exvlain: 3. Have highly controversial environmental impacts or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources? Exvlain: 4. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant negative environmental impacts or involve unique or unknown environmental risks? Exvlain: 4-10 5. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects? Explain: 6. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant, negative environmental impacts? Explain: 7. Have significant negative impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by the SHPO? Explain: 8. Have significant negative impacts on species listed or proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant negative impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species? Explain: 9. Violate a federal law, or a state, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment? Explain: 10. Have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898)? Explain: 11. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007)? Explain: 12. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112)? Explain: E. OTHER INFORMATION 4-11 (Please answer the following questions/provide requested iriformation.) Are personnel preparing this form familiar with the site? Did personnel conduct a site visit? (If yes, attach meeting notes or additional pages noting when site visit took place, who attended, etc.) Is the project covered in a previous or associated NEPA document? If so, document name: Is the project still consistent with the associated NEPA document? (If no, you may need to prepare plan/environmental assessment [EA] or environmental impact statement [EIS].) Is the environmental document accurate and up-to-date? (If no, you may need to prepare · plan/EA or EIS.) FONSI ROD (Check) Date approved: Are there any interested or affected agencies or parties? Did you make a diligent effort to contact them? Has consultation with all affected agencies or tribes been completed? (If yes, attach additional pages re: consultations, including the name, dates, and a summary of comments from other agencies or tribal contacts.) Are there any connected, cumulative, or similar actions as part of the proposed action? Is this proposal part of a larger project? (If yes, attach additional pages detailing the other actions.) F. INSTRUCTIONS FOR DETERMINING APPROPRIATE NEPA DOCUMENTATION The Federal Lands to Parks manager will use the information submitted to help select the next steps to complete the NEPA analysis. The next steps may conclude with a memo-to-file or categorical exclusion1, or may require an environmental assessment2 or an environmental impact statement3. If there are either no impacts or all of the potential impacts identified in Section C (Resource Impacts to Consider) are no more than minor intensity, usually there is no potential for significant negative impacts; then a memo-to-file and/or categorical exclusion may suffice. If, however, during public involvement and further investigation, resource impacts still remain unknown, or exceed minor level of intensity, and the potential for significant impacts may be 1 -Categorical exclusions (CEs) are defined as a group of actions that would have no significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment (natural, cultural, and social) and for which, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. 2 -An environmental assessment (EA) is used when you do not have enough information to decide whether a proposal may have significant impacts on the environment. It results in either a Finding of No Significant Impact or an EIS. 3 -An environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared when impacts on the human environment may be significant. 4-12 likely, an EA or EIS is required. If you checked YES or identified "data needed to determine" impacts in any block in Section D (Mandatory Criteria), this is an indication that there is potential for significant impacts to the human environment; therefore, you must supply missing information or may need to prepare an EA or EIS. G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWERS The following individual(s) provided input in the completion of the environmental screening form. List all reviewers including name, title, agency, field of expertise. Keep all environmental review records and data on this proposal in a compliance file for any future program review and/or audit. 1. 2. 3. The following individuals conducted a site inspection to verify field conditions. List name of inspector(s), title, agency, and date(s) of inspection. 1. 2. 3. H. SIGNATURES By signing this form, you affirm the following: you have either completed a site visit or are familiar with the specifics of the site; you have consulted with affected agencies and tribes; and you, to the best of your knowledge, have answered the questions posed in the checklist correctly. 4-13 Applicant Certification of ESF D I certify that a site inspection was conducted for each site involved in this proposal and to the best of my knowledge, the information provided in this Environmental Screening Form (ESF) is accurate based on available resource data. All resulting notes, reports and inspector signatures are stored in the applicant's NEPA file for this proposal and available upon request. Signature: ________________ Date:------- Typed Name, Title, Agency: National Park Service Environmental Recommendation On the basis of the environmental impact information for this proposal as presented in Part B, Justification for Acquiring Property, and in this ESF, I recommend the following NEPA pathway: D This proposal qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). • CE Item# • Explanation: D This proposal requires an Environmental Assessment (EA). The applicant will be notified and provided the EA template and supporting documentation. D This proposal may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NPS guidance will be provided to the applicant. Signature:----------------Date:------- 4-14 6100 Hs. Sharon W. Uivhtowct.• Direc.tor of Planning City of Rancl:to I>alos Vnrdes 30940 Hawthorne noulevard ti arch 4. 1977 Rancho .Palos Vertles, Ca.l:J;fornin 90274 This is in r~sponse to your February 23, 1977 letter i·e')ueetii11x to amend the City's application zor the surplus r.ederal property Portion, L.~\.D.A. HIKE Site 55, PQ!nt Vicente, OSA No. D-Calif-1088,, submitted t-'ebruacy 27, 1976. He clo not favor the revised acq.uisi tio11 and access plan proposed in y<lUr letter. It is our feeling thnt the non-vark uses plmmed for the central portion or the site (City Civic Center• School District administrative office.a, ru.'ld County. Ure station) are all fairly high int~msity, heavy traffic ~~n1err,.ting. uses and that the sponsorinr; agencies should acquire and maintain an nccess right-of-way sufficiently wide and safe to properly service such uses. Park access needs nppear to be less critical in terms of anticipated numbCiJ:s of uset"s and traffic g~nerAt~on. Consequently, we believe it is• the responsibility of the City, County and School District to work out a joint agreem1:int for providing an access way, adequate to serve their needs, U-ith prpvisions for park access either by easement across the printary access way, .:;:r pre:ferably, via a separate less congested un<l less dangerous entry way. It conoonls us that the primary park access will be over the same access routu proposed for use by the fire station. Th:f.s i!3 certainly not an ideal situation and we would like the City to considar the possibility of routing the park access road behind the fire station to the planned park parkinR area. Another possibility might be to relocate the fire st."J.tion to the nrea just north of anrl contiguous to the School District Rite. In any event, t-le feel there 'Oust be a. better alternative to the current park access ?roposnl an cl we would welconie the opportunity to discuss nny sugg1:1stions you Illight h:;tve for rectifying. this situat;lon. 4-15 Concemin~ the question of: contiuued agricultural use of portions of the site pendinz park dcvclcptient, it 1"1ay be. possible to allow cQntinued ~sricultm:al use of Cl:'irtain non-critical pat'k areas for a short ti1<ie After transfer of the property. Your application indicated a 6.6 acrf:: site in the northwest corner of the property was being consid£tred for possible future 11 activc1" recreation ui:;es with devclopTl!cnt not scheduled for several years after acquisition. He could probably allow coutinued agricultural U!'le of this area while the City firmr~ up its park plans for the sito. W1~ would hnve to take a hord look at any other locations on the prop~rty u11der consideration for conti1rned agricultural use to see how t/l.ey w-ould fit in with the park plan and development schedule subm:Ltte~ with your applic~tion. We do ei~pect the ?nss:tve recreation/open spnct? areas to be op1m and mailable for pu,blic use rensonalily soon e.ft<-tr the thP City receives title to the property. Agricultural use of certain areas could adversely affect public recreational enjoyment of these lands. 1.1oug-te1:m leasei;; to nol)-goverrtr.iental iigencies nre not allowed under t!w terms of the deed the. C:f.ty wil:I. be receivintt. to the property. However, concession contracts. us.e pernd.t:s, licei1aes or other simiJ.ar ngreeri1e11ts with private Rroups for .the prqvision <>f recreation facilities and services lire perinitted; provided such facilities and services are. available to the g1a.ner.al public at reasonAble entratlce or user fees. Auy such con.templated uses and related. agreements should be suhmittnd to this office for review an.d app:roval prior to impleoentation. Please foel free to c.ontac.t Pete !>ly of iny staff at (415) 556-2480 .should you h.;1vo questions on any ·of: the .:1bove. ~SLY/fev ROBERJ W. MclNTOSH Frank E. Sylvester ~zegional Director 4-16 Mayor GUNTHER W, BUERK Mayor Pro Tempore ROBERT E. RYAN Couno/I Members KEN DYDA FRANCIS D. RUTH M!lcRIL¥1l RW1ll City Manager LEONARD G. WOOD Mr. Frank E. Sylvester Regional Director U. s. Department of the Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Pacific.Southwest Regional Office P. o. Box 36062 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Mr. Sylvester: February 28, 1977 Subject: LADA Nike Site 55 GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes would like to make a minor revision to its application for acquisition of parkland under the provisions of Section 203 (k) (2) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 387) submitted to you February 27, 1976. Attached are the specific revisions to be made to the application. In summary, the revision removes the 1.5 acre "access right of way", provides for access to the parkland, and revises the boundaries of the City Civic Center area to be purchased. On two other matters, I have two questions on future use of the park- land if it is transferred to the City. First, at the present time the City sub-leases the flatter portions of the site to a local far- mer who grows dry crops. Would it be possible to continue some por- tion of this activity in the future on an interim basis until the City is ready to develop and use those areas of the site? Because of the community desire to preserve its diminishing agricultural ac- tivity, it might be considered a desirable interim use of the open space. Secondly, the City has also received proposals from private interests concerning the development of commercial recreational facilities (i.e. gymnasium, jogging track, etc.) for public use (with a fee) on the section of the site deemed active recreational. The land would remain 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 • (213) 3n-0360 4-17 Mr. Frank E. Sylvester February 17, 1977 Page Two under City ownership and control and the facilities could eventually revert to the City. Would you please advise us concerning your regula- tions regarding this type of development on 100% discounted land. SWH:es Attachment cc: General Services Administration ]Ly~~ Sharon W. Hightower Director of Planning Palos Verdes Peninsula School District Los Angeles County Fire Department 4-18 Page 6 Figure 1 Page 15, last paragraph Page 21, first paragraph fourth para- graph Figure 6 PROPOSED REVISIONS 68.5 acre portion surrounding proposed civic center area to be maintained in passive open space. (Th~s figure represents change in access area and, primarily, revision to previous acreage which was in error.) Revised area to be acquired by public agencies. The additional 61.9 acre of proposed passive open space •.• ••• The 61.9 acres of passive open space ••• The 61.9 acres of land surrounding •.. Revised areas and acreage figures. Site Summary Parkland Main Site 68.5 Upper Site 4.49 Civic Center 4.1 Aeeess-Reaaway------------;T; Total 77.09 Coast Guard 6.06 School District 3.8 Fire Station 0.5 County Beaches 28.4 Total Site Area, in-115.85 eluding upper site /"'? • 4-19 Kit Fox From: Kit Fox Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:05 AM Judy Frankel To: Cc: cc@rpv.com; Joel Rojas Subject: RE: request for update on agricultural plans Dear Ms. Frankel: Thank you for your inquiry about agricultural land use in the City. Our replies regarding the Malaga Canyon property and Point Vicente Park (i.e., Upper Point Vicente) are as follows: • Malaga Canyon: The City is still pursuing the acquisition of roughly 48 acres in Malaga Canyon on both sides of Montemalaga Drive. The funding for this acquisition would come from Federal and County grants. At this time, the City is awaiting the completion of a property appraisal to be submitted to the State Wildlife Conse'rvation Board (WCB) for review and approval later this year (possibly in the fall). There are no plans for agricultural use on this property if it is acquired by the City; rather, the City's intention would be for the use of the property for permanent open space and passive recreational use such as trails. The City is also exploring the possibility of using this property as a "conversion" site related to continued agricultural use at Point Vicente Park (see discussion below). • Point Vicente Park: The National Park Service (NPS) has advised that City that the existing farm on roughly 5 acres of Point Vicente Park is not consistent with the use restrictions imposed by the Program of Utilization (POU) for the property. The City has the option to amend the POU to allow this use to continue or to acquire a replacement property to allow the 5-acre farm site to be "converted" to a use that is not permitted under the POU. As mentioned above, the City is considering the Malaga Canyon property (and other properties) as a possible candidate for a POU "conversion" site. In the meantime, the NCCP and Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) allow for the continued operation of the existing farm and the City has extended its agreement with the leaseholder until March 31, 2014. With respect to the 1-acre agricultural "maintenance yard" that you mention, we assume that you are referring to a proposal made by Sunshine for a dry farming demonstration garden in the northwest portion or the park near St. Paul's church and the Villa Capri neighborhood. Such use is not currently planned because it would conflict with the POU, NCCP and PUMP, and could be incompatible with adjacent land uses such as homes. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at the telephone number or e-mail listed below. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Mana5er's OHice City o£RanchoPalos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T:(310)544-5226 F:(310)544-5291 E: kit£@rpv.com 1 4-20 From: Judy Frankel [mailto:judyfrankel@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:15 PM To: CC Subject: request for update on agricultural plans Dear City Staff, I would like an update for the land use plans on Malaga Canyon, Upper Point Vicente Park, the five (approx) acres near the NCCP, and the one (approx) acre on the edge of the NCCP for a new, covered, Maintenance Yard with farming equipment storage, machine shop and trailhead restrooms. Thank you, Judy Frankel Judy Frankel Judy's HomeGrown 2 4-21 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Lenee: Kit Fox Monday, September 16, 2013 11:39 AM 'L. Bilski' Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land Please see my replies below in bold. I have copied Joel on this reply so that he can add any further information and clarification regarding Item 'F' on tomorrow night's agenda. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Se11ior Admi11istrativeA11al1:1st Cit1:1 Ma11aaer's 0££ice Cit1:10£Ra11ch0Palos Verdes 30940 Iiawthome Blvd. Ra11cho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 544-5226 F: (310) 544-5291 :E: kit£ From: L. Bilski [mailto:ldb910@juno.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:59 AM To: Kit Fox Cc: ldb910@juno.com Subject: 9/17 Consent calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land Hi Kit, I have some urgent questions regarding land acquisition in Consent item Fon Tuesday's CC Agenda. Would appreciate your immediate attention and reply. What is the latest info on the conversion of land to allow continued agricultural farming including farming education/demonstration at upper Pt. Vicente as noted in the March 19, 2013 CC staff report? We have been waiting to see if the City would be successful in its attempt to acquire replacement property to allow the conversion of the portion of Upper Point Vicente (UPV) containing the existing farm to non-recreational use under the terms of the Program of Utilization (POU). Now that it appears likely that the City will be acquiring the Malaga Canyon property, I will be working with the National Park Service again to move the conversion process forward. In the meantime, the farm continues to operate on a year-to-year basis until at least March 31, 2014. It should be noted 1 4-22 that the City is not currently proposing to expand the "footprint'' of the existing farming operations at UPV through the conversion process (for the reasons that were articulated in the March 19th Staff report). The farming education/demonstration facility that has been suggested by Sunshine would conflict with the POU and the City's NCCP and PUMP, and could be incompatible with adjacent land uses such as homes. What information have you received from the National Park Service regarding conversion since the date of the staff report? I have received no additional information from NPS since March 2013. Was there a report by staff to City Council since March 19 on this item? No, not that I have prepared or am aware of. Follow-up Agenda for Mar. 19, '13 states: "Agricultural Use at Upper Point Vicente (Fox) Action Taken: 1) Received and filed the status update on the renewal of the agricultural lease at Upper Point Vicente; and, 2) Directed Staff to continue the analysis of the process regarding the conversion of the property, and return with a report at a future Council meeting." Thank you. Lenee Click to get NetZero DataShield and stay protected from hackers when using public WiFi. 2 4-23 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Lenee: Kit Fox Monday, September 16, 2013 1:50 PM 'L. Bilski' Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Carolyn Lehr; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land 610131ED.pdf; 201303ll_E-mail_Agricuftural Use at Upper Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes.pdf; 20130319_CC_MINS.pdf On November 16, 2012, I e-mailed Mr. Siegenthaler with NPS about the farm lease issue. He replied via e-mail (attached), and I included an excerpt from his e-mail response in the December 4, 2012, City Council Staff report (which was attached to the March 19th City Council Staff report). I had also had a telephone conversation with Mr. Siegenthaler regarding this issue at about the same time (late November 2012/early December 2012). On March 11, 2013, I again e-mailed Mr. Siegenthaler about this issue (attached), posing specific questions that were cited in the March 19, 2013, City Council Staff report. At the time that the Staff report was completed and distributed, I had not heard back from Mr. Siegenthaler (as was stated in the Staff report). However, in answer to questions from the City Council and as reflected in the Minutes of the March 19th meeting (attached, p. 8), I verbally informed the City Council that I had spoken with Mr. Siegenthaler and that he had confirmed that there was no way to modify the existing agricultural use to make it consistent with the POU (i.e., without going through the conversion process). Copies of this reply and the one that I sent to you earlier today will be included at "Late Correspondence" for Item 'F' at tomorrow night's meeting. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP City 0£ Ra.11cho Palos Verdes (310)544-5226 kit£@rpv.com From: L. Bilski [mailto:ldb910@juno.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:27 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land Thanks, Kit. There was no information at all from National Park Service (NPS) regarding staffs questions on this. You wrote "I have received no additional information from NPS since March 2013" -What information did you receive? None was provided in the 3/19 staffreport. Please provide the answers from NPS to staffs questions on this item. Thanks. 1 4-24 Lenee Please note: message attached From: Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> To: "L.Bilski"<ldb910@juno.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpv.com> Subject: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:39:07 +0000 Click to get NetZero DataShield and stay protected from hackers when using public WiFi. 2 4-25 Kit Fox From: Kit Fox Sent: To: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:55 PM 'L. Bilski' Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Carolyn Lehr; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: Attachments: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land 20130314_E-mail_Re_ Agricultural Use at Upper Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes.pdf Dear Lenee: Since our e-mail correspondence yesterday, I've been scouring my computer files to make sure that I was not missing a letter or message from David Siegenthaler. As it turns out, the attached e-mail from March 14, 2013-responding to my e-mail of March 11, 2013-was misfiled in the wrong e-mail folder. I apologize for not finding this yesterday when you first inquired about it. I believe that this e-mail is what I was referring to in my oral comments to the City Council at the March 19th meeting. Again, let me apologize for this oversight. A copy of this message and attachment will be provided to the City Council as "Late Correspondence" for Item 'F' at tonight's meeting. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP City of Ra11cho Pa.las Verdes (310) 544-5226 kitf@rpv.com From: L. Bilski [mailto:ldb910@juno.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:12 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Carolyn Lehr; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@qmail.com>; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente I and 9/16/2013 Thanks, Kit. One more email needed - Please forward to me, the Council and Joel Rojas Mr. Siegenthaler's written response to your March 11, 2013 inquiry. Lenee ----------Original Message ---------- From: Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> To: "L.Bilski"<ldb910@juno.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpv.com>, Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>, 1 4-26 "Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>" <Subrooks08@gmail.com>, Carla Morreale <CarlaM@rpv.com>, Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpv.com> Subject: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:50:08 +0000 Dear Lenee: On November 16, 2012, I e-mailed Mr. Siegenthaler with NPS about the farm lease issue. He replied via e-mail (attached), and I included an excerpt from his e-mail response in the December 4, 2012, City Council Staff report (which was attached to the March 19th City Council Staff report). I had also had a telephone conversation with Mr. Siegenthaler regarding this issue at about the same time (late November 2012/early December 2012). On March 11, 2013, I again e-mailed Mr. Siegenthaler about this issue (attached), posing specific questions that were cited in the March.19, 2013, City Council Staff report. At the time that the Staff report was completed and distributed, I had not heard back from Mr. Siegenthaler (as was stated in the Staff report). However, in answer to questions from the City Council and as reflected in the Minutes of the March 19th meeting (attached, p. 8), I verbally informed the City Council that I had spoken with Mr. Siegenthaler and that he had confirmed that there was no way to modify the existing agricultural use to make it consistent with the POU (i.e., without going through the conversion process). Copies of this reply and the one that I sent to you earlier today will be included at "Late Correspondence" for Item 'F' at tomorrow night's meeting. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP City 0£ Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kit£@rpv.co111 From: L.Bilski[mailto:ldb910@juno.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:27 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land 2 4-27 Thanks, Kit. There was no information at all from National Park Service (NPS) regarding staffs questions on this. You wrote "I have received no additional information from NPS since March 2013" -What information did you receive? None was provided in the 3/19 staff report. Please provide the answers from NPS to staffs questions on this item. Thanks. Please note: message attached From: Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> To: "L. Bilski" <ldb910@juno.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpv.com> Subject: RE: 9/17 Consent Calendar item F and agricultural use of Pt. Vicente land Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:39:07 +0000 Click to get NetZero DataShield and stay protected from hackers when using public WiFi. 3 4-28 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sept. 17, 2013 Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:11 PM cc Joel Rojas; Kit Fox; Carla Morreale; Carolynn Petru 9/17 CC Agenda Item F Malaga Canyon properties Dear Mayor Brooks and Council members Duhovic, Knight, Campbell and Misetich, I am opposed to this land purchase unless and until negotiations are underway with the National Park Service (NPS) to pursue a conversion ("land swap") of the land at Upper Point Vicente currently being farmed with this land. Since there is no mention of the conversion in this staff report, I ask that you continue this item to a future date. The Staff Report does not address all of the actual issues. We need more answers. That will take time, but not so much time that the city will miss the opportunity to obtain the federal grant monies! What happened to the issue of preserving the Hatano agricultural use at Upper Pt.Vicente that was discussed regarding these properties last Dec. and March??? There's nothing about it in this 109 page staff report! Where is the staff update on discussions with the NPS to arrange a conversion??? FYI: the Follow-up Agenda for Mar. 19, '13 states: "Agricultural Use at Upper Point Vicente (Fox)Action Taken: 1) Received and filed the status update on the renewal of the agricultural lease at Upper Point Vicente; and, 2) Directed Staff to continue the analysis of the process regarding the conversion of the property, and return with a report at a future Council meeting." It appears to me that the staff is approaching this purchase in reverse. According to NPS, the conversion involves review and approval by the NPS to specifically purchase replacement land for the purpose of conversion. Has this process been done yet? If not, do not purchase land until the conversion process has been followed. If the City does not pursue a conversion first, then the land purchased could be ineligible for convers10n. As of now, the City is not in compliance with the contract the city signed for the Pt. Vicente properties. There is a risk ofreversion ifthe City is not good stewards of the land given by the Federal government. I'm sure no one wants that! However, ifthere is no conversion, the historic agricultural use of Upper Pt. Vicente cannot continue. In speaking with both Kit Fox and NPS David Siegenthaler, nothing has been done in the last six months regarding preserving agricultural use of Upper Pt. Vicente. Please direct staff to work on this. Perhaps the grant monies cited in this staff report could be used to buy the 5+ acres at Upper Pt. Vicente? Just a thought. Also, the public should be given the opportunity to comment on support of or opposition to any restrictions on lands that the city is considering buying. Why was this item put on the Consent Calendar? I hope you will also consider that the General Plan calls for preserving agricultural land use. Since there is no mention of the conversion in the staff report, here is the section of the March 2013 staff report 1 4-29 addressing this issue: MEMORANDUM: Agricultural Use at Upper Point Vicente March 19,2013 Page 3 Potential Candidate Properties for Conversion "Based upon the previous response from Mr. Siegenthaler, leasing a portion of the UPV property for continued commercial farming would require the City to undertake a "conversion" process to replace the area of UPV to be leased for the farm with another property that is suitable for public park and recreation use. The replacement property would have to be newly and specifically acquired for this purpose, and would need to be of:. •Equal fair-market value to the area to be converted; and, • Reasonably-equivalent recreational use and location to the area to be converted. At the December 4, 2012, meeting, Sunshine suggested property that the City might possibly acquire in exchange for the existing farm area. For some time now, the City has been negotiating with private property owners and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS) to acquire additional City open space using Federal grant funds. The two (2) properties are known Malaga Canyon and North Windport Canyon (see attached aerial photographs): •Malaga Canyon consists of roughly forty-eight acres (48 ac.) situated on both sides of Montemalaga Drive between Silver Spur Road and the City boundary with Palos Verdes Estates. Areas of the property have scenic north-facing views of Santa Monica Bay. The canyon also could provide opportunities for passive outdoor recreational use in the form of trails. The Conceptual Trails Plan identifies several segments of the Malaga Canyon Trail System in this area. •North Windport Canyon consists of roughly eight acres (8 ac.) located on the west side of Hawthorne Boulevard between Locklenna Lane and Ocean Crest Drive, and abutting the south end of Windport Drive. Areas of the property have scenic west-facing views of the Pacific Ocean and Channel Islands (similar to the current farm site). The City purchased the abutting South Windport Canyon property to the south in 2007, and the property abuts the Agua Amarga Canyon Reserve of the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve to the west. The canyon also could provide opportunities for passive outdoor recreational use in the form of trails. The Conceptual Trails Plan identifies two (2) segments of the Lunada Canyon Trail System in this area. Staff believes that since both of these candidate sites are natural canyon areas that have never been developed, they would be ecologically and recreationally superior to the current farm site, which has been altered through decades of agricultural use. Staff will continue to work with Mr. Siegenthaler to determine if either of these properties may be a suitable candidate for conversion. " reference http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2013 Agendas/MeetingDate-2013-03- 19/RPVCCA CC SR 2013 03 19 03 Upper Point Vicente Agricultural Use.pdf 2 4-30 Thank you for all you do for RPV! Lenee Biiski 3 4-31 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: dena friedson <dlfriedson@gmail.com> Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:17 PM CC; dena friedson; Joel Rojas; Kit Fox Conversion of Land --City Council Meeting on 9-17-13 To: Mayor Susan Brooks and City Council Members Brian Campbell, Jerry Duhovic, Jim Knight, and Anthony Misetich and To: Joel Rojas and Kit Fox From: Dena Friedson Re: Acquisition of Conversion Property with respect to 5.5 acres of Agricultural Land Regarding the purchase of properties for conversion, it is important to understand that land must NOT be purchased for conversion purposes before it is approved by the National Park Service. Only land that is not already public parkland can be considered for conversion. Malaga Cove Canyon and North Windport Canyon are both privately owned and are suitable for public open space enjoyment. Uses in the area that is chosen should be consistent with the 1979 Quitclaim Deed and the Program of Utilization that apply to the deed restricted open space of Upper Point Vicente. Thank you for extending the lease on the 5. 5 acres of agricultural land on deed restricted parcels of Upper Point .. Vicente for at least another year. Your approval allows the Planning Staff to work with the National Park Service to acquire the 5.5 acres of agricultural land from the federal government and also to obtain the necessary approval for conversion from the National Park Service. If Rancho Palos Verdes is able to buy the 5.5 acres from the federal government, the 5.5 acres could be zoned for agricultural use and could continue to be farmed by Mr. Martinez or other persons related to the Hatano family. It would be desirable to give this land a "historical" designation to honor its past usage and to keep it as open space in perpetuity. Acquiring and keeping open space land in Rancho Palos Verdes is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. If the City's budget is tight, perhaps a grant can be obtained. Purchasing this land does not set a precedent. Other parcels on Upper Point Vicente, which were purchased at different times by the City, are now zoned for institutional use. Public buildings and active recreation are permitted under this category. Hopefully, representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes and the National Park Service will be able to work together with respect to keeping the agricultural use on the 5.5 acres of Upper Point Vicente and also with respect to the conversion of land AFTER it is approved by the National Park Service. Thank you. 1 4-32 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Kit- FYI CP Carolynn Petru Monday, September 23, 2013 5:06 PM Kit Fox FW: Thought you should see this Conversion Process for Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 4:46 PM To: judyfrankel@ghlail.com; susan@californiaproduced.com; farmer g iv19131864@yahoo.com; russelweathers@agfuture.org; martinezmartin64@yahoo.com Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: Thought you should see this Fwd: Conversion Process for Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park. This reads like a bunch of excuses to me. The City Council gave Staff until October 1, 2013 to save agriculture and they didn't mean just the remaining Hatano Farm. Any comments you have should be emailed to the City Council at cc@rpv.com. So sorry the City Manager chose to exclude you .... S 310-377-8761 1 4-33 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Kit, Siegenthaler, David <david_siegenthaler@nps.gov> Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:08 PM Kit Fox Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Cory Linder; Joel Rojas; Ray Murray Re: Conversion of a Portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) I'll address your questions according to your numbering: 1) In order to answer this question, I need to know if the City is acquiring the property specifically to serve as replacement for the proposed conversion area. If it is not -if the City will acquire this property for use as a park regardless of its eligibility to serve as conversion replacement, its acceptability may be affected. We may potentially be able to issue a waiver of retroactivity if acquisition must be done within a certain time-frame. Such a waiver would not guarantee that the property or the replacement proposal would be approved, only that if the proposal is approved, the property would not be ineligible due to its having been acquired before approval. It would be helpful for us to have more information about the proposed replacement property (e.g. location, boundaries, the City's intended use, site characteristics, etc.) so that we can better assess its suitability as replacement. 2) Inclusion of Federal Lands to Parks (FLP) park land in the City's nature preserve system does not invalidate its status under the FLP program unless it contradicts the requirement for public park and recreation use of the site and the approved program of utilization for the park. It may even enhance the park's protection by making the local zoning protections consistent with federal park use requirements. We'd be glad to look at the nature preserve restrictions and let you know if we see any conflicts. 3) Before doing appraisals, we need to check with GSA regarding how they would want the appraisal and appraisal review process to go. You will need further appraisal instructions that supplement (and in some cases replace) the federal yellow-book requirements. However, for sure the land will need to be appraised at an economic market value as if no park use restrictions are in place. Before appraisals are done, we need to agree on the area to be exchanged to insure that the remaining park does not contain areas rendered useless by the excision. Of course, in addition to the appraised value, the replacement land must meet the criteria that it be of reasonable equivalence in usefulness and location. 4) The source of funds for the replacement property does matter -federal funding of the replacement land is not allowed. 5) So many variables (e.g. appraisals, haz. mat. site assessments, NEPA compliance, consultations) are involved in accomplishing a conversion that it is hard to estimate the time required, however a period of one year would be about average. 1 4-34 6) There are no federal regulations that specifically deal with conversions under the Federal Lands to Parks Program. The legal parameters include the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 USC§SSO); Federal Management Regulations (41 CFR §102-75); and Federal Lands to Parks program policy. The National Park Service is not a federal agency with general property disposal authority. Our authority is limited to sponsorship of applicants under the federal surplus property program for parks and recreation purposes. The Act allows us some authority to correct deeds, terms of transfer, etc. to best serve the government's interest and achieve the purposes of the public benefit conveyance program subject to GSA approval. So any conveyance of property rights, including land exchanges, require GSA's approval. Our process and requirements closely (but not entirely) follow the conversion requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund State and Local Assistance Program as specified in 36 CFR §59. I don't think there have been any Land and Water Conservation Fund grants to Upper Point Vicente, so the LWCF policies and procedures (requiring State compliance oversight) do not apply to this process. Please let me know if you need further information. Thanks, David David Siegenthaler Pacific West Region National Park Service 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-2828 V: 415-623-2334 F: 415-623-2387 Federal Lands to Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Program Bringing the NPS Mission Home! On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Siegenthaler: As you may recall, we have spoken and e-mailed previously about the City's desire to undertake the conversion of a 5.5-acre portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) that is subject to the POU in order to allow the existing and historical agricultural use on this site to be maintained. Thank you for forwarding to me information about the application requirements for conversion this past March. As we begin this process, I have a few question that I hope will assist us in expediting this process: 2 4-35 1. The replacement property that the City plans to acquire is at least 58 acres of undeveloped, privately- owned land in the northerly portion of the City. The properties are being acquired for open space, habitat preservation, trails and drainage/flood control purposes. The current terms of the purchase call for the transaction to be complete by the end of 2013. Item Bon the list that you provided on March 14th states that the "[replacement] property: 1) cannot have been previously used as a public park; [and/or] 2) if already owned by the Grantee, it must not have been purchased for the purpose of making it a public park." Given the City's stated purpose of this acquisition listed above (i.e., not a "public park"), if it is acquired by the City before the conversion application is filed and/or completed, would it still be eligible to consideration as replacement property? 2. Related to Question 1 above, if the replacement property is eventually included as a part of the City's nature preserve at some time after the conversion is complete, would this invalidate the conversion and/or require NPS or GSA review and concurrence? 3. For the appraisal of the 5.5-acre site to be converted, should the assessment of the fair market value assume that the current use restrictions imposed on the property by the POU are not in place? 4. The acquisition of the replacement property is to be paid for entirely with Federal (Section 6) and Los Angeles County (Measure A) grant funds. Does the source of the funds for the acquisition have any bearing upon whether or not the replacement property is acceptable to NPS for conversion? 5. Can you provide a "ballpark" estimate of the "typical" timeline and duration for a conversion process? 6. Can you please provide us with a copy of the Federal regulations that apply to this conversion? I understand that you will not be back in the office until the 24th. I look forward to your reply when you return. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at the phone or e-mail listed below. Sincerely, 3 4-36 Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analgst City Manager's 0££ice City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T:(.310)544-5226 F:(.310)544-5291 E: kitf@rpv.com 4 4-37 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Siegenthaler: Kit Fox Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:11 PM 'Siegenthaler, David' Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Cory Linder; Joel Rojas; Ray Murray RE: Conversion of a Portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) Thank you for your replies. Your responses to Questions 1, 2 and 4 have made it clear that the undeveloped, private property that the City was originally considering as replacement property for this conversion request will not be eligible. As an alternative, ~he City is considering another City-owned property as a possible replacement property for this conversion. The City acquired this 5.45-acre undeveloped, privately-owned lot from the County of Los Angeles in January 2010 through a tax-default sale, paid for in full with $150,000 in City general fund monies. The purpose for which the property was acquired was for open space and drainage/flood control purposes. The property remains undeveloped and the City has no plans to improve it. It is not, and has never been used as, a public park. Setting aside (for the moment) the issues of the replacement property's appraised value, the reasonable equivalence of its usefulness and location, and other factors that would be considered in a conversion request, would the mere fact that the City already owns this property disqualify it from eligibility as replacement property? Or might we potentially be eligible for the "waiver of retroactivity" that you mention in your response to Question 1 below? It is very important to the City to have the answer to these questions so that we may appropriately focus our efforts on identifying replacement property that has a reasonable chance being eligible and acceptable for this conversion request. We may have further questions about your other replies as we proceed with this conversion process. In the meantime, I look forward to your replies to the questions posed above. If there is additional information that you need from me to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-5226 kitf@rpv.com From: Siegenthaler, David [mailto:david_siegenthaler@nps.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:08 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Cory Linder; Joel Rojas; Ray Murray Subject: Re: Conversion of a Portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-calif-1088) Hi Kit, I'll address your questions according to your numbering: 1 4-38 1) In order to answer this question, I need to know if the City is acquiring the property specifically to serve as replacement for the proposed conversion area. If it is not -if the City will acquire this property for use as a park regardless of its eligibility to serve as conversion replacement, its acceptability may be affected. We may potentially be able to issue a waiver of retroactivity if acquisition must be done within a certain time-frame. Such a waiver would not guarantee that the property or the replacement proposal would be approved, only that if the proposal is approved, the property would not be ineligible due to its having been acquired before approval. It would be helpful for us to have more information about the proposed replacement property (e.g. location, boundaries, the City's intended use, site characteristics, etc.) so that we can better assess its suitability as replacement. 2) Inclusion of Federal Lands to Parks (FLP) park land in the City's nature preserve system does not invalidate its status under the FLP program unless it contradicts the requirement for public park and recreation use of the site and the approved program of utilization for the park. It may even enhance the park's protection by making the local zoning protections consistent with federal park use requirements. We'd be glad to look at the nature preserve restrictions and let you know if we see any conflicts. 3) Before doing appraisals, we need to check with GSA regarding how they would want the appraisal and appraisal review process to go. You will need further appraisal instructions that supplement (and in some cases replace) the federal yellow-book requirements. However, for sure the land will need to be appraised at an economic market value as if no park use restrictions are in place. Before appraisals are done, we need to agree on the area to be exchanged to insure that the remaining park does not contain areas rendered useless by the excision. Of course, in addition to the appraised value, the replacement land must meet the criteria that it be of reasonable equivalence in usefulness and location. 4) The source of funds for the replacement property does matter -federal funding of the replacement land is not allowed. 5) So many variables (e.g. appraisals, haz. mat. site assessments, NEPA compliance, consultations) are involved in accomplishing a conversion that it is hard to estimate the time required, however a period of one year would be about average. 6) There are no federal regulations that specifically deal with conversions under the Federal Lands to· Parks Program. The legal parameters include the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 USC§550); Federal Management Regulations (41 CFR §102-75); and Federal Lands to Parks program policy. The National Park Service is not a federal agency with general property disposal authority. Our authority is limited to sponsorship of applicants under the federal surplus property program for parks and recreation purposes. The Act allows us some authority to correct deeds, terms of transfer, etc. to best serve the government's interest and achieve the purposes of the public benefit conveyance program subject to GSA approval. So any conveyance of property rights, including land exchanges, require GSA's approval. Our process and requirements closely (but not entirely) follow the conversion requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund State and Local Assistance Program as specified in 36 CFR §59. I don't think there have been any Land and Water Conservation Fund grants to Upper Point Vicente, so the LWCF policies and procedures (requiring State compliance oversight) do not apply to this process. 2 4-39 Please let me know if you need further information. Thanks, David David Siegenthaler Pacific West Region National Park Service 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-2828 V: 415-623-2334 F: 415-623-2387 Federal Lands to Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Program Bringing the NPS Mission Home! On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Siegenthaler: As you may recall, we have spoken and e-mailed previously about the City's desire to undertake the conversion of a 5.5-acre portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) that is subject to the POU in order to allow the existing and historical agricultural use on this site to be maintained. Thank you for forwarding to me information about the application requirements for conversion this past March. As we begin this process, I have a few question that I hope will assist us in expediting this process: 1. The replacement property that the City plans to acquire is at least 58 acres of undeveloped, privately- owned land in the northerly portion of the City. The properties are being acquired for open space, habitat preservation, trails and drainage/flood control purposes. The current terms of the purchase call for the transaction to be complete by the end of 2013. Item B on the list that you provided on March 14th states that the "[replacement] property: 1) cannot have been previously used as a public park; [and/or] 2) if already owned by the Grantee, it must not have been purchased for the purpose of making it a public park." Given the City's stated purpose of this acquisition listed above (i.e., not a "public park"), if it is acquired by the City before the conversion application is filed and/or completed, would it still be eligible to consideration as replacement property? 3 4-40 2. Related to Question 1 above, ifthe replacement property is eventually included as a part of the City's nature preserve at some time after the conversion is complete, would this invalidate the conversion and/or require NPS or GSA review and concurrence? 3. For the appraisal of the 5.5-acre site to be converted, should the assessment of the fair market value assume that the current use restrictions imposed on the property by the POU are not in place? 4. The acquisition of the replacement property is to be paid for entirely with Federal (Section 6) and Los Angeles County (Measure A) grant funds. Does the source of the funds for the acquisition have any bearing upon whether or not the replacement property is acceptable to NPS for conversion? 5. Can you provide a "ballpark" estimate of the "typical" timeline and duration for a conversion process? 6. Can you please provide us with a copy of the Federal regulations that apply to this conversion? I understand that you will not be back in the office until the 24th. I look forward to your reply when you return. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at the phone or e-mail listed below. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Manct8er's 0££ice City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Iiawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T:(310)544-5226 4 4-41 F: (310) 544-5291 E: kitf@rpv.com 5 4-42 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Lenee: Kit Fox Friday, September 27, 2013 8:07 AM 'L. Bilski'; cc@rpv.com SunshineRPV@aol.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Carol Lynch < clynch@rwglaw.com >; Joel Rojas; jmesorto@cox.net; cicoriae@aol.com RE: Conversion Process for Agricultural Use in RPV Please see my replies to your questions and comments below in bold. This e-mail will be provided to the City Council at "Late Correspondence" regarding the Malaga Canyon acquisition on the October 1st City Council agenda. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP CitlJ of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-5226 kitf@mv.com From: L. Bilski [mailto:ldb910@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:50 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: CC; SunshineRPV@aol.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; PlanningCommission; jmesorto@cox.net; momofyago@gmail.com; cicoriae@aol.com Subject: Re: Conversion Process for Agricultural Use in RPV Thank you, Kit. The regulations are on the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf starting on page 110 Chapter 8 for Conversion info I remember reading those pages 2 years ago regarding lower Pt. Vicente/ Annenberg application after the link. was provided in an NPS letter commenting on the DEIR. These regulations appear to apply to property that was acquired or improved with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant program, and which is subject to the use restrictions imposed pursuant to Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act. Although these conditions applied to Lower Point Vicente, they do not apply to Upper Point Vicente. Instead, the use restrictions imposed pursuant to the Program of Utilization (POU) would govern. We are still waiting for NPS to provide us with the applicable regulations that govern conversions under these circumstances. Seems the appraisal of the acreage where now there is commercial farming is one required document that the city does not have yet. Glad you're now working to get this appraisal accomplished. We are working on compiling the outstanding items from the list provided by NPS on March 14th of this year. 1 4-43 What happened to the city's efforts to purchase Malaga Canyon land for the purpose of storm water runoff control as presented to the City Council last year? Your current summary does go back that far. My understanding from Joel is that the drainage/flood control was never the primary purpose of the Malaga Canyon acquisition. The primary purpose of the acquisition is to conserve habitat since U.S. Fish and Wildlife monies are being granted for the acquisition. However, one of the benefits of the City owning the property is that it would facilitate access to the property if and when the need for storm drain repair in and around the canyon arises. Is there another possible site for the farming activity if it needs to be moved from the current position on Upper Pt. Vicente? And/Or a possible site for the interpretive-demonstration farming area? Perhaps next to Golden Cove Center? Or Windport canyon area? Or does staff have some other possible sites for agricultural use in RPV? The farming equipment has been preserved in working condition, and there are volunteers willing and able to demonstrate farming activity, especially valuable for children to learn. Unfortunately, the city re- zoned the agricultural zone (next to Terranea) in the coastal zone some years ago at the request of a developer. That area remains vacant -on Nantasket Dr. next to Flowerfield Trail -despite city approval of a subdivision there. Staff has not explor.ed alternate locations for agricultural activity because we are focusing on the conversion process to allow it to remain at its current location. The location near the Golden Cove Center--which has been suggested by Sunshine and was identified in the Draft 2004 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan (which was not adopted by the City Council)--would also be inconsistent with the POU, as well as the NCCP and PUMP. Staff has not investigated the suitability of other City-owned properties for agricultural use, but may do so in the future if it appears that the conversion process will not be successful. With respect to the Nantasket Drive property, the owner has recently (i.e., August 2013) filed the final parcel map for the project for approval and eventual recordation. Is there anywhere in the city that is still zoned for agricultural use? If so, where? There is no "Agriculture" zoning district in the City. However, in single-family zoning districts, non-commercial agriculture on up to 1 acre is a permitted use, and commercial agricultural on any acreage or non-commercial agriculture on more than 1 acre is permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Is the Windport area suitable for farming? I'm not familiar with that area's geography. I could not comment on the suitability of Windport Canyon for farming from a geographic, geologic or hydrologic standpoint. In addition, site access and compatibility with the surrounding uses will need to be examined if this property is considered as part of a conversion. What conditions/restrictions could the city place on any new acquisitions for open space that would ensure the property could not be sold by the city and developed at some future date? Something to secure open space in perpetuity? Is that possible? My understanding from Joel is that, as a condition of receiving the Federal grant monies to acquire the property, deed restrictions are required to be placed on the property to ensure that it is maintained as open space in perpetuity. These deed restrictions would be in full force and effect regardless of whether the property is enrolled in the City's NCCP Preserve. Please keep me informed. Lenee 2 4-44 Please note: message attached From: Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> To: CC <CC@rpv.com> Cc: "L. Bilski" <ldb910@juno.com>, "Sunshine (SunshineRPV@aol.com)" <SunshineRPV@aol.com>, dena friedson <dlfriedson@gmail.com>, Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>, "Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>" <clynch@rwglaw.com>, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Cory Linder <CoryL@rpv.com> Subject: Conversion Process for Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21 :33:51 +0000 One Weird Trick Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify ... newsmax.com 3 4-45 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Kit, cicoriae@aol.com Friday, September 27, 2013 9:43 AM Kit Fox [PossibleSpam] Hatano Farm Regarding the 5.5 acres currently being farmed within Alta Vicente Reserve, in a letter from David Siegenthaler to you in November 2012, he asked "Are you sure this is on the portion of the land that comes under the Federal Lands to Parks program and is not on the portion purchased by the City?" I didn't see anything in later corresondence addressing this directly. I assume based on staff reports and subsequent correspondence that this been confirmed, but just thought I'd ask to be sure. Can you confirm? Eva Cicoria 1 4-46 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: dena friedson <dlfriedson@gmail.com> Monday, September 30, 2013 3:58 PM CC; Joel Rojas; Kit Fox; dena friedson City Council Meeting on October l, 2013 --Conversion and Agriculture To: Mayor Susan Brooks and City Council Members Brian Campbell, Jerry Duhovic, Jim Knight, and Anthony Misitech and To: Joel Rojas and Kit Fox Re: City Council Meeting on October 1, 2013 --Conversion and Agriculture Please vote to accept the federal grant money offered by the USFWS and the WCB for the purchase of open space land in Malaga Canyon. Acquisition of parcels in the Canyon, with the required deed restrictions, will protect important habitat areas and different foraging species. Current recreational activities, such as hiking and horseback riding on trails, will be able to continue. In an e-mail to the City on September 25, 2013, David Siegenthaler made it clear that federal money can not be used to buy replacement land for a conversion. In 2010 Rancho Palos Verdes bought 5.45 acres in Windport Canyon from Los Angeles County in a tax-default sale. Since this acreage is already owned by the City and was not purchased for parkland purposes, it might be approved as a replacement for the 5.5 acres of agriculture on Upper Point Vicente. The conversion process is lengthy. The National Park Service should be asked to agree to allow the working farm to remain for however long it takes for a conversion to be completed. According to an e-mail dated September 20, 2013 sent by Ray Murray of the National Park Service to Lenee Bilski and me, the 5.5 acres of agriculture on Upper Point Vicente might "qualify as outdoor rec use if it is open to the public and interpreted." A conversion of the 5 .5 acres of agriculture might not be necessary if commercial activities ceased and the acreage was open to the public during established visiting hours. The farm could be managed by Mr. Martinez, or someone else appointed by the City, for a reasonable wage. Volunteers could help, just as they do for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and the Lower Point Vicente Interpretive Center. The 5.5 acres could be retained and maintained on the City-owned land as an interpretive historical attraction that many people might want to visit. Rancho Palos Verdes could apply for non-federal grants to continue the cultivation of the healthy drought resistant crops, which could be donated as food to charitable organizations. Please approve acceptance of the USFWS and the WCB grants for the purchase of parcels in Malaga Canyon before the November deadline. Also, please investigate the NPS requirements for keeping the 5.5 acres of agriculture on Upper Point Vicente. Thank you. 1 4-47 Kit Fox From: Sent: Siegenthaler, David <david_siegenthaler@nps.gov> Monday, September 30, 2013 6:02 PM To: Kit Fox Subject: Re: FW: Conversion of a Portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) Hi Kit, This is just a quick answer given the rush of things here at the moment. .. generally, land already owned and acquired for open space is not eligible as replacement property. The waiver of retroactivity is not something that applies to an acquisition made before the waiver -it applies to land acquired after the waiver but before final project approvals. A shutdown wiH close this office. David David Siegenthaler Pacific West Region National Park Service 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-2828 V: 415-623-2334 F: 415-623-2387 Federal Lands to Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Program Bringing the NPS Mission Home! On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11 :49 AM, Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Siegenthaler: I just wanted to check in with you briefly to see if you had a response yet to our questions below about a possible, alternate replacement property (highlighted below). Also, I assume that if there is a Federal government "shutdown" on October 1st, NPS offices will be affected. If you know, can you confirm if this is will be the case or not? 1 4-48 Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP City 0£ Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-5226 kit£@rpv.com From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:11 PM To: 'Siegenthaler, David' Cc: Carolyn Lehr; carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Cory Linder; Joel Rojas; Ray Murray Subject: RE: Conversion of a Portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) Dear Mr. Siegenthaler: Thank you for your replies. Your responses to Questions 1, 2 and 4 have made it clear that the undeveloped, private property that the City was originally considering as replacement property for this conversion request will not be eligible. As an alternative, the City is considering another City-owned property as a possible replacement property for this conversion. The City acquired this 5.45-acre undeveloped, privately-owned lot from the County of Los Angeles in January 2010 through a tax-default sale, paid for in full with $150,000 in City general fund monies. The purpose for which the property was acquired was for open space and drainage/flood control purposes. The property remains undeveloped and the City has no plans to improve it. It is not, and has never been used as, a public park. to the City to have the answer to these questions so that we may appropriately focus our efforts on identifying replacement property that has a reasonable chance being eligible and acceptable for this conversion request. 2 4-49 We may have further questions about your other replies as we proceed with this conversion process. In the meantime, I look forward to your replies to the questions posed above. If there is additional information that you need from me to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kitf@rpv.com From: Siegenthaler, David [mailto:david sieqenthaler@nps.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:08 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwqlaw.com>; Cory Linder; Joel Rojas; Ray Murray Subject: Re: Conversion of a Portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) Hi Kit, I'll address your questions according to your numbering: 1) In order to answer this question, I need to know if the City is acquiring the property specifically to serve as replacement for the proposed conversion area. If it is not -if the City will acquire this property for use as a park regardless of its eligibility to serve as conversion replacement, its acceptability may be affected. We may potentially be able to issue a waiver of retroactivity if acquisition must be done within a certain time-frame. Such a waiver would not guarantee that the property or the replacement proposal would be approved, only that if the proposal is approved, the property would not be ineligible due to its having been acquired before approval. It would be helpful for us to have more information about the proposed replacement property (e.g. location, boundaries, the City's intended use, site characteristics, etc.) so that we can better assess its suitability as replacement. 3 4-50 2) Inclusion of Federal Lands to Parks (FLP) park land in the City's nature preserve system does not invalidate its status under the FLP program unless it contradicts the requirement for public park and recreation use of the site and the approved program of utilization for the park. It may even enhance the park's protection by making the local zoning protections consistent with federal park use requirements. We'd be glad to look at the nature preserve restrictions and let you know if we see any conflicts. 3) Before doing appraisals, we need to check with GSA regarding how they would want the appraisal and appraisal review process to go. You will need further appraisal instructions that supplement (and in some cases replace) the federal yellow-book requirements. However, for sure the land will need to be appraised at an economic market value as if no park use restrictions are in place. Before appraisals are done, we need to agree on the area to be exchanged to insure that the remaining park does not contain areas rendered useless by the excision. Of course, in addition to the appraised value, the replacement land must meet the criteria that it be of reasonable equivalence in usefulness and location. 4) The source of funds for the replacement property does matter -federal funding of the replacement land is not allowed. 5) So many variables (e.g. appraisals, haz. mat. site assessments, NEPA compliance, consultations) are involved in accomplishing a conversion that it is hard to estimate the time required, however a period of one year would be about average. 6) There are no federal regulations that specifically deal with conversions under the Federal Lands to Parks Program. The legal parameters include the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 USC§550); Federal Management Regulations (41 CFR §102-75); and Federal Lands to Parks program policy. The National Park Service is not a federal agency with general property disposal authority. Our authority is limited to sponsorship of applicants under the federal surplus property program for parks and recreation purposes. The Act allows us some authority to correct deeds, terms of transfer, etc. to best serve the government's interest and achieve the purposes of the public benefit conveyance program subject to GSA approval. So any conveyance of property rights, including land exchanges, require GSA's approval. Our process and requirements closely (but not entirely) follow the conversion requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund State and Local Assistance Program as specified in 36 CFR §59. I don't think there have been any Land and Water Conservation Fund grants to Upper Point Vicente, so the LWCF policies and procedures (requiring State compliance oversight) do not apply to this process. Please let me know if you need further information. 4 4-51 Thanks, David David Siegenthaler Pacific West Region National Park Service 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-2828 V: 415-623-2334 F: 415-623-2387 Federal Lands to Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Program Bringing the NPS Mission Home! On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Kit Fox <KitF@rpv.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Siegenthaler: As you may recall, we have spoken and e-mailed previously about the City's desire to undertake the conversion of a 5.5-acre portion of Point Vicente Park (LADA Nike Site 55, Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes, GSA No. 9-D-Calif-1088) that is subject to the POU in order to allow the existing and historical agricultural use on this site to be maintained. Thank you for forwarding to me information about the application requirements for conversion this past March. As we begin this process, I have a few question that I hope will assist us in expediting this process: 5 4-52 1. The replacement property that the City plans to acquire is at least 58 acres of undeveloped, privately- owned land in the northerly portion of the City. The properties are being acquired for open space, habitat preservation, trails and drainage/flood control purposes. The current terms of the purchase call for the transaction to be complete by the end of2013. Item Bon the list that you provided on March 14th states that the "[replacement] property: 1) cannot have been previously used as a public park; [and/or] 2) if already owned by the Grantee, it must not have been purchased for the purpose of making it a public park." Given the City's stated purpose of this acquisition listed above (i.e., not a "public park"), if it is acquired by the City before the conversion application is filed and/or completed, would it still be eligible to consideration as replacement property? 2. Related to Question 1 above, ifthe replacement property is eventually included as a part of the City's nature preserve at some time after the conversion is complete, would this invalidate the conversion and/or require NPS or GSA review and concurrence? 3. For the appraisal of the 5.5-acre site to be converted, should the assessment of the fair market value assume that the current use restrictions imposed on the property by the POU are not in place? 4. The acquisition of the replacement property is to be paid for entirely with Federal (Section 6) and Los Angeles County (Measure A) grant funds. Does the source of the funds for the acquisition have any bearing upon whether or not the replacement property is acceptable to NPS for conversion? 5. Can you provide a "ballpark" estimate of the "typical" timeline and duration for a conversion process? 6. Can you please provide us with a copy of the Federal regulations that apply to this conversion? I understand that you will not be back in the office until the 24th. I look forward to your reply when you return. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at the phone or e-mail listed below. Sincerely, 6 4-53 Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's OHice City ofRa.nchoPa.los Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T:(310)544-5226 F: (310) 544-5291 E: kitf@rpv.com 7 4-54 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Tuesday, October 01, 2013 6:51 AM cc Joel Rojas; Kit Fox; Carla Morreale; PlanningCommission; Sharon; Carolynn Petru Malaga Canyon properties -Oct. 1 City Council agenda Dear RPV Mayor Brooks and Council members Duhovic, Campbell, Knight and Misetich, Thank you for continuing this item from September 17. Do we want to use federal taxpayer funds to acquire these steep canyon properties and what would be the benefit to the city? In correspondenc~ with Kit Fox, I asked about the City's prior discussion about storm drain control in regards to buying parcels in this Malaga Canyon area: Question: What happened to the city's efforts to purchase Malaga Canyon land for the purpose of storm water runoff control as presented to the City Council last year? Your current summary does not go back that far. Response from Kit Fox: "My understanding from Joel is that the drainage/flood control was never the primary purpose of the Malaga Canyon acquisition" The reply doesn't answer my question of the city's efforts. Although flood control may not be the primary purpose, it was a consideration in the past -but the staffs current summary doesn't mention the past flood control issue. According to city records, in 2006 these same two parcels, APN 7578-002-009, 7578-003-001, were presented to the City Council as tax default properties along with several others for purchase consideration. At that time storm drain access/ repair was presented to the Council as one reason to buy the properties: The 2006 report stated "Staff believes that there are several potential public benefits to acquiring the five tax.- defaulted parcels in Malaga Canyon: 1. Potential Enhancement of the NCCP 2. Implementation of Public Trails Identified in the Conceptual Trails Plan 3. Access for Storm Drain Repair Projects "Storm water flows down Malaga Canyon from south to north and crosses under Montemalaga Drive via a culvert." "The Public Works Department has identified both the drainage inlet structure on the large southern parcel (APN# 7578-002-009) and the outlet structure on the northern parcel (APN # 7546-022-008) as needing significant repairs " 4. Possible Development Site for a City/Community Facility" 1 4-55 ref: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2006 _ Agendas/MeetingDate-2006-12- 19/open _ agenda.cfm?id=RPVCCA _SR _2006_12_19_16 _ taxsale _purchase.cfm The zoning and cost at that time was 7578-003-001 1.25 acres $4,130 OH & RS-A-5 7578-002-009 22.28 acres $41,226 OH & RS5 The same two properties are now before you In 2013 for purchase from private parties for appraisal prices with federal funds: APN 7578-002-009, 7578-003-001 Carolynn Petru recalls that since 2006 the storm drain in this area has been repaired. Please consider and discuss the following issues before you make a decision as to whether or not these properties would be a wise acquisition for the city of RPV: • this land is already zoned Open Space Hazard therefore it is not necessary to buy it to preserve the open space and conserve habitat • a loss of property tax revenue would result if the city buys the properties • the city would be responsible for the cost of annual brush clearance if purchased • if acquired by the city How would the city implement public trails on this steep land? • the city would incur additional costs of making this canyon recreational, and building/maintaining trails if purchased • if owned by the city RPV would have liability for injuries occurring there • if acquired as proposed with Federal grant funds the property would NOT be eligible for consideration for a conversion of the Upper Pt. Vicente farming area. As stated by NPS officer David Siegenthaler - "The source of funds for the replacement property does matter -federal funding of the replacement land is not allowed." • there is no suitable area for a community facility as suggested in the 2006 proposal • the Federal funds available are actually taxpayer's monies -all of us would be paying What recreational use would be possible? Staff does not say. What is the justification for the city assuming the ownership (and expense of upkeep) of these properties if they are already open space and not eligible for development and not useful as conversion property? The city attorney has repeatedly stated that the city cannot build new trails or improve existing trails because of 2 4-56 liability concerns. How many of you council members have walked, hiked, or ridden horseback on this property or on the Windport property that is mentioned in the staff report? Perhaps a better use of taxpayer's money via this Federal grant would be in some other place. In March 2013 the Council directed Staff to continue the analysis of the process regarding the conversion of the Upper Pt. Vicente property for continued farming and return with a report at a future Council meeting, but the city made no effort regarding continued farming until September 1 7 when the public brought up the issue concerning Consent Calendar item F regarding Malaga Canyon properties. Please again direct city staff to work to find a solution for the problem of preserving agricultural land use in RPV and to provide a report at a future Council meeting. As of now, the City is not in compliance with the contract the city signed for the Pt. Vicente properties. I remember seeing from Palos Verdes Drives West and South the acres of flowers and vegetables being grown in RPV. Now there is only the non-compliant lease/ farming at Upper Pt. Vicente. The farming equipment is available, as are eager volunteers. Unfortunately, other than Upper Pt. Vicente, farming is gone. Whatever land that was zoned agricultural in RPV has been re-zoned, and residential land that was leased for farming has been developed by the owners. We have plenty of native habitat. We need to preserve agriculture in RPV. The city's General Plan calls for preserving agricultural land use. So do I. Please make it happen. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Lenee Biiski ref. March 19. 2013 CC Agenda http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2013 Agendas/MeetingDate-2013-03- 19/RPV CCA CC SR 2013 03 19 03 Upper Point Vicente Agricultural Use.pdf 3 4-57 Kit Fox From: Carolynn Petru Sent: To: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:23 AM Kit Fox Subject: FW: your letter From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyaqo@qmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:14 AM To: CC Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolyn Lehr; gpfost@rpv.com; Joel Rojas Subject: Fwd: your letter Dear Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and Council Members, I am opposed to the acquisition of the properties known as Malaga Canyon. I am very, very familiar with them, having formerly lived on lower Grayslake Road which backs up to the northly parcels, and I drive past both properties daily. There are several reasons why I oppose this. First, this property is essentially worthless. It is a waste of taxpayer money to acquire this land at the prices that have been negotiated. As I have said before and will say again, whether funds are federal, state, county or city they are all TAXPAYER dollars and waste at any level of government is unacceptable. The fact of the matter is (i) the property already is and will remain open space because it is largely zoned Open Space Hazard and the cost of development would be prohibitive, (ii) we do not need to take on the cost and responsibility for brush clearance of this property, and (iii) we do not need the liability for injuries occurring there. The current owners pay for brush clearance now and the City does not require an easement to clear it ifthe owners fail to do so. Through the exercise of police power, the City can clear the property if the owners fail to do so and impose a lien on the property to recoup the cost of same. I am sure the City could acquire, by condemnation if necessary, an easement to take care of whatever drainage issue is posed as the ruse for requiring fee title. Further, the properties currently generate property tax revenues. Once owned by the City the properties will be exempt from tax. Why cut off that source of revenue (albeit relatively small in the scheme of things)? The City Attorney has stated on numerous occasions with respect to the Preserve that the City cannot improve the existing trails or cut new ones without becoming liable for injuries -she states we need to only use the historically used trails that existed when the City acquired the property. So why on earth would staff think these properties could be developed for recreational use? There are no trails of which I am aware in the northerly parcels, and there is no way it is economically viable to build them (and that would fly in the face of the CA's advice anyway). There is one trail on the southerly portion. It is extremely narrow and treacherous. It is rarely used. It is not suitable for family hiking and certainly not suitable for equestrian use. So bottom line is -why pay for open space when you already have it for free, and why lose revenue, increase costs to the City for maintenance and increase liability exposure? What does the JPIA think about this? If the properties are put under management by the Land Conservancy what "habit restoration" will be done and how? Who will attempt to scale these steep slopes to plant native bushes? 1 4-58 If any of this property is acquired it should be the developable 7 acres that Dr. Giani wants to retain. That would actually make sense because it would in fact preserve open space and protect the view. If this property could be used for conversion so that the Hitano farming on Upper Point Vicente could continue, that would be another story. But as Mr. Siegenthaler has made clear, if federal funds are used to acquire this property it would not qualify for conversion. So that idea is off the table. In the future, before staff undertakes to expend considerable time (at taxpayer expense) negotiating a land purchase, please require that the Council at least tentatively approve the acquisition, subject to approval of the final price. The way this has been handled was putting the cart before the horse. Staff might not be so "overworked" if they didn't wortk on matters not approved by the Council or desired by the residents. Please vote "No" on this matter. Sharon Yarber 2 4-59 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: dena friedson <dlfriedson@gmail.com> Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:45 PM CC; Joel Rojas; Kit Fox; dena friedson City Council Meeting on 10-1-13 regarding Conversion and Agriculture To: Mayor Susan Brooks and City Council Members Brian Campbell, Jerry Duhovic, Jim Knight, and Anthony Misetich From: Dena Friedson Re: 5.5 Acres of Agriculture on Upper Point Vicente If keeping the 5 .5 acres of agriculture on Upper Point Vicente as an outdoor recreational Interpretive Center is of interest to you, the land must be managed by an employee of the City and NOT BE LEASED. When the government shut down is over, please let David Siegenthaler know that the 5.5 acres would not be leased. His focus is on outdoor recreation for the property. 1 4-60 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: fyi Joel Rojas Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:06 PM Carolynn Petru; Kit Fox FW: Moving on for agriculture, active recreation and trails. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:13 AM To: CC; carolyn Lehr; Cory Linder; Les Jones; Joel Rojas Cc: farmer g iv19131864@yahoo.com; iudyfrankel@gmail.com; martinezmartin64@yahoo.com Subject: Moving on for agriculture, active recreation and trails. MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties RE: Upper Miraleste Canyon as conversion bait. Now that Staff is familiar with the required detective and documentation work, I suggest that Staff use some of their discretionary time and funds to investigate Upper Miraleste Canyon as potential acreage for conversion of the use restrictions on some portions of Point Vicente Park. Other than one tiny lot which the City owns on Crest Road, this land is privately owned. It is a wonderful riparian habitat since water flows in a portion of the stream bed, year round. (Watershed issue.) There is a social trail which follows a power line and a big water company pipe. This trail is the Palos Verdes Loop Trail and described in the RPV CTP as SECTION FOUR Trails A19 and A20. The existing trail connects to RPV SECTION FIVE Trail A21 via Rolling Hills. There is also an existing trail which goes around the CA Water Company tank farm and connects with the Miraleste Parks District trails. There are spectacular views of LA/Long Beach Harbor. There are two "pit stop/picnic" areas under really huge old, native, elderberry trees. Blackberries and Catalina cherries are sweet when in season. I have not looked into what it takes to make elderberry wine. Apparently we need to get NPS to say OK to a carefully thought out proposal and then we will need to find the money to buy the land. BIG QUESTION. Is Council's unanimous vote to preserve agriculture going to be enough to inspire Staff to get their heads together and pursue this very complicated solution in a timely fashion? 1 4-61