The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_SR_2010_11_16_05_Annenberg_ProjectCfTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE:NOVEMBER 16,2010 SUBJECT:PROCESSING ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER~ Project Manager:Ara Mihranian,AICP,Deputy Community Development Direct0;kA RECOMMENDATION 1)Receive a status update on the comments received from the National Park Service (NPS)and State Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)on the proposed project's consistency with the Federal Program of Utilization and Federal grant restrictions that apply to Lower Point Vicente and affirm that a formal determination request as to the proposed project's consistency with the Program of Utilization should be submitted to the OGALS and NPS at the conclusion of the City's entitlement process; 2)Affirm that a General Plan Amendment application is not necessary to be processed for the proposed project;and 3)Direct the Planning Commission to continue processing the currently requested Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit and Coastal Permit entitlement applications for the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente. INTRODUCTION On October 12,2010,the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the requested entitlement applications (Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,and Coastal Development Permit)for the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.At that meeting,as well as the September 14,2010 scoping meeting on the Draft EIR for the proposed project,concerns,among other things,were raised regarding the use restrictions imposed on Lower Point Vicente by previous Federal Land and Water Conservation (LWCF)grants administered by the State Office of Grants and Local Services as well as the Program of Utilization (POU)imposed on Lower Point Vicente by the National Park 5-1 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 Service (NPS).In addition,questions were raised by the public and some Planning Commissioners on whether a General Plan Amendment application should be included in the application package that was previously authorized by the City Council for the proposed Annenberg project that is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Since these specific concerns relate to policy and processing direction that is within the purview of the City Council,Staff felt that an item should be brought forward to the City Council to alert the City Council of these issues and seek the Council's affirmation of the process for addressing these issues.The Planning Commission agreed that discussion of these specific issues by the City Council will be helpful.As such,the Planning Commission has continued the current public hearing on the proposed Annenberg project to December 14,2010.Staff is bringing these issues to the Council for discussion prior to the December 14 th Commission meeting on the proposed project. Thus,it is important to note that the merits of the proposed Annenberg project are not before the City Council as a result of this item because the Planning Commission has not yet completed its review on the project.The merits of the proposed project will be before the City Council if and when an appeal of the Planning Commission's final action on the entitlement applications is filed. BACKGROUND In order to understand the origin of the federal use restrictions imposed on Lower Point Vicente,as well as the events that have transpired over the years related to the restrictions,Staff has compiled the following historic outline that begins with the transfer of the subject property from the federal government to LA County in 1978.Only events related to the POU /grant restrictions and General Plan consistency issues addressed by the Staff Report are noted. •July 14,1978 -The federal government listed the subject site as surplus property and transferred the site to the County of Los Angeles via a quit claim deed (see attachment).The quit claim included the Program of Utilization and other requirements.Prior to listing the site as surplus property,the site was used as a rifle range by the Department of Defense. •July 17,1979 -The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County of Los Angeles entered into a 50-year lease agreement for the City to operate the Lower Point Vicente as a park (see attachment).At the same time,the County authorized to transfer of state grant money from the County Department of Beaches to the City for site improvements at Lower Point Vicente •May 19,1981 -The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County of Los Angeles amend the lease agreement to allow for the construction of a 3,000 square foot interpretive center,referred to as the Point Vicente Interpretative Center (PVIC),and site park improvements (see attachment). •May 5,1984 -The PVIC was dedicated and opened to the public as an 5-2 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 approximately 3,000 square foot structure. •October 10,1996 -The City requested,in writing,that the National Parks Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation endorse a conceptual expansion of the PVIC building (see attachment)as being consistent with the POU and in compliance with the deed restrictions on the property imposed by the acceptance of previous state grants.The endorsement request was prompted by the City's eligibility to receive funding from the 1992 Safe Neighborhoods and Park Bond Act to expand the existing PVIC building from 3,000 sq.ft.to 10,000 sq.ft.for increased exhibit space,a multi-purpose room,and visitor support areas.A preliminary endorsement was necessary because the grant required that all agency approvals be obtained prior to applying for the grant. •October 30,1996 -The National Park Service approved the proposed expansion of the PVIC building as being consistent with the POU stating that "it appears the primary purpose of the facility will not be compromised and recreational and educational opportunities at the site will be appropriately expanded and enhanced." •October 31,1996 -The California Department of Parks and Recreation determined that the proposed PVIC expansion project is consistent with the deed restrictions on the property imposed by the acceptance of previous Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)grants (see attachment). •September 8,1998 -The Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.98-30 (see attachment),conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No.200,Grading Permit No.1993,and Coastal Permit No.143 to allow site improvements at Lower Point Vicente consisting of,among other things,a 7,400 square foot addition to the existing PVIC building,139 new parking spaces (for a total of 207 parking spaces), reconfigured driveways,approximately 11,000 cubic yards of grading (cut and fill), new and expanded decomposed granite trails,new landscaping and other outdoor park amenities.In approving the project,the Commission determined that the proposed 7,400 square foot building expansion is consistent with the City's General Plan. •July 1999 -Construction of the PVIC expansion project began. •August 1999 -Lead associated with the former rifle range was detected in excavated soil and was remediated between August 1999 and December 2002,in compliance with a federal approved Lead Removal Action Plan.The lead remediation work generally consisted of removing any hot spots,removing one-foot of soil from the area around the PVIC building and replacing it with clean fill.After the lead remediation is completed,construction on the expansion of the PVIC building resumed. •December 16,2003 -ownership of Lower Point Vicente was transferred from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of the settlement agreement for the lead contamination clean-up (see attachment). 5-3 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 •July 15,2006 -The newly expanded PVIC building and park grounds were formally reopened to the public.Due to budget constraints incurred from the lead contamination clean-up,at the time of the reopening of PVIC,only 66 parking spaces and trails along the bluff top were constructed. •March 2006 -The Annenberg Foundation awarded a grant to the PVPLC to work with the City of RPV and create an RPV Vision Plan for the City's coastal open space areas.The goal of the Vision Plan was to create a coordinated master plan for certain city owned properties along the coast (not included in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve),including Lower Point Vicente that addressed public access, interpretive materials,recreational amenities,and other facilities to improve the experience of the coast and open space for residents of and visitors to the Peninsula. •June 2006 -May 2008.Three public workshops on the Vision Plan were held to allow residents to share their vision for the City's nature preserve and associated open space,recreation areas and civic places.In addition,two City Council meetings were held during this time to address questions and/or concerns raised by the public on specific components of the Vision Plan design schemes including the Animal Education Facility. •September 2,2008 -The City Council adopted the Rancho Palos Verdes Coast Vision Plan,which included a proposed Animal Education Facility at Lower Point Vicente. •September 2,2008 -The City Council authorized the Annenberg Foundation to file Conditional Use Permit-Revision,Grading Permit and Coastal Permit planning applications to initiate the planning review process,including the environmental review,for the proposed improvements identified in the Council adopted Vision Plan for Lower Point Vicente.The Staff Report to the City Council noted that a determination of the project's consistency with the federal Program of Utilization that exists on the property will also need to be made. •July 22,2010 -The Draft EIR for the Annenberg Project was released to the public marking the beginning of the 56-day public comment period that concluded on September 15,2010. •August 17,2010 -The State Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Service (OGALS)submitted a written comment letter on the Draft EIR expressing concerns that the proposed project may be a conversion of park use from outdoor recreational to a non-outdoor recreational use which is prohibited by the restrictions associated with a Federal Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant which funded the park development in 1978 (see attachment). •September 15,2010 -The National Park Service (NPS)submitted a written comment letter on the Draft EIR expressing concerns with the project's compliance 5-4 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 with the existing Program of Utilization (POU)and deed restrictions imposed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (see attachment). •October 6,2010 -Given the concerns expressed by the State and NPS with regards to the project's consistency with the POU and federal grant restrictions,City Staff and representatives from the Annenberg Foundation met with representatives from the NPS and the State Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)to discuss the project and the existing POU and grant restrictions. •October 8,2010 -The NPS submitted an additional written comment letter responding to the October 12,2010 Planning Commission Staff Report (see attachment). •October 12,2010 -The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the requested planning applications (Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,and Coastal Development Permit).Given the questions and concerns raised by the public about continuing to process the project in light of the NPS and OGALS comment letters and whether a General Plan Amendment application should also be processed for the project,Staff notified the Commission that it intends to seek City Council input on these issues at a future City Council meeting.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to not resume its hearings on the project applications until the Council provides direction on these issues. •November 10,2010 -City Staff and Mr.Aube from the Annenberg Foundation met with representatives from the OGALS to review the options in preparing a formal application. DISCUSSION Federal Program of Utilization (POUl Restrictions In 1978,the federal government listed the project site as surplus property and transferred ownership to the County of Los Angeles.The Quitclaim Deed between the federal government and the County of Los Angeles (attached)stipulates that the property "shall be used and maintained for the public purposes as set forth in the Program of Utilization ...". Additionally,the Quitclaim Deed states,among other things,that the property shall not be sold,leased,assigned,or otherwise disposed of except to another eligible governmental agency approved by the Secretary of the Interior.However,related recreational facilities and services may be provided by a third party through concession agreements provided that approvals are first obtained by the Secretary of the Interior. The Program of Utilization or POU (Exhibit "C"of the attached Quitclaim Deed)is the controlling element used by the National Park Service (NPS),the federal agency that has compliance oversight responsibility for the site,to determine whether any proposed improvements are consistent with the terms of the original public benefit conveyance of the former federal surplus property.In this capacity,the NPS is the federal agency that has the final say as to whether proposed projects are consistent with the site's approved POU. 5-5 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 The 1978 POU that covers the Lower Point Vicente site states that "development of the rifle range portion of the surplus Nike site will provide for passive recreational pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean and will accommodate individuals as well as groups".The POU goes on to address the demolition of existing structures, grading,irrigation and landscaping,parking,pedestrian access,beach access,fencing,a restroom,an interpretive structure,picnic facilities and a road system.The POU restrictions were passed to the City in 2003 when the City acquired ownership of Lower Point Vicente from the County as part of the settlement agreement for the lead contamination clean-up. As noted earlier,the original 3,000 square foot PVIC,and related site improvements,was constructed and opened in 1984 and a 7,400 expansion,and related site improvements, was constructed and opened in 2006.Both of these developments were determined to be consistent with the site's POU by NPS.Along these lines,Staff was aware from the onset of the proposed Annenberg project submittal that a POU consistency determination would have to be obtained from NPS for the proposed project.This was noted in the September 2,2008 City Council Staff Report that was presented to the City Council at the time the Annenberg Foundation requested the City Council's authorization to initiate the planning entitlement process for the proposed project (see attachment). It was Staff's intent to obtain a formal POU consistency determination at the conclusion of the City's entitlement process.However,in order to begin preliminary dialogue with NPS about the proposed project's consistency with the POU while the City's planning entitlement process proceeded,Staff was in contact Mr.David Siegenthaler with the NPS in April 2010 requesting a meeting to update him on the proposed project and obtain his preliminary feedback on the project's consistency with the POU.Mr.Siegenthaler responded back in June asking for a project description and for an explanation of how the proposed project fulfills the POU.In response,a copy of the proposed project's Draft EIR, which contains a detailed project description,project plans,and an explanation of why the City believes the proposed project is consistent with the site's POU,was mailed directly to Mr.Siegenthaler in July 2010. The City received a letter,dated September 15,2010,from Mr.Siegenthaler identifying a number of concerns with the analysis in the Draft EIR.Most notably,Mr.Siegenthaler raised concerns with proposed project's consistency with the POU (see attachment). However,the letter also provides information on how the POU can be amended, specifically stating that the "POU may be amended if sufficient analysis and rationale are provided for such a change and if the purpose is an acceptable public park and recreation use./1 Federal LWCF Grant Restrictions In addition to the POU restrictions noted above,the site is also subject to use restrictions imposed by the Federal Land and Water Conservation (LWCF)program which is administered by the State Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS).This is because at the time the property was transferred to the County from the federal government,the County received an LWCF grant to construct specific park improvements at Lower Point 5-6 ANNEN BERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 Vicente,including the original PVIC building.A portion of the grant money was then transferred to the City to construct the park improvements,as part of the 50-year lease agreement between the City and the County. Section 6(f)(3)of the LWCF Act is designed to safeguard park and recreation facilities by ensuring that changes or "conversions from recreation use"will bear a cost and that investments in public outdoor recreation will not be lost.Specifically,Section 6(f)(3)of the LWCF Act states that "no property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall,without the approval of the Secretary of Interior,be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses".While Staff is aware of these restrictions now,at the time the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated Staff was not aware that LWCF grant monies were transferred from the County to the City at the time the original PVIC was being contemplated in 1978.Thus,the Draft EIR does not identify or discuss these additional site restrictions. Since it is the State Office of Grants and Local Services'(OGALS)responsibility to administer the Federal LWCF program and ensure compliance with its requirements,the City received a letter,dated August 17,2010,from the State noting the LWCF grant restrictions and noting that the proposed project may constitute a "conversion"of park use which is defined as a change from outdoor recreational use to non-outdoor recreation use (see attachment).While OGALS would take the lead in processing a "conversion" proposal,it would do so after consultation with NPS and NPS would have the final say in the matter. Proposed Method for Addressing POU and LWCF Restrictions Given the preliminary concerns expressed by NPS in their September 15,2010 letter with the proposed project's consistency with the site's POU as well as the LWCF restrictions identified by OGALS in their August 17,2010 letter,City Staff and representatives of the Annenberg project team met with representatives from NPS and OGALS in Sacramento on October 6,2010.The purpose of the meeting was to ensure that the NPS and OGALS officials were clear on the proposed project and to better understand the restrictions that bind the City's property. Subsequent to the October 6 t11 meeting,Staff received a follow up letter from NPS dated October 8,2010 (attached)and a follow up letter from OGALS dated October 26,2010 (attached).In addition,Staff has had follow up discussions with the same state and federal officials either on the phone,in person or by email since October 6 t11 to further clarify the process for obtaining a formal determination on the project's consistency with the POU and LWCF restrictions.Based on all the information gleaned from these letters and discussions,Staff recommends that the proposed project complete the City's entitlement process before any formal POU Consistency Determination or LWCF Consistency Determination is submitted to OGALS and/or NPS.In other words,notwithstanding the preliminary comments submitted by NPS and OGALS on the proposed project's consistency with the POU and LWCF restrictions,allow the proposed project applications to continue their review by the Planning Commission (and their subsequent review by the City Council if an appeal of the Commission's decision is filed)and then formally submit the 5-7 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 project that is ultimately approved by the City (if approved)on to OGALS and NPS for its POU/LWCF Grant consistency review.It should be noted thatthe subsequent OGALS and NPS consistency review will require its own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. The main reason Staff is recommending this approach is because both NPS officials and OGALS officials have made it clear that their current positions are preliminary since no formal consistency request has been submitted by the City.Thus,the opportunity for the City to make its best case as to why the proposed project is consistent with the POU and LWCF Grant Program,similar to how the PVIC and PVIC Expansion were found to be consistent,and receive a formal determination from NPS has not yet occurred. Furthermore,Staff believes that such formal consistency determination should be made by OGALS and NPS on the final version of the proposed project that is ultimately approved by the City.Since it is conceivable that changes to the project could result from the Planning Commission and City Council's (on appeal)review of the currently proposed project,Staff believes that it makes the most sense to submit the final version of the approved project (if approved)to OGALS and NPS for its consistency review.Furthermore,if the City's final decision is denial of the proposed project,no subsequent POU or LWCF consistency review would be necessary.Lastly,this approach would be similar to the approach that was contemplated when the Long Point Resort Project proposed golf holes on the City's Upper Point Vicente property which were going to require a POU consistency determination from NPS.At that time,the plan was to let the proposal proceed with the City's entitlement process first and then proceed with formal POU consistency submittal to the NPS.The City Council ultimately withdrew its permission to allow golf holes on the City's Upper Point Vicente property and so a formal POU consistency determination was not pursued. In conclusion,Staff recommends that the City Council affirm that a formal determination request as to the proposed project's consistency with the Program of Utilization should be submitted to the OGALS and NPS at the conclusion of the City's entitlement process. The following are alternatives to this recommendation: 1)Direct Staff to submit a formal POU consistency request to NPS and OGALS now for the currently proposed project that is to be processed in parallel with the City's entitlement process and update said consistency request based on the final City decision on the proposed project (the benefit of this is the potential joint CEQA- NEPA document,and potential time savings). 2)Direct Staff to submit a formal POU consistency request to NPS and OGALS now for the project as currently proposed and suspend the City's entitlement process until a formal determination is made by NPS. General Plan Consistency The City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan provides goals and policies intended to shape the future of the City.The General Plan is divided into elements that are integrated 5-8 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 into functional relationships.Recreational activity areas include sites which have been set aside or are proposed for either active or passive use.These sites are structured to various degrees to allow specific site activities to take place.Recreational activity areas can be either private or public.In terms of the Land Use Element,according to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map the project site is designated as Recreational - Passive.Land uses designated as Recreational -Passive are described as follows: Recreational-Passive facilities are mostly unstructured in orderto allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance.Passive sites are usually used for nature studies,hiking trails,limited picnicking areas,etc. As noted in the historic background outline,in 1981,and then again in 1998,the City's decision makers determined that the construction of the PVIC building and the expansion of this same building at Lower Point Vicente is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Passive-Recreational.In fact,in 1998,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.98-30 making the required findings of facts for Conditional Use Permit No.200 which includes the finding for consistency with the City's General Plan (see attachment).In making this finding,it implied that structures used for educational purposes,rather than structures used for active recreation like gymnasiums or indoor sports fields,is consistent with the General Plan.Moreover,the City's Development Code for the Open-Space Recreation (OR)zoning district,in which the subject property is designated,states under the development standards (see Section 17.34.050)that "all privately owned land and structures in the open space recreation district"(emphasis added)shall comply with the following: •Minimum Lot Size.No lot shall be created with an area of less than one acre, except that the planning commission may permit a smaller lot or may rezone a smaller lot to the open space recreation district upon finding that such smaller lot will provide for an open area which is to be used by the general public or a group of property owners. •Building Height.Institutional buildings erected in the city shall have a building height not greater than sixteen feet and shall not exceed one story,except with the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission,pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits). •Lot Coverage.Lot area covered by buildings or structures shall not exceed ten (10%)percent of the total lot area. •Parking.Parking spaces for private uses shall be provided as required by the planning commission.Such requirement shall be based on the requirements of this title for uses similar to the proposed use.(For parking area development standards, see Chapter 17.50 (Nonresidential Parking and Loading Standards). Based on the above development standards for the OR zoning district,it too implies that structures are permitted in open space recreation areas.Moreover,the proposed project (both the education building and the outpost building)covers approximately 3%of the total 26.4 acre site and the proposed buildings do not exceed 16-feet in height as measured from existing grade. 5-9 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 In regards to the proposal,the Project does not propose to change the current land use, but rather,proposes to expand the recreational and educational facilities for the public's use.The existing PVIC building will continue to operate as an educational center on marine ecology and the existing grounds will continue to be used for passive recreational use.However,the project proposes to construct an additional educational center on terrestrial animals with an emphasis on companion animals,and expand the passive recreational amenities by constructing additional pedestrian trails and picnic areas that are ADA compliant,and replacing the non-native plants from the site with native plants thus increasing the accessibility and aesthetics of the entire site for all visitors.Additionally,the project proposes to construct outdoor educational exhibits emphasizing the history of the area.The outdoor exhibits would integrate with the educational aspect of the site between the existing PVIC building and the proposed education center.The proposed project involves passive recreational uses,in addition to an education building,making it consistent with this definition.The General Plan also lists examples of passive recreational uses as "nature studies,hiking trails,limited picnicking areas,etc."Trails,areas for nature study and amenities for picnicking are all features of the proposed project.The proposed education center and outdoor exhibits would be a recreational resource similarto the PVIC, and may be seen as an expansion and enhancement of that use.Thus,although new facilities are proposed and the intensity of recreational and educational use on the site would be increased,the overall use itself would not be substantially changed.It should also be noted that the Council adopted Vision Plan,for which the proposed improvements derive from,was prepared "drawing on the philosophical and policy foundation established in the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan ..."(Page 1-1 of the Vision Plan). The Land Use Plan notes the Project's "environmental impacts should be low."(General Plan at p.197.)Mitigation has been recommended in the project EIR to avoid or lessen the potential environmental impacts caused by the proposed project.Additionally,as noted in the Development Code,the proposed Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with specified development standards as previously discussed. In addition to the Land Use Element,the General Plan further identifies requirements for development based on other related elements.As it concludes in the Draft EIR (Section 4.6),the project complies with the following relevant General Plan Policy elements (see October 12,2010 PC Staff Report excerpt): •Natural Environment Element •Socio/Cultural Element •Urban Environment Element For these reasons Staff did not identify a General Plan Amendment application as being necessary for the proposed project when the City Council authorized the Annenberg Foundation to file the appropriate applications for their project in 2008. Therefore,Staff recommends that the City Council affirm that a General Plan Amendment application is not necessary to be processed for the proposed project. The following is an alternative to this recommendation: 5-10 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 1.If the City Council believes that the General Plan's definition for Open Space - Passive land use does not implicitly allow structures,the Council may wish to direct the applicant to apply for a General Plan Text Amendment that would amend the General Plan definition of Passive Recreational use to explicitly allow the improvements on the site based on the existing and proposed improvements.In this case,the General Plan Text Amendment would be processed concurrently with the current planning applications requested by the applicant.If this alternative is pursued,the additional General Plan Text Amendment issue would warrant further environmental consideration,which would likely be re-circulated for public review and comment for a period of at least 30-days. Processing the Planning Applications Based on the foregoing discussion on issues relating to the POU,deed restrictions,and the project's consistency with the General Plan Land Use Designation,Staff is recommending that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to continue processing the requested planning applications for the proposal.Pursuant to the City's Development Code,the Planning Commission's decision on the project applications is final,unless appealed by an interested party to the City Council.Furthermore,since the proposed project is located in the appealable area of the City's Coastal Zone,the City's final decision on the project may be appealed to the Coastal Commission. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Correspondence Received At this time,there have been several public comment letters submitted to the City since the October 12,2010 Planning Commission meeting.These comments are attached to this Staff Report.In the event additional comments are received after the transmittal of this Staff Report,those comments will be provided to the Council as late correspondence atthe November 16 th meeting.The comment letters vary between supporters and critics of the proposed project (primarily relating to the POU,deed restrictions and General Plan consistency). November 16 th Meeting Announcement In order to ensure that the public is aware of tonight's Council meeting,Staff updated the City's website under the Annenberg Project home page with information including the date and location of tonight's meeting,as well as a link to this Staff Report.Additionally,Staff issued announcements to the list-serve subscribers for this project.Lastly,the Planning Commission,in a continuance report for its November 9 th meeting,was also informed of this meeting. City Council Sub-Committee In preparation for tonight's meeting,Staff conducted a conference call with Councilman 5-11 ANNENBERG PROJECT AT LOWER POINT VICENTE CITY COUNCIL MEMO -NOVEMBER 16,2010 Campbell and Councilman Stern,sub-committee members for the Annenberg project,to update them on the project and review the points of discussion in this Staff Report. Planning Commission Chairman's Attendance At the request of the Mayor,Staff has confirmed that Chairman Gerstner will attend the November 16 th Council meeting to answer any questions the Council may have on the Commission's reaction to the issues being addressed tonight that were originally raised at the Commission's October 1ih meeting. December 14,2010 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission is scheduled to continue its review of the requested planning applications at its upcoming December 14,2010 meeting.As requested by the Commission,Staff will provide the Commission with a report on the Council's direction from tonight's meeting. Final EIR The City and the City's environmental consultant (Rincon)continue to work on completing the Final EIR for public release in the near future.The Final EIR will include responses to comments (both written and verbal comments)received on the Draft EIR,as well as an errata to the Draft EIR for changes or updates to the document that are deemed necessary based on the public comments submitted. ATTACHMENTS: •1978 Quit Claim Deed o Program of Utilization (Exhibit C) •1979 Lease Agreement between the City and the County •1981 Lease Agreement Amendment between the City and the County •October 10,1996 City Letter to the NPS on the PVIC Expansion •October 30,1996 NPS PVIC Expansion Support Letter •October 31,1996 CDPR PVIC Expansion Support Letter •P.C.Resolution No.98-30 PVIC Expansion Project •2003 Quit Claim Deed to the City of RPV from the County of L.A. •September 2,2008 City Council Staff Report •August 17,2010 OGALS Letter •September 15,2010 NPS Letter on the Draft EIR •October 8,2010 NPS Letter on October 12,2010 PC Staff Report •October 26,2010 OGALS Letter •Public Comment Letters 5-12 United States Department of the Interior NA'nONALPARK SERVICE Pacific West Field A~ Pacific Greal Basin System Suppa"Office 600 Harrison Street.SUite 600 San Frtneisoo.California 94107-J 372 ~.,JlErU R.EFf"R TO 2400 (PGSO-PP) October 30,1996 Mr,Ron Rosenfeld,Director Recreation and Parks city of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 Dear Mr.Rosenfeld: This is in response to your letter dated October 10,1996, requesting National Park Service approval for the proposed expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center,located on a portion of the former Federal property:L.A.D.A.Nike site 55, Point Vicente,GSA No.D-Calif-l088,conveyed to the County of Los Angeles on August 25,1978,and sUbsequently leased to Rancho Palos Verdes for public park and recreation purposes. Based on the description of the project in your letter and attached conceptual plans showing a 6,824 square foot addition to the existing interpretive building,the proposal does not violate the terms of transfer or other program policies and requirements. Therefore,we have no objections to the proposal as submitted. It appears the primary purpose of the facility will not be compromised and recreational and educational opportunities at the. site will be appropriately expanded and enhanced.with a low profile design and architectural compatibility with the existing structure,the proposed expansion should not have an adverse im act on the well recognized aesthetic qualities of the site. ~--since construction of the original interpretive center was assisted by a $675,000 grant from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund,administered by the NPS through the California Department of Parks and Recreation,we have consulted with their grants staff to ensure the expansion proposal is in compliance with the terms of the grant.The State grants staff has reviewed the proposal and also has no objections.You will be receiving a letter from the State to that affect. We appreciate the City's continuing cooperation in this matter and look forward to the successful completion of this worthy project.Please see that we receive a copy of the final site and design plans for our files. 5-13 Sincerely, Pete Sly,nager Federal nds to Parks Program Pacific Great Basin System support Office 5-14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O.BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO 94296-{)001 (916)653-8893 October 31,1996 Ron Rosenfeld Recreation Administrator City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90274 Dear Mr.Rosenfeld: Point Vincente Park,LWCF No.06-00792 The National Park Service has reviewed your October 10,1996 letter and found that the proposal to expand the visitor center at Point Vincente Park is consistent with 1and ana Water cgps@ryation Fund Program guidelines.A copy of the etter 1.S enclosed for your records.You w1.ll also note that you will be receiving a separate letter from the Service confirming the consistency of your proposal with the Federal Surplus Property Program. Together,these letters should serve to satisfy the application requirements of the County I s 1992 Safe Neighborhood and Park Bond Act.If further information is needed I can be reached at the above number. Sincerely, Keith M.Steinhart Project Officer Enclosure 5-15 r:e.Cl5{et:i'1.y;,''s,outh- 1:nwi:!$'ter-1,Y' ;cer,taJn r:o$-'aitl'first :rn,en,.;<;er'ta:inparcelQ'f:...,,'.i ...!Miiph'easteriY a:JQ~atd\\liortheasterlyboundary .tothe point-ofbegjnlii:ng~"'..,............" T~;;~:~~~:.a#.d:W'HoJd"the heteii1b~'lf~re'fl$ttj~~~··B~PP.'~¢y~supjact to tne, ~$r.,¥~ti;dn~..'exri:ept'folls ~restriotj1J}js/coiiqitlo,1:l$,'and .:covena'O:tS herein ~xpteS$M and set forth unto the.Grafi'!;ee •"it5successOl"S:aile};assi grls,;forever,_'.'' , ATTACHMENT - 1 The hereinbefore described property is granted by the Grantor to the Grantee subject to any and all outstanding easements for streets,utility systems, rights~of-way,railroads,pipel'lnes,and/or covenants,restrictions.reservations. conditions.and agreements of record which now exist affecting the foregoing descr;bed premises. The Grantor expressly excepts and reserves all oil.gas.and mineral rights and deposits in said land to the Grantor or to such persort(s)as may be authorized by the Grantor to prospect,mine,and r~ove such deposits from the hereinbefore described property under applicable lans. Pursuant to authority contained in the Federal Property and Administrative SerVices Act of 1949.as amended.and applicable rUles,regUlations and orders promUlgated thereunder,the General Services Administration determined the property to be surplus to the needs of the United States of America and assigned the property to the Departnlent of the Interior for conveyance to the Grantee. It is Agreed and Understood bY and between the Grantor and Grantee.and the Grantee by its acceptance of this deed.does acknowledge its understanding of the agreement.and does covenant and agree for itself.and its successors and assigns,forever.as follows: 1.This property shall be used and maintained for the pUblic purposes for which it was conveyed in perpetUity as set forth in the progra.il of uti1izatiqn and plan centained in the application.submitted by the Grantee on February 27. 1976 Which program and plan may be alilended frbm time to time at the request of either the Grantor 0'1"Grantee.with the written concurrence of the other party.and SUCh amendme.nts Will be added to ~nd become a p&rt of the original applicatiOn. 2.The Grantee shall.within 6 months o·f the date of the deed of conveyance.erect and maintain a permanent sign or marker neall'"the point of principal access to the conveyed area indicating that the property is a park or recre~tion area and has been acqUired frOil!the Federal Gove','nment for use ~y the ger&(al ·public. 3~.l"heproperty shan not besold,l~ased.assigned~or otherwise c!isposed Of except toa,nqtheJO",e1'igible goverllffi8l'ltal agencY that t.Jte Secretary of f;he Intef'ior agrees in writi~g ;anassure the continued use and maintenance of the property for pUblic park or pUblic recreational purposes subject to the same terms and conditions in the original instrument of conv~yance. However p nothing in this proVision shall preclUde the Grantee from provid1ng related recreational facilities and serVices compatible with the approved application.through concession agreements entered into with third parties. provided prior concurrence to such agreements.is obtained in writing from the Secretary of the Interior. 4.From the date of this conveyance,the Grantee,its successors and assigns.shall submit biennia.l reports to the Secretary of the Interior,setting forth the use made of the property during the preceding two-year periOd.and other pertinent data establishing its continuous use for the purp0l:.es set forth above.for 10 consecutiVe reports and as further determined by the Secretary Of the Interior.' 78-1G11982 2 ATTACHMENT - 2 5"If at any time the Grantor shall determine that the premises herein conveyed.or any part thereof.are needed for the national defense.all right,title and interest in and to said premises,or part thereof determined to be necessary to said nattona1 defense,shall revert to and become the property of the Grantor. 6.As part of the consideration for this Deed,the Grantee covenants and agrees for itself,its successon and ~ssigns.that:(1)the program for or in co nne,~ion with which this Deed is made win be conducted in COli 1liance with,and the Grantee.its successors and assign':.will comply with all requirements imposed by or pursua ·t to the regulations of the Departlllent of the Interior .:~in effect on the date of this Deed (43 C.F.R.Part 1i.issued under the provisions of Title VI of the Civi.l Rights Act of 1964;(2)thisco.venantshall be subject in all respects to the provisions of said regulations;(3)the Grantee.its successors and assigns.wi 11 promptly take and continue to take such action as may be necessary to effect~ate this covenant;(~'~he United States shall have the right to seek judicial eni..ment of this covenant.(5)the Gtantee.its successors and assigns,will (a)obtain from each other person (any legal entii:Y)wbo.tbrough contractual or other arrangements with t~e GtanMe"its successors or assigns •.is authorized to provide s~rvjces or benefits under said program, a written agreement pursl~nt to which such other person shall. with respect to the services or h$nefits which he is authorized to provide.undertake for hims.elf the same obligations as those imposed upon the Grantee,its successors lind assigns, by this covenant,and (b)fur-nish a copy of SUch agreement to the Secretary of the Interior.,or bis SUcCessor;(6)this covenant Sllall run with the lima hereby conveyed.,and shall in any even.t.w;th.out ref;lar.dto teCh.n.ical.ClaSSi.fl."Cation or designation.le9il.l or otherwise,be bi!lding to the fullest extent peT'lllitted ~y law and equity for the benefit of,and in favor of the Grantor and earf0rceable by the Grantor agClinst the Grantee.its successol"Sand assigns;.and (7)the Grantor expressly reserves a right of aCCE!$S to and entrance upon.the ahov!!described property.in order to determi'ne compliance with the te\"l1ls of this conVeyancE!. 7.In the event that thet's is a breaGl1 of any of the conditions and covenants herein.contained by the Gr-antee. its successors and assigns,whether caused by the lE!$al or other inabil ity of tl1e.Grantee.its successors and assigns.to perform said cortditionsand.covenahts.or otherwise.all right,title and interest iii and to the said premises shail reveM:to and become the property of the Grantor at its option which in addition to all other remedies for such breach shan have the right of entry upon said premises,and the Srantee,its successors and assigns.shall TorfeHali right.title and interest in said premises and in any and all of the tenements. hereditaW-2nts and appurtenances thereunto belonging; provided,however,that the failure of the Secl"etary of the Department of the Interior to require in any one or more instances complete perfo\"l1l!ince of any of the conditions or covenants shaTl not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of such future performance.but the obligation of the Grantee.its successors and assigns. with respect to such future performance shall continue in full force and effect; 78-1611982 3 f}, ) ATTACHMENT - 3 Lt- 1 ss. COUNTY OF SkN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 78-t<t11982 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTA.t,\/CE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed or grant to the County of Los Angeles,a governmental agency,is hereby accepted under authority of a resolution.adopted by the Board of Supervisors of said County on July 27,1965,and the Grantee con- sents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorize:d officer. Dated '-..1"2..~7z ------.--- By.!""'"---:::__~_~ PH:J:L A.J?'EmfiNGJ.l!OH AC2ING DE.P1:J:rY DJ:REaTO:a C~ENGIJ.'f.EBR-FA.OILITIES 5 On this 14th day of July,1978,before me,Faye Gaines a Notary Public in and for the City and County of San francisco,State of California,personally appeared Frank E.Sylvester,known to me to be the Regional Director,Pacific Southwest Recion,Heritage Conservation and Recreation SerVice,of the United States Department of the Interior,San Francisco,California,and acknoWledged that he executed the within instrument on behalf of tlJe United States of America,acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior. My Commission Tne foregoing conveyance is hereby accepted and the undersigned agrees,by this acceptance,to assure and be bound by all the obligations,conditions,convenants and agreements therein contained. .1.41 "....."""... ATTACHMENT - 4 ... ,'. 8.In the event of reversion of title.the Grantee shall be required to provide protection and maintenance for the property until such time as the title reverts to tile Grantor. including the period of any notice of intent to revert. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed in its name and on its behalf this the 14th day of July.1978. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior DESCR'.;'Tl()N &.~EClJT!!lJl APPROVED AUG .:,!JIB Si£PllEN 1.KOONCE.cot~TY ENGINEER BtW~DEPUlY 78-1G11982 4 ( ATTACHMENT - 5 \ \ \, __-=j"f-I=JL 6&.l~'-,.",,,' "p ..- ~ _1,1 \I •• I VICIAllrY'IV!AP o ~ws:, M I ~65 bENERAt.O£llEL.OPM£NT SECTION V.C. ...........'It'" It!!e pro VICENTe RIFle RAI../StFpeVEWP/4ENT ~6':,q I do.er-eJ ATTACHMENT - 6 EXHIBIT"C" PROGRAM OF UTIUZATION Development of the rifle range portion ofthe surplus Nike site will provide for passive recreation pursuits closely oriented to the attributes ofthe Pacific Ocean and will accommodate indMduals as well as groups. DEMOLmON OF EXISTING STRUCTURES The target mound will be leveled and existing structures demolished to eliminate any tendency for the continuance oftarget shooting. GRADING The area accommodated by the range itself,will be graded to provide a rolling landscape appearance.It is estimated that approximately 12,500 cu.yds.of earth will need to be moved in the completion of this element IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING An automatic Irrigation system will be installed to permit the establishment of a lawn surface with grouped planting of shrubs.Every effort will be made to use Indigenous plant material and to keep plant profiles low so that they provide spatial definition and do not reduce visibility. SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING LOT A gravel parking lot will be constructed just westerly ofthe existing chain-link entrance gate to the rifle range area.This lot will accommodate 40 additional cars and supplement the existing paved 25-car lot outside of the fence.Access to this lot will be provided from an existing paved road. PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK To ease pedestrian access from Hawthorne boulevard to the site,a sidewalk will be provided along Palos Verdes Drive to the rifle range entrance. BEACH ACCESS STAIRWAY To provide public access to the tidepools below the 125 foot blUff,an unobtrusive stairway will be constructed at a suitable location.This stairway will be of wood,steel or concrete construction and will not acquire extensive environmental damage.This element will not be considered in Initial development phases so that time will be allotted for the environmental Impact assessment of actual site operation as well as for study into the impacts of providing access to the bountiful tidepools below. SAFETY FENCING Safety fencing along the tope of the bluff will be placed to encourage visitor safety by providing a barrier. The fencing will be made with wood construction or of other earthen material to provide an aesthetically pleasing element in the landscape.It will not conflict with views from the site. EXHIBIT"C" ATTACHMENT - 7 RESTROOM A permanent restroom facility will be eventually provided on the subject property,to be located near the 40- car parking lot During early stages of development,portable restrooms (2-4)will be placed on the site for public use. INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURE A structure will be located on the most seaward promontory ofthe site which will house information on atbibutes of the site and the marine environment.It will take the form of a wooden picnic shelter and will have display cases at a central location relating to Interesting facts.It will have a low profile.Information which might be offered at the structure could relltted to biological species found at the site,ecologic phenomena of the Palos Verdes area,Catalina Island,cetacean activities along the coastline,or similar activities. PICNIC FACILmES Picnic tables,drinking water and security lighting will be provided throughout the landscaped area above the bluff,providing excellent day use possibilities. ROAD SYSTEM Certain necessary improvementswill be made to existing access roads serving the property.Roads beyond the 4O-car parking lot will be opened only for service and emergency vehicles. EXHIBIT"C" ATTACHMENT - 8 This is a JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT entered into this __---::1..:7~.t""h~__day of __~JL!u,L,l!,.;vl:.-)19'79 by \.. , and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY 'I ,and the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,herein- .after referred to as nCITY". WHEREAS,COUNTY has received a quitclaim deed from the United States of A..merica for the property commonly known ~s POINT VICENTE BEACH PARK (LOWER NIKE BASE)>a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A";and, WHEREAS,said deed requires that the property be devoted for perpetual use for public park and public recreation purposes by COUNTY and its successors and ~ssignees;and, .~REAS,the deed permits leases to other governmental agencies in order to provide for park and recreation opportun- itie.s; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.COUNTY hereby leases to CITY,for a period of fifty (50)years,the property described in Exhibit liB",a copy of which is attached hereto. 2.In consideration for said lease,CITY agrees to develop,maintain and operate said property during the period .t; of said lease and during any renewals thereof for public park and recreation purposes for the benefit and use of the general public. 3.CITY covenants and agrees to be subject to all conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"and recognizes the rights rese.rved by the United States Government in the property herein Ie ·sed. ., 4.The period of said lease shall be fo·r fifty (50) years from the date of execution by1both parties herein provided for with the right of CITY to renew said lease for additi-'al, periods of fifty (50)years,if mutually agreeable by CITY and COUNTY. ATTACHMENT - 9 " ~ t 5.CITY agrees to develop,operate and maintain the property in accordance with the Program for Utilization pre- pared by COUNTY,as amended by CITY,attached hereto and marked Exhibit IIC Il ,subject to the right by CITY to amend the Program with the review of County's Director of Beaches and subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior., 6.crTt hereby waives all claims and recourse against COUNTY,including the right to contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising from,growing out of,or in any way connected with or incident tpthis agreement.except claims arising from the concurrent or sale negligence of.COUNTY,its officers,agents and employees.. CITY shall,to the extent it may legally do so and subject to the availability of funds,indemnify,hold harmless. and defend COUNTY,its officers,agents and employees against any and all claims,demands,damages,costs;expenses Or liabi1it costs arising out of t.he acquisition,development,construction, operation or maintenance of the property described herein, which clai.ms,demands or causes of action arise under Government Code Seotion 895.2 or otherwise,except for liability arising out of the concurrent or sale negligence of COUNTY,its officerst agents or employees. In the event COUNTY is named as co-defendant under the provisions of the Government Code Sectiqns 895,et seq.,CITY shall notify COUNTY of such fact and shall represent COUNTY in such legal action,unless COUNTY undertakes to represent itself as co-defendant in such legal action,in,which event COUNTY shalr'bear its own litigation costs,expenses ,and attorney's fees. In the event judgment is entered against COUNTY and CITY because of the concurrent negligence of COUNTY and CITY,their o££.:tce.rs..,.o&ge~(:s -as:'~lnyee'lS,an appo:L1:ionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be made by a court.of competent juris- diction.Neither party shall request a jury apportionment. -2- ATTACHMENT - 10 (( 7.Th~s lease may be terminated by CIT~for any upon one (1)year's written notice to COUNTY.In the event of termination.all improvements.furniture and fixtures installed by CITY shall remain the property of CITY •• CITY shall have ninety days after the termination of this lease to remove all furniturt;fixtures and improvements. Failure to remove said it:ms within ninety (90)days of the lease termination shall cause the title thereto to pass to COUNTY. 8.In the event there is a breach of any of the conditions of this lease by CITY or breach of any of the conditions and covenants contained in the said quitclaim deed (Exhibit JlA"). by the CITY,the COIJNTY~in addition to all other remedies which it:may have,shall have the right:to enter upon said premises and to term~nate said lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the partie~hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers the day and year hereinafte·r set forth. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES BY~~ MAYOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ~'i~:or,~I/l I,~.~.'.f.....0·.'.~ ;,' ,':I ,., f. Counsel -3- 82 ADOPTED OOA~D Of SUPERVISOI'S COUNTY Of lOS ANG[L(S JUL 171979 ?I)--~,- rt.i-'ts S...IH b«t.t;."t an-,eu ATTACHMENT - 11 ,. t' UJ:.rI.--B£ACHES-tt ...···~"- lint.i ACt Aspt.DII.~ltlKJ t, ~ "~~,~~,~~~..;l~::'-:!:~~~..' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 383 H ....L.I,.Ol"ADMINIS,R""iTION I 1.0S ANGE:"'ES.CAL.I.FORI'IIA ~OCl12 JAMES S.MIZ~EXECUTIVE OFFICER RICHARD A.SCHOENI,ASST.EXEC.OFFiCeR (213)974·1411 ~:/ I"'/lDftIIinlr -v.......-.... !'£TEl'f.SCtlAaAAU'" KEftNliTtl 1tA1Itt EOMVItO D.EOEl».ut YVONNE Ill1AlliWAITE BUIIKE BAXTER w.liAO August 8,J.979 l~r.Leonard G.Wood,.Ci ty Manager . City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne 90ulevard Rancho PaJ.os Verdes,CaJ.ifornia 90274 Dear Mr.W'ood. RECEIVED AUG 14 1979 ~I CITY OF.At-..f1 !.Jo 1>4'0;(\_ .-.,)VERDES At the Board of Supervisors'meeting held July 17,~979, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement leasing the Pt.Vicente rifle rang-eto the City of Rancho PaJ.os Verdes was adopted,as detailed in .the attached .. Very truly yours, ~~~.MI~d Attachment ATTACHMENT - 12 ·//~'t,.'f.... ,{ I MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA James S.Mile.Executive Officer* Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 383 Hall of Administration los Angeles,California 90012 82 On motion of Supervisor :au.i:'ke,seconded by Superrl.sor Edelman,unan.imot1:sJ.y carri.ed (Supervisors Schabarum and Hahn being absent),the Board adopted a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement,which has been approved to form by Coullty Counsel and which leases to-the City for fifty (SO) years the rifle rangesite.l'he Board further authorized the Director of Beaches to request 'the State Department 'of Parks and Recreation to transfer those funds a110cated to Surfrider State Beach ($71.,400)and Wi1.l.Rogers state Beach ($~4l,000)to the Point Vicente Project•. In her presentation,Supervisor Burke stated that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to enter into a Joint Exercise o.f Powe:rs Agreement so i,t can develop an ocean vista park on the former Pt.Vicente rifle site in that city.The Sup.ervisor pointe.dout that the 1.and is presently under the stewardship of the ):,os Angeles County Department of Beaches_ Supervisor Burke added that because of the lack of County funds,the depart.tnettt:has been unable to proceed with development of th$s site and that the Department of Beaches I recommends thej oint:partnership as a means of providing for 'more immediate developmellt of this historic and scenic point.Supervisor Burke pointed out that since the City is willing to invest approximately $594,000 along \"ith an expectec $780,000 in grant money from the Federal government,the Coullty pledge of approximate1.y $222,400 of State bond money is a good investment for.this park development. ATTACHMENT - 13 ·~, :.,'II '!').:• •.•••:I'J 1 A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS .AGREEMENT AHENDHENT This is an .Amendment mad ..this 19th day of M_a..:Y'--1981 of that certain Joint Exercise of Pototers Agreement dated 17 July 1979 between the County of Los Angeles ("County").a body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of California,and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Cityl'),.a municipal corporation. WIT N E SSE T Hz-----_.__._- WHEREAS.County did,pursuant co the aforesaid agreement.lea.se certain property to City for develop- ment:.maintenance and operacion as a public park.to be known as POinti,Vill1en·U~>'Beach'Park~ WHEREAS)County has an al.location of $212.400---.-;from the 1976 State Urban and Coastal Park BoxlcJ.Act Fund which County wishes to be transferred to City for the development of said park; WHEREAS.the State of California is willing thnt said funds be used for the development of said park uPQn the County's signifying its approval for said use and making th!a eertification.s and appointment .set forth in that eeL'tain resolution entitled "Resolution of the Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles Approving the Use of 1976 Parkland Bond Ace Funds By the City of Rancho Plllos Verdes'"attached hereto <1$ Exhibit IJA"; \~REAS,in order to effectuate said fund use che St::occ of California will require the City and its City Manager to execute Project Agreement in form as set forth in Exhibit:"U",accachl.:U hereto; ATTACHMENT - 14 NOW TI-lEREFORE IT IS AGREED: 1)That:in consideration of County IS authorizing the use of said Park Bond Act:funds for the development of Point Vicente Beach Park and adopting the R.esolution attached hereto as Exhibit "A",t:he City does covenant and agree as follows: (a)That sa:Ld funds will be used by City for development of said park in accordance with Section 5 of the agreement being hereby amended; (b)That City will indemnify, hold hnrmlcss nnd de,Eend County.its officers, agents and emploY(.\les against any and all claims,demands,damages,costs.expenses or liability to the State of California on account of the receipt,use and disbursement of said funds and res\.1lting from City's breach,if any,of the Project Agreement attached hereto as EXhibit "Bit orehe City's failure,if any,to comply with the agreementS. covenants and conditions set:forth in said Project Agreement. 2)All other terms and condicions of said agreement dated 17 JUly 1979 shall be and remain the same. IN WITNESS l4HEREOF the County and C~ty have caused this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Amendment: to be executed by their duly authorized officers the day nnd y~ar hereinafter sec forth. ...-.._---.. E ~l-2 _;-""_,,"_._0,;,,:_,- -----:-....::.:.._--::.:...-.........;..-.......:.-,--;.....;;.;.;...:.' '\r "A" ATTACHMENT - 15 CrTY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNtY OF LOS ANGELES 1 hereby attest t:bat the County o[Los Angeles executed the above Agree!~t:On the 'lib.day ofill&n1:l ,1981- .,Jilrnes S.Mize,Executive Officcr- Cled<o fcc It e Board of Supervisors John H.Larson,County Counsel B ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUKlY Of LOS AH.GaES 8 JUN 9 1981 -3- ATTACHMENT - 16 Marilyn Lyon·Mayor John C.McTaggart -Mayor Pro Tem Lee Byrd -Councilman Barbara Ferraro -Councilwoman Tom Holllngsworth -Councilman October 10,1996 Mr.Pete Sly Manager Federal Lands to Parks Program Pacific Great Basin System Support Office United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 600 Harrison Street,Suite 600 San Francisco,CA 94107-1372 Subject:Endorsement of Conceptual Design for the Proposed Expansion of Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Dear Mr.Sly: With the passage of the 199.2 Safe Neighborhood and Park Bond Act,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes became eligible for funds for SpeCific Projects.An expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center has been identified as an eligible project for use of these funds. The Center,which is located on County land leased to the City in 1979 for a fifty year term,was originally developed with funding from Federal,State and County grants,as well as City monies.To receive the Bond Act funds for the expansion project,the City must submit a.grant application to the agency administering the funds,the Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District,in the very near future.The absolute deadline for completing all requirements to obtain these funds is June 30,1998.As part of the application process,it is required that the City receive approval for the project from each agency involved in the original development.Since your agency was one of the participants,we are submitting the following information,as well as conceptual designs, for your endorsement. At the time of the development of the Center,it was assumed that the primary users of the facility would be residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the South Bay,their 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard I Rancho Pa.!.0s Ve~des:...CA 9?2!~-53911 (310)377·0360 I FAX (310)377-9868 ATTACHMENT - 17 guests,and casual drop~in sightseers from other California areas.In addition,it has become a destination for international visitors and tourists from throughout the United States.Since it is a prime spot for viewing the Pacific Gray Whale migration,it also has become very popular during this five month period,and year round,it is the perfect location to view the sunset.The picnic facilities,paths and lawn areas are heavily used throughout the year,and are even more crowded during the migration period. The Center is a unique site,offering both recreational and educational opportunities. With the closure of the nearby Marineland in 1987,the Center also became the primary destination on the Peninsula for field trips,accommodating large numbers of both inner-city and area schools and groups.For some of these groups,it is their first exposure to the natural and marine life of the area,and many are surprised to learn that the Peninsula was once under water,that Indians were native to this region,and that wildlife still inhabits the area.They are fascinated with the fossils and other exhibits in the Interpretive Center,and the fact that it aU originated or pertains to this local area. Since the Center's inception,the City has been fortunate that a large number of local residents have volunteered to participate as members of the Los Serenos de Point Vicente Docent Program.Approximately 180 have been trained to date.Graduates of the twice a year,four month long classes lead tours and individual visitors through the Center and on the outdoor trails,interpreting the areas'natural,cultural,and geological history.In addition,the docents are well versed in marine life and the Pacific Gray Whale's annual migration,Which can be easily viewed from the Center's small terrace and cliffside.The members of this volunteer organi:z:ationare very active;among other things,they plan and execute an annual "Whale of a Day"outdoor celebration which attracts nearly 5,000 visitors,anannual"Poetry by the Seali event;and recently inaugurated a on ce..,a-month ,outdoor,story time for children of all ages,inviting families to bring a picnic and participate. In the past,the City investigated thepossibiHty of an expansion at the Interpretive Center,however,those plans never came to fruition.Now that funding is available,the City is again interested in expanding this facility.Conceptual plans have been prepared and it is now proposed that the existing building be used for exhibit space only,that the expans.ion accommodate additional exhibit space and that the oceanside multipurpose room house changing exhibits.This multipurpose room would also be used as meeting space for school children and the docent program,and would be made available to area residents and organizations,both during and after regularly scheduled operating hours.Also anticipated to be included in the expansion would be an additional multipurpose room which could be divided into three sections for multiple, simultaneous uses;two offices,one for the facility's supervisor/staff and the other for the docent volunteers and their trainer/museum curator;a small gift shop,a visitor control area,additional restrooms,kitchen,storage,and an oceanside terrace which could accommodate visitors during the busy whale migration period.An amphitheater on the oceanside of the facility,additional paths/trails,interpretive signage, ATTACHMENT - 18 landscaping,picnic/play area,and additional parking for approximately 120 cars are' also included in the conceptual plan. It is intended that the expansion be compatible in architectural design to the existIng building,with the same low profile and exterior treatment. The City is hoping for a favorable endorsement at your earliest convenience.Should you have any questions after reviewing the attached documents and this written material,please feel free to call for clarification. Sincerely, Ron Rosenfeld,Director Recreation and Parks (310)541-4566 :attachments ATTACHMENT - 19 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVlCE Pacific West Field Area Pacific Great Basin System Support Office 600 Harrison s~Suite 60() San Ft'IlIlCisco.California 94107·1372 !.~REPLY REFER TO 2400 (PGSO-PP) October 30,1996 Mr.Ron Ro·senfeld,Director Recreation and Parks City of Rancbo palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275-5391 Dear Mr.Rosenfeld: 'l'his is in response to your letter dated october 10,1996, requesting National Park Service approval for the proposed expansion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center,located on a portion of the fQrmer Federal property:L.A.D.A.Nike site 55, Point Vicente,GSA No.D-calif-10S8,co.nveyed to the County of Los Angeles on August 25,1918,ancl subsequently leased to Rancho Palos Verdes for pUblic park and recreation purposes. Based on the description of the project in your letter and attached conceptual plans showing a 6,824 square foot addition to the existing interpretive building,the proposal does not viol.ate the terms of tranSfer or other program policies and reqUirements. Therefore,we have no Objections to the proposal as submitted. It appears the primary purpose of the facility will not be compromised and recreational and educational opportunities at the, site will be appropriately expanded and enhanced.with a low profile design and architectural compatibility with the existing structure,the proposed expansion should not have an adverse impact on the well recognized aesthetic qualities of the site. Since construction of the ori9inal inte.rpretive center was assisted by a $615,000 grant from the Federal Land and water Conservation Fund,administered by the NPS through the California Department of Parks and Recreation,we have consulted with their grants staff to ensure the expansion proposal is in compliance with the terms of the grant.The State grants staff has reviewed the proposal and also has no objections.You will be receiving a letter from the state to that affect. We appreciate the City's continuing cooperation in this matter and look forward to the successful completion of this worthy project.Please see that we receive a copy of the final site and design plans for our files. ATTACHMENT - 20 Sincerely, Pete Sly, Federal nds to Parks Program Pacific Great Basin System Support Office ATTACHMENT - 21 STATE OF CAl,lFORNIA -nu:.RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O.BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO 94296-0001 (916)653-8893 October 31,1996 Ron Rosenfeld Recreation Administrator City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90274 Dear Mr.Rosenfeld: Point vincente Park.LWCF No.06-00792 The National Park Service has reviewed your October 10,1996 letter and found that the proposal to expand the visitor center at Point Vincente Park is consistent with Land and Water conservation Fund Program guidelines.A copy of the letter is enclosed for your records.You will also note that you will be receiving a separate letter from the Service con.firming the consistency of your proposal with the Federal Surplus Property Program. Together,these letters should serve to satisfY the application requirements of the County IS 1992 Safe Neighborhood and Park Bond Act.If further information is needed I can be reached at the above number. Sincerely, Keith M.steinhart Project Officer Enclosure ATTACHMENT - 22 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.98~30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.200,COASTAL PERMIT NO. 143,AND GRADING PERMIT NO.1993,FOR.A 7,437 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER INCLUDING OTHER SITE AMENITIES LOCATED AT 31501 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST WHEREAS,on October 9,1997,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No.200,Coastal Permit No.143,and Grading Permit No. 1993,to allow the construction of a 7,437 square foot addition to the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center,an outdoor amphitheater,teaching terraces,walls and fences.139 new parking spaces.driveways,new landscaping,and other amenities to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Site located at 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA").the State's CEQA Guidelines.California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City'S Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement).a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project has been submitted and adopted as found in P.C. Resolution No.98-29;and, WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 8,1998,at which time aU interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because the total lot coverage,which includes the existing and proposed portions of the interpretive center structures,terraces,and amphitheater area makes up only 1.3%of the total site area,and is therefore consistent with the lot coverage requirements of the Open Space Recreation district standards which require that the total lot coverage of all buildings and structures not exceed 10%of the total lot area.Additionally,although the Open Space Recreation district does not establish any required setbacks for buildings,the proposed project will be located well away from other surrounding land uses and Palos Verdes Drive West. Additionally,the owner is also proposing various aesthetic improvements to the site that will also be compatible with the existing Interpretive Center. Section 2:That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use as the traffic study prepared for the project concluded that although the project will generate sOJ1le additional traffic to the area ATTACHMENT - 23 roadway system,the amount of additional traffic will be insignificant and can be handled adequately by the existing roadway system. Section 3:That,in approving the subject use at the specific location,there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because given the central location of the proposed structure,large distance between the structure and adjacent properties,and relatively quite use of the facility by visitors,the only potential issue effecting adjacent properties would be the proposed request for an increase in buIlding height and how that request may effect views from adjacent properties.However,since a majority of the proposed structure would be constructed at a slightly I.ower height than the existing structure,only a small portion would exceed the height of the existing structure,and the proposed addition will be relatively insignificant as viewed from neighboring uses that are well over 500'away from the proposed addition as their primary view is more directly west than towards the south over the site, there will be no significant impairment to existing views. Section 4:That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan,as the proposed interpretive center addition is consistent with the uses permitted within the Open Space Recreational zoning district and is therefore consistent with the Zoning Gode and the Recreational/Passive land use designation of the General Plan. Section 5:That,the proposed project is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Natural,Socio/Cultural,and Urban Overlay Control Districts. Section 6:That conditions necessary to protect the health,safety and general welfare, have been imposed as the proposed project has been designed and conditioned through this Resolution and the mitigation measures defined within the Mitigated Negative Declaration so that the proposed project will not cause an impact to the health,safety and general welfare of the site nor surrounding area residents.For example;the proposed project is setback a great distance from the property lines,therefore reducing any impacts to neighboring lots,the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)requires that exterior lighting be low intensity and directed downward, and potential noise and air quality impacts resulting from the construction activities have been mitigated through the MMP. Section 7:That the proposed development is in conformance with the coastal specific plan as the project site is located Within Subregion 2 of the Coastal Specific Plan,and in reference to Subregion 2,the Specific Plan indicates,''This SUbregion'S character is that of an affractor/generator to the vast majority of the populace whioh resides outside the Peninsula" (Page S2-5).The proposed project is in conformance with this statement as the proposed project will improve the existing "attractor/generator"use of the existing interpretive center and provide a resource for those persons residing on and off of the peninsula.Additionally,the project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan policy to "Facilitate justifiable coastal-dependent development in a manner that is compatible with he City and surroundings,while allOWing a positive utilization of coastal resources"(Page U-18),as the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the existing surroundings at the subject site,and consistent with the policy that indicates,"Provide mitigating measures where possible to control surface runoff that might p.e.Resolution No.98-30 Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 24 be degrading to the natural environment"(Page N-46),as the proposed project includes the installation of a new drainage system that will focus the on-site drainage into one system instead of allowing the drainage to flow freely over the bluff edge,where it currently erodes the bluff face and causes damage to the marine environment as a result of the urban type pollutants associated with the run-off. Secti.on 8:That the proposed development,which is located between the sea and the first public road,is in conformance with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act as the proposed project only involves the construction of an addition to an existing structure and other site improvements and will not impede any existing trails or access points,but instead will actually allow for greater public use and access of the site €IS additional parking spaces are being constructed. Section 9:The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot,as defined in Section 17.96 of this title because given the large site, focused grading areas,and purpose of the propc>sed project,the proposed project grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Section 10:The grading and/or related construction does not Significantly adversely affect the visual relationships.with,nor the views from,neighboring properties because although a small portion onhe proposed structure will protrude into a very small portion of existing views of the ocean,the impairment is so slight given the distance between the proposed structure and neighboring uses that the proposed grading does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships With,nor the views from,neighboring properties. Section 11:The natL/re of the grading minimizes distUrbance to the natural contours,and finished contours are reasonably natural because the proposed contours Will still maintain the general configuration and sloping character of the natural contours between Palos Verdes Drive West and the Bluff face. Section 12:The grading takes intoaccoL/nt the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land SCUlptUring so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography because,although the proposed project will change the existing natural contours to create a level building pad and parking lot,the proposed man made slopes adjacent to the proposed addition,at the sides of the parking lotancfwithin the parking lot will blend into the natural topography which is in the form of small gently sloping hills. Section 13:The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside because although the proposed project does not include any new streets,it does include a parking area and service driveway;both of which blend into the natural contours and character of the existing site. Section 14:The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because as identified in the P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 3 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 25 biological analysis,the subject construction sites do not contain any sensitive plant or wildlife habitat. Section 15:The Grading conforms to all of the standards within Development Code Section 17.76.040E except for "8b.No finished slopes greater than thirty-five percent shall be created,except at the point of vehicular access adjacent to driveway,as per subsection (E)(8)(f) of this section",and "8c.Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar,a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the director or the Planning Commission determines that unusual topography,soil conditions,previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonabfeand necessary". The proposed project deviates from standard (b)because there are some slopes that will be created that are 2:1 or 50%,and deviates from standard (c)because the project will have areas where the depth of a fill or cut exceeds five feet.However,these deviations are permitted because a.criteria of No's.1 through 7 have been met;and b.The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section (17.76..040);and c.The departure fromthe standards in criteria No.8 do not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limItations upon other properties in the vicinity;and d.The departure from the standards of criteria NO.8 are not be detrimental to the pUblic safety nor to other property. Section 16:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decisIon may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.56.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing,and with the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following September 8,1998,the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 17:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes and other records of proceedings,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos VerdeS hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No.200,Coastal Permit No.143,and Grading Permit No.1993,thereby approving the construction ofa 7,437 square foot addition to the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center.an outdoor amphitheater, teaching terraces,walls and fences,139 new parking spaces,driveways;new landscaping,and other amenities to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Site located at31501 Palos Verdes Drive West,subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "A",attachedhereto and made a part-thereof,Which are necessary to protect the public health,safety and welfare. P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 26 PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 1998,by the following vote: AYES:Commissioners Paris,Vannorsdall,Vice Chairman Cartwright. and Chairman Clark. NOES:None. ABSTENTIONS:None. ABSENT:Commissioners Alberio.Lyon.and Slayden. Lawrence E.Clark Chairman P.C.Resolution No.98 w Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 27 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.200, COASTAL PERMIT NO.143, GRADING PERMIT NO.1993, POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER General 1.All construction shall be completed in substantial conformance to the plans approved by the Planning Commission on September 8,1998. 2.This approval is for the construction of a 7,437 square foot addition to the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center,an outdoor amphitheater,teaChing terraces,walls and fences, 139 new parking spaces,driveways,new landscaping,and other amenities to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Site. 3.These approvals shall expire one year from the date of this action unless application for building permits is made.Extensions of up to one year may be granted by the Planning Commission if requested prior to expiration. Mitigation Measures 4.The development shall comply with all mitigation measures found in the Mitigated Monitoring Program as adopted through P.C.Resolution No.98--29. Conditional Use Permit No.200 5.The building setbacks shall not be less than 95'to the west property line,512'to the east property line,560'to thenorthem property line,and 480'to the southern property line. 6.The maximum height of the proposed facility shall not exceed 30'~6"as measured from the point Where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade,and 22'-0"from the highest elevation of existing grade to be covered by the structure.Prior to installation of roof sheathing,Ridge Height Certification shall be submitted by the developer. 7.Parking and security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall conform to City requirements within the Development Code.Fixtures shall be Shielded so that only the subject property is illuminated;there shall be no spillover onto neighboring properties. P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 28 8.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,all block wall fences shall be composed of a decorative material such as slumpstone. 9.During construction activity,the contractor shall protect the existing Botanical Garden as much as possible.A chain link fence will be installed around the construction area to restrict equipment and employees to the immediate construction area.Any plant species destroyed in the Garden in conjunction with project construction will be replaced in another location near the Center upon completion of the project.Although some existing plants will have to be removed to allow for the expansion of the Center,those plants shall be replaced with plants in..kind.The contractor shall work with the California Native Plant Society to replace said plants removed during construction and to re~establish the Garden in the immediate vicinity of the Center.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,the contractor shall minimize potential impacts to the soil by taking all feasible precautions to prevent pollution by construction waste,and minimize soil compaction and loss of suitable soil for re~planting areas. Grading Permit No.1993 10.Grading activityshaU be limited to a total of 10,679 cubic yards of cut,389 cubic yards of fill,and 10,260 CUbic yards of export.The applicant may also clean and grub the site of existing landscaping. 11.An as~graded soils and geOlogic report,complete with geologic map,will be submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. 12.All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geOlogist and/or soils engineer in accordance with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and the recommendations of the Director of Public Works and/or City Engineer. 13.Grading activity on the site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards. 14.Graded slopes shall be properly planted and maintained.Plants shall be selected that are capable of developing deep root systems.Watering shall be done on cycles that will promote deep rooting.Watering shall be diminished or stopped just prior to and during the rainy season. 15.All manufactured slopes shall be contour graded. 16.The use of a rock crusher is not permitted on the site. 17.All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities,including gunite,shall be of an earth tone color,as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement. P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 7 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 29 18.Prior to issuance of any Grading Permits,and sUbject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,a haul route permit shall be obtained by the contractor to move earth material off of the site.Additionally,the contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets which may be damaged during development of the site, including,but not limited to,the designated haul truck route.Prior to issuance of grading permits,the contractor shall post a bond,cash deposit or combination thereof,in an amount sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets and appurtenant structures as a result of this development.In addition to prOViding a bond or cash deposit, the developer shall pay for a pavement analysis of the streets to be used as the designated haul truck route prior to the start of construction and at completion of construction.The developer shall provide compensation for any loss of pavement life along the designated haul truck route as a result of this deve.lopment. 19.Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the developer shall submit an Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.The Storm Water Pollution Plan shaH be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works.The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall incorporate by detail or reference appropriate post-construction Best Mana.gement Practices (BMPs)to: a.Implement,to the maximum extent practicable,requirements established by appropriate governmental agencies under CEQA,Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,local ordinances and other legal authorities intended to minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies; b.Maximize to the maximum extent practicable,the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground; c.Minimize,to the maximum extent practicable,the amount of storm water directed to impermeable areas; d.Minimize,to the maximum extent practicable,parking lot pollution through the use of appropriate BMPs,such as retention,infiltration and good housekeeping. e.Establish reasonable IimUs on the clearing of vegetation from the project site including,but not limited to,regulation of the length of time during which soil may be exposed and,in certain sensitive cases,the prohibition of bare soil;and, f.Provide for appropriate permanent controls to reduce storm water potlutant load produced by the development site to the maximum extent practicable. Further,the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall contain requirements to be adhered to during project construction.These practices should: P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 8 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 30 (a.Include erosion and sediment control practices; (b.Address multiple construction activity related pollutants; (c.Focus on BMPs such as source minimization,education,good housekeeping,good waste management,and good site planning; (d.Target construction areas and activities with the potential to generate significant pollutant loads; (e.Require retention on the site,to the maximum extent practicable,of sediment, construction waste,and other pollutants from construction activity; (f.Require,to the maximum extent practicable,management of excavated soH on site to minimize the amount of sediment that escapes to streets,drainage facHities,or adjoining properties; (g.Require,to the maximum extent practicable,use of structural drainage controls to minimize the escape of sediment and other pollutants from the site; (h.Require,to the maximum extent practicable.containment of runoff from equipment and vehicle washing at t construction sites,unless treated to remove sediments and pollutants. 20.The hours of operation for construction and grading activities shall be limited from Monday to SaturdaY,7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.No work on ..site,equipment or vehicles shaH be permitted before or after the hours indicated.No truck queuing or warming up of equipment or vehicles shall occur before 7:00 a.m.;flagmen shall be used during all construction actiVities as required by the Director of Public Works. 21 .Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,a final grading plan shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and City Geologist.This grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering.g.eology and/or soils engineering report and shaH specifically be approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. 22.A note shall be placed on the approved grading plan that requires the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement approval of rough grading prior to final clearance.The Director (or a designated staff member)shall inspect the graded sites for accuracy of pad elevations and created slope gradients.The developer or their designee shall provide certification for all grading related matters. P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 31 23.All of the recommendations made by the Director of Public Works and the City Geologist during their on~going review of the project shall be incorporated into the approved grading plans. 24.Unless otherwise provided in these conditions of approval or permitted by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,the project shall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City's grading ordinance (Chapter 17.50 Grading). N:\GROUP\PLANNING\RESOS\PC\RECP143.RES P.C.Resolution No.98-30 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT - 32 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND'MAIL TO: City of Rancho Palos Verdes ,30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90274 Attention:Mr.Les Evans,City Manager nus DOCUMENT IS BXBMPT FROM DOCUMBNTARY TRANSF.BR TAX PURSUANT TO SBCTION Jl9220FTHBRBVBNUB&TAXATlONcdDB THIS DOCUMENT IS BXBMPJ'FROM RECORDING FBBS PURSUANT TO SBCI'lON 27383 OFTHB GOVBRNMBNT CODB 04 1890678 Space A""ve 77tbt Une Reservtdjor Recorder's Use Assessor's Identification Number: 7573"'()(}2-904 2 QUITCLAIM DEED For a valuabl~consideration,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,a body corporate and politic,does hereby remise,release,and forever quitclaim'to the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,a.municipal corporation,all its right,title,and mterest in and to the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,County of Los Angeles,State of Caufomia,described in Exhibit "A"attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. ,.EXCEPTING .AND RESERVING to the County of Los Angeles all oil,gas,petroleum, hydrocarbons and other minerals in and under the property without the right to the use of the surface or subsurface to a depth of 500 feet,measured vertically from the surface of said real property. Subject to and grantee to assume: 1.All ~axes,interest,penalties,and assessments of record,if any. 2.All covenants,conditions,restrictions,reservations,easements,rights,and right of way of record,including those contained in quitclaim deed to the County of Los Angeles recorded September 12,1978,as Document No.78-1011982,in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. 3.Grantee acknowledges that it has inspected and is familiar with the condition of the property; that Grantor has not made any warranties or representations as to the condition of said property or its use,including,but not limited to soil conditions,building restrictions,or whether the property complies with federal,state,or local government laws or regulations applicable to the property or its use;and that Grantee is taking the property "as is,"upon transfer of title,Grantee assumes all responsibility for any damages or liability caused by the conditions on the property. POINT VICENTE lNTERPRETATNE CENTER File:Point Vicente Beach (1) S.D.4 M04D152606 ATTACHMENT - 33 POINT VICENTE INTERPRETATIVE CENTER Quitclaim Deed Page 2 5.The express condition that the property shall be equally open and available to all residents of Los Angeles County,and that there shall be no discrimination against or preference,gratuity, bonus,or other benefit given to residents of any particular area,community,neighborhood, incorporated city,or unincorporated city,or unincorporated territory. 4.The express condition that the real property legally described in Exhibit "A"shall be used solely for public park and recreational use. 6.The express condition that if and when Grantee fails,refuses or neglects to comply with the express conditions of this deed,title t6 the real property legally described in Exhibit "A"shall immediately revert to the County of Los Angeles without further notice and without the necessity of any affirmative action on the part of the County to assert any rights in said'real property. DEC 16 2003Dated._ '. ATTEST:VIOLeTVAR:)NAiWI(ENS BJ::=..Ch~~rm-=-an-,B-o-ar-d..lLo-f-S"';:::upe=--rvt-·-so-rs-- EXECU'f!'VE OFFICER·CLERK "t E RD 01=SUP tSORS of the County of Los Angeles Byl......~~~.., KDR:in P:COnf:qcdPOINT veNTEl 04 1890678 ATTACHMENT - 34 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) )S8. ) On January 6,1987,the Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles and ex officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts,agencies and authorities for which Y said Board so acts adopted a resolution pursuant to Section 25103 of the Government Code which authorized the use of facsimile signatures of the Chairman of the Board on all papers,documents,or instruments requiring the Chairman's signature. The undersigned hereby certifies that on this If.~day of ~,20,.;;..;0.3"'---_ the facsimile signature of DON KNABE "., Chairman of the Board of Supervi~ors of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES was affixed hereto as the official execution of this document.The undersigned further certifies that on this date,a copy of the document was delivered to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. In witness whereof,I have also hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year above written. (COUNTY-SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM ,~LV.yo5,"'l,County Counsel-_...... VIOLET VARONA-LUKENS,Executive Officer of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed or grant to the City of Rancllo Palos Verdes.a municipal corporation,is hereby accepted uneJer the authority of Resolution No.Pl.$cl./-~t of the'City Council of said City adopted on =1"\,)c..y (p ,'loo!::l...-and the Grantee consents to the recordation of said deed or grant by its dWY~~:~~~ P:Conf:qodPOINT VCNTE1 04 1890678 ATTACHMENT - 35 " Pointe Vicente Beach (1) A.I.N.7673 -002 •904 Description That portion of Lot H of the Rancho Los Palos Verdes,in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,County of Los Angeles,State of California,as shown on Partition Map of the Rancho Los Palos Verdes,filed in Case No.2373 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,within the following described boundaries: Beginning at a point in that certain course of South 60°44'East 1044.00 feet in the northeasterly boundary of that certain parcel of land described in deed to United States of America,recorded on August 2,1921,in Book 463,page 100,of Official Records,in the office of the Recorder of said County,said point being Station 1,as described in said deed, for the purpose of this description said certain course has a bearing of North 6oo 41'43" West;thence North 21°12'23"East 762.90 feet;thence South 72°21'53"East 8.00 feet to the westerly boundary of that certain 50 foot strip of land described in deed to County of Los Angeles,for Palos Verdes Drive West,recorded on January 22,1932,in Book 11403, page 86 of said Official Records;thence northerly and northeasterly along the westerly and northwesterly boundaries of said certain 50 foot strip of land to the northerly boundary of that certain parcel of land described as Tract No.240 in decree of declaration of taking in favor of United States of America,recorded as Document No.761,on March 31,1942,in Book 19225,page 176,of said Official Records;thence westerly,southeasterly and southerly along the northerly,southwesterly and westerly boundaries of said last mentioned certain parcel of land to the most westerly comer of said first mentioned certain parcel of land;thence southeasterly along said northeasterly boundary to the poilit of beginning. Containing:26.41 ±acres EXHIBIT A 04 1890678 ATTACHMENT - 36 MEMORANDUM CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTOR~l~NING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMij!,.\7 --- SEPTEMBER 2,2008 SUBJECT:THE ANNENBERG FOUNDATION PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITY AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT LOWER POINT VICENTE REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~ Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mlhranian,A1CP,Principal Planne~ RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Annenberg Foundation to initiate the entitlement process for the proposed Lower Point Vicente improvements identified in the Vision Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Annenberg Foundation is requesting that the City Council allow it to submit the necessary entitlement applications for their proposed education facility on indigenous animals,outdoor museum,and other on-site improvements identified in the Vision Plan document at Lower Point Vicente.Initiating the planning process by authorizing the Foundation to file the appropriate planning applications does not constitute approval of the proposal,but rather accepts the design concept at Lower Point Vicente identified in the Vision Plan and allows the project proponent,which in this case is the Annenberg Foundation,to move to the next step,that being design and environmental review by the Planning Commission.Furthermore,authorizing the Foundation to move to the next step also allows the Council to begin discussions with the Foundation regarding development agreements and lease agreements to ensure that the proposal under consideration includes adequate pUblic education components and fiscal commitments stated by the Foundation. BACKGROUND The Vision Plan,which is being considered by the City Council under a separate agenda item,identifies Lower Point Vicente as a key site for educational facilities.The Annenberg Foundation is proposing to sponsor the improvements identified in the Vision Plan for Lower Point Vicente by constructing a state-of-the-art education facility, ATTACHMENT - 37 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGE 2 an outdoor museum,and on-site improvements that focus on educating the community and school visitors about the relationship of animal life on the Peninsula in terms of ocean and land,and people and animals. If the City Council approves the Vision Plan this evening,the Annenberg Foundation is requesting that the City Council authorize the Foundation to initiate the planning entitlement process by submitting the appropriate Planning Applications for the proposed improvements at Lower Point Vicente (see attached letter). DISCUSSION Proposed Project at Lower Point Vicente As described in the Vision Plan,the proposal at Lower Point Vicente includes the construction of a state-of-the-art education facility featuring educational exhibits related to animals,including dogs,cats,horses and indigenous animals,to complement the Interpretive Center and its marine exhibits,as well as outdoor amenities intended to cohesively integrate the two structures.The facility would focus on providing education, volunteer and community service opportunities,animal adoption services,and interactive exhibits that would provide opportunities to learn about animal science, behavior,and care.The Center envisions providing resources to the school district,as well as animal care specialists. The general goals of the proposal are twofold: •To create a model learning destination and educational programs that preserve the beauty and uniqueness of Lower Point Vicente and complement the mission and work of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center;and, •To provide interior and exterior spaces that celebrate the bond between humans and nature,teach families about the unique ecology of domestic and indigenous animals,offer a model animal adoption program and open the center to the community for educational,civic and recreational use. The project proposed by the Annenberg Foundation envisions achieving these two goals through the following site improvements: •Constructing a public educational facility,including a theater for education and public use,that would complement the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC) •Constructing an outdoor history museum consisting of the following features: o A reconstructed Tongva Village o An interactive archaeological dig o A water conservation garden o Ecology stations •Expanding the existing parking lot to accommodate anticipated visitors •Constructing a drop-off area for vehicles and buses ATTACHMENT - 38 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGE 3 •Expanding the network of on-site trails •Constructing a trailhead •Constructing pedestrian pathways throughout the site •Constructing new public restrooms •Improving way-finding and interpretative signs. •Constructing an overlook •Constructing a donor recognition site. •Upgrading and adding picnic benches and trash bins throughout the site. •Planting of native plants throughout the site (grassland and habitat restoration) It should be pointed out that the proposed education facility is estimated to be approximately 30,000 sq.ft.split between two levels for a footprint of 15,000 sq.ft. When combined with the 10,000 sq.ft.footprint for PVIC,the total bUilding footprint would be approximately 2.6%of the roughly 20-acre site.Furthermore,the proposal includes constructing the educational facility utilizing "green"building standards (LEEDS certification),such as a grass roof,and re-vegetating the site with native plants.The combined site improvements are intended to enhance the existing amenities and to make Lower Point Vicente more of an inspiring and welcoming place that would benefit the community at-large. Concept Development Process The concept for Lower Point Vicente,similar to the entire Vision Plan,was developed through extensive public outreach that involved participation from numerous community groups,organizations,and individuals,as well from City Council and City Staff.This outreach consisted of three public workshops,which resulted in over 250 comments from approximately 165 individuals over a two-year period (see Vision Plan Staff Report).This pUblic input together with the City's existing planning documents (General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan,etc.)was used by Melendrez to develop the various Vision Plan design concepts,including the concept for Lower Point Vicente. In addition to this public outreach,the Annenberg Foundation made it a point to solicit input from many Peninsula organizations on the proposed project at Lower Point Vicente.To achieve this,a Community Advisory Cabinet was established by the Foundation to assess the community need for a public education center that would focus on the compelling story of animal life on the Palos Verdes Peninsula,celebrating the bond between domestic and indigenous animals and humans.The Cabinet was comprised of local veterinarians,docent members,City Staff,members of the PVPLC, members of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and a professional design team.Working in collaboration with the Vision Plan preparation process,the design concept for an education facility began to take shape in terms of location, programming,services,design and opportunities. In addition to the Advisory Cabinet,the Foundation sought input and direction from the City Council and the Council-Subcommittee (Mayor Stern and Councilman Long)on the proposed education facility at the Vision Plan workshops held in October 2006 and November 2007,as well at various meetings.Furthermore, numerous comment letters ATTACHMENT - 39 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGE 4 on the Annenberg proposal were submitted to the City during the public comment period on the Vision Plan.Based on the input received during this two-year process,the Foundation's design team refined the proposal to the project that is being considered this evening. Community Outreach The Annenberg Foundation spent the past year speaking to the following community organization to better understand the community perception of their project: •Homeowners Associations,including the Council of Homeowners Associations (CHOA) •Palos Verdes Peninsula School District and its educators •The Rotary Club •Chamber of Commerce •Peninsula Seniors •Council of PTA Presidents •South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation •LA County Department of Animal Care and Control •Community leaders •Presentation at the November 2007 Vision Plan Workshop •4H Club According to the Foundation,as well as Staff observation,the general consensus received from the presentations given to the above community organizations has been support for the proposed project. Project Location As part of the development process undertaken by the design team,identifying a suitable location for the education facility was given great weight during the early conceptual stages.According to the Foundation,Lower Point Vicente was sought as the ideal location for the proposed project for the following reasons: •The proposed project would complement the educational component of the Point Vicente Interpretative Center. •The project would complete Phase III of the Interpretive Center (something which has been planned by the Los Serenos docents for several years,but couldn't be completed due to insufficient funds). •Lower Point Vicente and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center serve as a destination point for the community,visitors,and school children. •The project would be close to other destination points along the City's coastline, as identified in the Vision Plan.These destinations include the Terranea Resort, Abalone Cove,Wayfarers Chapel,the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,and Trump National. ATTACHMENT - 40 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGES •The topography allows the design of the project building to be integrated into the natural contours of the site with minimal impact to the surrounding environment and views from Palos Verdes Drive West and neighboring properties. •The coastal setting of Lower Point Vicente provides a tranquil and welcoming feeling that supports the educational and recreational goals of the project. •The ability to enhance the site for public enjoyment including passive recreational amenities. The Foundation believes that this project will enhance the educational opportunities currently offered at PVIC through the use of architecture,art,exhibits to inform the public about the unique geology of the Peninsula,history,marine ecology,terrestrial animals and habitats.The Foundation is proposing to provide habitat restoration and native planting throughout the site.For the reasons listed above,the Foundation strongly believes that Lower Point Vicente is the ideal location for their project.The majority of public comments related to Lower Point Vicente during the Vision Plan planning process supported this viewpoint,although some comments suggested that the proposed facility should be located on a different property. Authorization to Proceed If the Oity Council authorizes the Foundation to submit the necessary entitlement applicatitms for the proposed project,it will enable the Annenberg Foundation's design team to pro.du.ce the detailed plans (site plan,architectural plans,grading plans,etc.) required by·are City's entitlement process.It is during the entitlement process that public hearings would occur at the Planning Commission level to address all issues related to the proposed project,including as environmental review,parking,circulation, building design and height,drainage,and other planning-related items (see discussion below).Furthermore,discussions also can begin (on a separate track than the entitlement process)between the City and the Foundation regarding the potential terms of a lease agreement,the Foundation's contribution to ongoing maintenance,the relationship with the PVIC,the provision of security,and other operational and governance matters (see discussion below).These matters can then be memorialized via conditions of approval or as a separate Development Agreement. The Council's authorization for the Foundation to proceed to the next step does not constitute de facto approval to build the project,but simply allows the Foundation to move forward at its own risk with the entitlement process. The Planning Process If authorization to proceed is given to the Foundation,the next step involves the entitlement process with the Planning Department.Based on Staffs preliminary review of the proposal,the following planning applications will be required: •Conditional Use Permit -to allow the construction of the site improvements, including the education facility,to regulate the operation of the programs,and to impose conditions that address project concerns and potential impacts. ATTACHMENT - 41 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGE 6 •Grading Permit -to allow earth movement needed to prepare the site for construction. •Coastal Permit -Lower Point Vicente is located in the appealable portion of the City's Coastal District and would require the applicant to demonstrate how the proposed project complies with the City's Coastal Specific Plan. •Environmental Assessment -pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,the proposed project would require the preparation of an Initial Study to determine the potential impacts the project might have on the surrounding environment.Based on the outcome of the Initial Study and the ability to mitigate environmental impacts,a determination will be made as to what level of environmental review will be required (the probable options being either a Mitigated Negative Declaration of an Environmental Impact Report). The Planning Commission at duly noticed public hearings will review the above planning applications.It is at this step in the entitlement process that issues and concerns regarding the project's design and programming,as well as potential impacts to the environment will be addressed.In addition,the review process will address the proposed project's consistency with the City's General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan and the Program of Utilization (inherited from Los Angeles County that regulates the use of the site by the Natural Park Service).Moreover,the public will have an opportunity to express their concerns about the project and all of these related development issues during the public hearings with the Planning Commission.Staff will then forward the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.At which time,the City Council will determine how it wants to proceed. Fiscal Impact I Financial Commitment The Annenberg Foundation has publicly announced that sponsoring the improvements at Lower Point Vicente,including the construction of the education facility,will be underwritten entirely by the Foundation with no fiscal impact on the City's budget.The Foundation is also committing to underwrite the on-going maintenance and operating costs associated with the proposal.This offer stands as a charitable gift from the Annenberg Foundation,under the leadership of Philanthropist Wallis Annenberg,to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the general public. The Foundation is estimating that the cost to construct the proposed project,including the outdoor museum and on-site improvements,would be $34,500,000 to $42,500,000, based on the following: •Landscape and watershed management -$7.5 million •Educational exhibits,including science stations,big dig,Tongva/Gabrieleno Village and other exhibits -$5.5 to $8 million •Community multi-purpose theater -$4.5 million •Subterranean parking (double site capacity)-$1.5 -$2 million •Ongoing site maintenance,including interpretive landscape -$150,000 + •Proposed Annenberg education facility (25,000 sq ft.)-$15 million to $20 million •Lighting and security improvements -$350,000 ATTACHMENT - 42 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGE 7 •Operational costs (about 10 FTEs plus interns and volunteers)TBD If authorized to proceed with the entitlement process,the Foundation has indicated that a detailed fiscal analysis will be prepared by the Foundation for review by the City Council as part of the discussions pertaining to any desired development agreement between the City and the Annenberg Foundation for Lower Point Vicente and the proposed project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Project Model The Annenberg Foundation has prepared a model depicting the proposed improvements to Lower Point Vicente,including the educational facility.The model is at the Planning Department and is available for public viewing.The model will also be made available for viewing at the September 2nd City Council meeting.For those who would like to view the model in advance of the September 2nd meeting,Staff requests scheduling an appointment. Public Notification In order to ensure that is aware of the Council's consideration of Annenberg proposal,a list-serve messave was sent out on August 19,2008 to the Vision Plan subscribers inforrmng them of the September 2nd City Council meeting,as well as providing a link to the Annenberg presentation posted on the City's website. This notification is in addition to notification Staff previously provided the public on the Vision Plan agenda item.A public notice on the Vision Plan was published in the Peninsula News on Saturday,August 14,2008 and nearly 900 notices were mailed to property owners re$lding within approximately 500-feet of each of the key sites identified in the Vision Plan,including Lower Point Vicente.Furthermore,the Vision Plan document was posted on the City's website nearly one month before tonight's meeting and a message was sent to multiple list-serve subscribers informing them of the availability of the Vision Plan document and the September 2nd Council meeting on the Vision Plan. Public Comments The City recently has received several comments letters from the public (see attachment).The majority of the comments received are in support of the project,with the exception of one comment letter signed by several individuals who do not feel this proposal is suitable for Lower Point Vicente.If additional comment letters are received before the September 2nd City Council meeting,Staff will provide these comment letters to the Council and the public at the meeting. ATTACHMENT - 43 CC MEMORANDUM -ANNENBERG PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 2,2008 PAGE 8 Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the Annenberg Foundation's proposed project will require the submittal of an environmental assessment application to determine the project's potential impacts upon the surrounding environment.This application will be required to be submitted along with the other entitlement applications.Based on Staff's review of the environmental assessment,an Initial Study will be prepared and Staff will make a determination about the level of appropriate environmental review needed to comply with CEQA.The environmental review for the project will occur during the planning entitlement process. ATTACHMENTS •Annenberg Request Letter •Annenberg Presentation (transmitted to the City Council on August 20,2008) •Public Comments ATTACHMENT - 44 '.fl'State of California ..Natural Resources Agency Arnold Schwarzenegger,Governor 'ii'Ilr.l~1!l DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION.P.O.Box 942896 ..Sacramento,CA 94296-0001 Ruth Coleman.Director August 17,2010 Mr.Ray Holland Interim Director of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 RE:Point Vicente Regional Park Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)Project No.06-00792 Dear Mr.Holland, The Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)understands that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City)received a donation from the Annenberg Foundation to construct a new (approximately 50,979 square foot)education center to either replace or expand the existing approximately 10,000 square foot interpretive center at Point Vicente Regional Park.According to the City's draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR),the project may also include a dog park,extensive parking,and subterranean maintenance areas. The park identified above was funded by grant programs administered by OGALS. Most critically,this park was funded through the Federal LWCF program,which protects parks through Section 6(f)(3)of the LWCF Act.This section of the law safeguards park and recreation facilities by ensuring that changes or "conversions from recreation use" will bear a cost and that investments in public outdoor recreation will not be lost. Section 6(f)(3).No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall,without the approval of the Secretary of Interior,be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses.The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if s/he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as is deemed necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. The City's proposal to construct the education center may be a conversion of park use. As defined,a conversion is a change from outdoor recreational use to non-outdoor recreation use. ATTACHMENT - 45 Mr.Ray Holland August 19,2010 Page Two Please forward to OGALS a description of the proposed project site expansion as soon as possible.The description should include.at a minimum,any proposed additional recreational elements.a site plan.an updated 6(f)(3)map.OGALS will review the submitted information and provide feedback and further instructions. If you have any questions regarding the process or need to discuss the situation further, please contact me at (916)651-7739 or bye-mail atksims@parks.ca.gov. Sincerely, (~...r-.. r-"".. .~~.\;.L ..~/~ \".'- Karen Sims.Project Officer Office of Grants and Local Services cc:Lily Verdone.Land Conservancy Director Barbara Baker,Manager,Office of Grants and Local Services Jeanne Ekstrom.Project Officer,Office of Grants and Local Services Project File 2 ATTACHMENT - 46 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Pacific West Region 1111 Jackson Street,Suite 700 Oakland,California 94607-4807 IN REPLY REFER TO: L1425;L3219 (PWR-PR) 15.September 2010 Mr.Ara Michael Mihranian,AICP Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 Dear Mr.Mihranian: We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente. The National Park Service has compliance oversight responsibility relative to two areas of federal law and their associated contracts and agreements that are applicable to the proposed project.The first you have correctly identified as having to do with the public benefit conveyance of the former federal surplus property and the requirement that the land be used for public recreation and park purposes.The legal authority for that transfer came under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 USC §550)and which is further regulated by the Federal Management Regulation in 41 CFR §102-75. You have correctly identified the Program of Utilization as a controlling element in the acceptable administration of the park.You have not given sufficient attention to the terms of the deed,which is more explicit regarding acceptable uses of the land,including the following provisions:" 1.This property shall be used and maintained for the public purposes for which it was conveyed in perpetuity as set forth in the program ofutilization and plan contained in the application, submitted by the Grantee on February 27,1976 which program and plan may be amendedfrom time to time at the request ofeither the Grantor or Grantee,with the written concurrence ofthe other party,and such amendments will be added to and become a part ofthe original application 3.The property shall not be sold,leased,assigned,or otherwise disposed ofexcept to another eligible governmental agency that the Secretary ofthe Interior agrees in writing can assure the continued use and maintenance ofthe property for public park or public recreational purposes subject to the same terms and conditions in the original instrument ofconveyance.However, nothing in this provision shall preclude the Grantee from providing related recreational facilities and services compatible with the approved application,through concession agreements entered into with third parties,provided prior concurrence to such agreements is obtained in writing from the Secretary ofthe Interior. Your DEIR suggests the acceptability of "other related governmental and public uses"(page 2-11)but does not include the stipulation that those uses must be public recreation uses that conform to an accepted Program of Utilization (POU).To say that the terms of the public benefit transfer do "...not expressly ATTACHMENT - 47 Mr.Ara Michael Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes 9/15/10 -2- limit other uses ..."(pg.4.5-25)is misleading and inaccurate because you have not considered all of the conditions under which the land was transferred.Although the proposed plan includes some elements that would be acceptable under the present POU (such as trails,restrooms,picnic areas),the proposed plan contains,in our view,many elements that would not fall under an eligible public recreational use,such as a building for general governmental purposes,an animal care and adoption facility,a theatre,space for C;ivic events,and general education purposes. Although the deed allows the use of concession agreements,those agreements must be for the purpose of providing public recreational opportunities and services that are serve to fulfill the accepted Program of Utilization.The deed specifically prohibits transfer of property rights through leases and by other means that would reduce the control of the property by the federally approved owner for the purpose of t complying with the terms of the transfer. The fact that the Annenberg Foundation is the "applicant"according to the EIR raises the question regarding whose purpose is served with the proposed project.The DEIR does not answer the question. Previously approved as part of the Program of Utilization,was a modest interpretive center which is to serve the purpose of facilitating park users'understanding and appreciation for the land and coastline as well as to stimulate their interest in experiencing it.Much ofthe justification for the original land transfer had to do with the unique natural and aesthetic characteristics of the land and the need to preserve natural and open space areas for public recreational use. One of the most egregious omissions of the Draft EIR is its failure to establish the need for the proposed project.We would have expected to see some analysis of the current purposes served by the Interpretive Center and evidence that the Center does not fulfill its needed purpose relative to the public recreational use of the park.Analysis of recreational needs and prescribed remedies usually makes reference to local and statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans,such as the California Outdoor Recreation Plan. This would typically be done in conjunction with some social and demographic analyses.No such analysis appears to have been conducted or to be the impetus for your proposed facilities. Similarly egregious is any analysis and rationale that would justify the development of such a facility that would occupy what is now precious open space land.Your analysis addresses the issues of compatibility with the land and optimizing scenic and aesthetic experiences with the placement and design of the facilities,but no justification for such impacts is provided in the first place.A "design with the land" approach is no substitute for open space preservation.What other areas provide similar open space and natural area experiences,and why do you find it necessary to add one more development to this prime open space? The EIR mentions existing and future agricultural use of the site (e.g.pg.4.6-10).Agriculture is not an approved public recreation use of the site and is not in compliance with the Program of Utilization. Further,the deed specifically prohibits leases that are not approved by the National Park Service (which acts under delegated authority from the Secretary ofthe Interior). I found no mention of a biological opinion regarding the proposed project from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the Biological Resources Assessment. The EIR should mention several other issues related to the federal government's interest in the park property.Those would include deed provisions mentioned above and additionally should note that the deed includes a reversion provision if the terms of the property transfer are not adhered to.The National Park Service operates its federal surplus property program under the title of the Federal Lands to Parks ATTACHMENT - 48 Mr.Ara Michael Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes 9/15/10 - 3 - Program.The Program of Utilization may be amended if sufficient analysis and rationale are provided for such a change and if the new purpose is an acceptable public park and recreation use.The present EIR does not contain sufficient justification for a POU amendment that would allow the proposed Annenberg development. Our Program policy also allows us to consider land exchanges when such actions are warranted.If the City were to wish to pursue the Annenberg development in light ofNPS's determination that such a development is not consistent with the Program of Utilization or the Federal Lands to Parks Program, they would have to submit an exchange proposal that identifies land of at least equal appraised market value and of reasonably equivalent recreational utility and location along with the necessary supporting documentation and new park proposal.More details about land exchange requirements may be obtained from this office.General information regarding the Federal Lands to Parks Program is available at our website:http://www.nps.gov/flp/. The other primary area of the National Park Service's jurisdiction is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (L WCF)§6f protection.The Draft EIR entirely omits any reference to this critical park preservation law and program.Point Vicente Park was the recipient of Land and Water Conservation Fund grant assistance (project number 06-00792),and the terms of the agreement include that no land receiving L WCF assistance will be converted to other than public outdoor recreational uses.Concerns regarding the present proposal under the L WCF requirements are similar to those presented above for the terms of the land transfer under Federal Lands to Parks.The LWCF conversion requirements come under federal regulations at 36 CFR §59.More information on the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program requirements may be found at the federal website:http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/index.html. The State of California Office of Grants and Local Services under the Department of Parks and Recreation,is the primary agency responsible for administering the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program in California and ensuring compliance with its requirements.Any facility development proposal must be directed to them:Office of Grants and Local Services,California Department of Parks and Recreation,PO Box 942896,Sacramento,California 94296-0001.Their website is at:http://www.parks.ca.g0v/default.asp?page id=21360. Please let me know if you would like any further information and/or discussion regarding these comments.I hope they are helpful to the further consideration of the proposed project.Thank you for the opportunity to review the DElR. Sincerely, David Siegenthaler Pacific West Regional Office National Park Service 1111 Jackson Street,Suite 700 Oakland,California 94607 Voice:510-817-1324 Fax:510-817-1505 E-mail:David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov Cc:California Dept.of Parks and Recreation,Office of Grants and Local Services ATTACHMENT - 49 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Pacific West Region 1111 Jackson Street,Suite 700 Oakland,California 94607-4807 IN REPLY REFER TO: Ll425;L32l9 (PWR-PR) October 8,2010 Mr.Joel Rojas Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391 Re:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Zoning Case N!!ZON2009-00442 Dear Mr.Rojas and the Planning Commission: We appreciated the opportunity to meet with staff from the State Office of Grants and Local Services,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,and the Annenberg Foundation in Sacramento on October 6th.This letter is offered in the hope that it will clarify the situation relative to compliance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the Federal Lands to Parks Program. The proposal as it was presented by the Annenberg Foundation contains many attractive and beneficial components.However,it is clear to us that not all of the elements in the plan are suitable to a park that is restricted by law to only public park and outdoor recreation purposes.It is important that the Planning Commission and the people of Rancho Palos Verdes understand that neither the State nor the National Park Service approved or endorsed the project as proposed.Neither the State nor the National Park Service has received a proposal from the City on which to make a formal determination,thus none has been made.As presented,however,the project would not conform to the Program of Utilization under the Federal Lands to Parks Program,and it would not meet the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act requirement that the park be used only for public outdoor recreation. The City staff reported accurately that the primary decision-making responsibility for meeting the park and outdoor recreation needs of the local population rests with the City and that we typically defer to local governments to determine those needs.However,the City is bound contractually through the federal surplus land acquisition application,land deeds and the property restrictions that are in force through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Agreements to keep the park in public outdoor recreation use in perpetuity.Any changes in the type of recreational use of the park must be justified through needs analysis and consideration of alternatives to meet those needs.When we evaluate such proposals to change the type of use of park land,we look for substantiation of claims by reference to local population, demographic,and health studies,local inventories of parks and open space areas that provide public recreational opportunities,and statewide and local park and recreation needs assessments -such as the California Outdoor Recreation Plan.Depending on the actions proposed,there are several avenues potentially available to the City to make changes in the use ofthe land.Approval ofthose changes is not guaranteed.If a proposal requests permission to use a park for ATTACHMENT - 50 Mr.Joel Rojas City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 20f3 other than public outdoor recreation purposes,pennission could only be granted under the terms of a conversion and land exchange.The non-outdoor recreation components of the present proposal include facilities for pet care,pet training,pet adoption services,education that is not directly related to the park site,facilities for general community,civic,and governmental functions,and office,parking and other support structures related to those non-confonning uses. Based on the project as we have seen it presented in the Draft EIR and the Annenberg presentation at our meeting on Wednesday,it is our opinion that if City desires to proceed with the project as proposed,it will need to pursue a land exchange that would meet the requirements of both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Federal Lands to Parks Programs.Such land exchanges require that replacement land be provided that is of at least equivalent fair market value,and that is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.The replacement must be a viable recreation area and be made accessible to the public for park use within a reasonable amount of time.The proposed replacement land cannot be land that is currently dedicated or managed as a park,previously acquired for park use,or presently managed as preserved land.The purpose of both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Federal Lands to Parks Programs is to enlarge and protect the public recreation estate.Land exchanges are pursued with that in mind while recognizing that local conditions may change over time in ways that may warrant reconfiguration of those public recreational lands relative to other legitimate social and ecological needs.A detennination has not been made regarding the extent of the converted area. Having focused on the non-compliant components,it is also important to affirm the very positive aspects of the Annenberg proposal from a public park perspective.Such elements as the further development of trails,native plant landscaping,bio-swale,benches,picnic tables and restrooms,modifications to the existing Interpretive Center,outdoor interpretive exhibits and trail interpretive elements that focus on the indigenous terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems,were all fitting treatments to the current purpose of the park.Any construction of indoor facilities that support and enhance the public outdoor recreation use of the park (such as construction of an Outpost building or modest enlargement of the interpretive building to support the outdoor educational programs on the site)would need to be submitted to the State Office of Grants and Local Services in the form of a public facility request. We do not deny that pet adoption services and education regarding our relationship with domestic animals are important social needs.The facility presented to provide those services simply does not belong on public parkland that is dedicated to public outdoor recreational use and that was obtained for the purpose of preserving open space.We suggest serious consideration of the alternative project site identified in the Draft EIR for facilities that serve purposes that do not qualify as public outdoor recreation. The City has important decisions to make regarding how it meets its obligations regarding public outdoor recreation at Lower Point Vicente Park.We will not be able to make a detennination regarding whether or not the project is approved until we receive a formal project proposal.If that proposal includes uses that are not public outdoor recreation,our approval would be contingent upon an acceptable land exchange proposal that includes the City's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal regulations,including public input regarding the City's recreational needs assessment, proposed replacement property,and new park utilization and development plans. We have not yet had an opportunity to consult with the State Office of Grants and Local Services since our meeting on the 6th •After we have done so,the State and NPS will provide further comments to the City regarding our joint assessment of what would and what would not be allowable under the present ATTACHMENT - 51 Mr.Joel Rojas City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 3 of3 tenns ofland ownership and park operations,and the possible routes forward.Please feel free to contact me if any further information is needed. David Siegenthaler Federal Lands to Parks Program Coordinator Land and Water Conservation Fund Project Manager Voice:510-817-1324 Fax:510-817-1505 E-mail:David_Siegenthaler@nps.gov Cc:California Dept.of Parks and Recreation,Office of Grants and Local Services ATTACHMENT - 52 State of California •The Resources Agency DEPARTMENToF PARKSANjj"RECREATi()N~-P.().Box942896~Sacl'amento;CA94296~0001' ® (916)653-7423 October 26,2010 Joel Rojas Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391 Arnold Schwarzenegger,Governor Ruth Coleman,Director RECEIVED OCT 28 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Re:Land and Water Conservation Fund Program DPR Project Number 06-00792,Peninsula Regional Park Development Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Park Dear Mr.Rojas, The Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)appreciated meeting with you and staff from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Annenberg Foundation along with Ray Murray and David Siegenthaler,National Park Service (NPS)on October 6,2010. It is OGALS'responsibility to administer the Land and Water Conservation (LWCF) program in California and ensure compliance with its requirements.OGALS consults with NPS when potential conversion proposals arise,and has done so in preparing this response. Please see the following six attachments: •LWCF Compliance Letter addressed to all LWCF grant recipients sent June 18, 2009,to your Local Officials. •Contract provision for Peninsula Regional Park Development with post- completion responsibilities highlighted. •"Prerequisites to Conversion,"excerpted from pages 8-5 to 8-8 in Chapter-8, Section E.3,NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual.The complete NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual can be found at: http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/prograrns/lwcf/manualllwcf.pdf. •"Conversion Links,"which provides the links and explanation for the documents the City is required to send to OGALS to request NPS'approval for a conversion. •"Public Facility Links,"which provides the links and explanation for the documents the City is required to send to OGALS to request NPS'approval for a public facility within a 6(f)(3)area. •LWCF Proposal Description/Environmental Screening Form.The PD-ESF is found at:http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/forms/PD ESF.doc. ATTACHMENT - 53 Joel Rojas Page Two This information will assist the City in understanding the requirements of this valuable federal program,whose purpose is to preserve public outdoor recreation opportunities in perpetuity. As discussed in the meeting,the role of OGALS is to clarify the City's responsibilities under the terms of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program to enable the City to make informed decisions,and to explain the various procedures available to the City once it determines how best to meet the public need.This includes providing details about the conversion process,as well as to request information that is necessary for OGALS and NPS to make a formal determination regarding whether or not the proposed project constitutes a conversion,and if it does,to what extent. As clarified by NPS,the non-outdoor recreation components of the current proposal include the facilities for pet care,pet training,pet adoption services,education that is not directly related to the park site,facilities for general community,civic and governmental functipns,and office,parking and other support structures related to the non-conforming uses. While the Annenberg Foundation has made a considerable investment in their plans for this site,public purpose would best be served by preserving invaluable coastal open space and improving the site for its public outdoor recreation use values as proposed, and relocating the nonconforming uses to another,more compatible location.This would be a win-win for the public,the City,and the Annenberg Foundation.If the City of Rancho Palos Verdes chooses to go forward with the construction of the 51,000 sq.ft. facility as detailed in the EIR,the City needs to purchase and open to the public replacement property in exchange for the outdoor recreation acreage that will be converted within Lower Point Vicente Park.The replacement property must meet the requirements of 36 CFR §59.3,including that it be of at least equal recreation utility,of at least equal fair market value of the converted land,and has not been previously dedicated or managed for recreational purposes while in public ownership.The replacement property must be pre-approved by State Parks and NPS.The replacement process also needs to be cleared through CEQA and NEPA. In order to continue to move forward with the conversion process,please provide the following information to: Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services P.O.Box 942896 Sacramento,CA 94296-001 Attention:Jeanne Ekstrom,Project Officer ATTACHMENT - 54 Joel Rojas Page Three 1.Cover letter with proposal to convert property within Section 6(f)(3)area signed by the City's authorized representative. 2.The City will need to complete the LWCF Proposal Description-Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF)as follows regarding the replacement property: •Cover page -Complete with required information •Step 1 -Check the second line "Project Amendment"and second box "6(f) conversion proposal" •Step 3B -Provide answers for 1 through 7 •Steps 5 through 7 -Complete these steps with the CEQA already determined;that is,answer the questions and attach explanation for mitigation measures already adopted with their CEQA if this applies.The Grantee must use the federal Categorical Exclusion numbers which follow Step 7 and not CEQA category numbers. Please note that this is unlikely to qualify for a Categorical Exclusion and that it will probably require at least an Environmental Assessment level NEPA compliance (and perhaps an Environmental Impact Statement).The land exchange elements of the conversion proposal must be analyzed and presented for public review according to NEPA requirements. 3.Provide a final site plan of Lower Point Vicente Park.A final site plan including the square footage of the improvements is necessary to allow us to determine the impact of the actual converted property. 4.Once we have determined the extent of the converted area,submit a revised Section 6(f)(3)boundary map for Lower Point Vicente Park.The revised Section 6(f)(3)boundary map shall include the entire 26.4 acre Lower Point Vicente Park, minus the area determined to be a conversion.The revised Section 6(f)(3)map should clearly indicate both the portion that is being converted and the portion remaining intact under Section 6(f)in the existing park (required for Step 3B5d, PD-ESF). 5.New Section 6(f)(3)map for the new replacement property (required for Step 3B6h,PD-ESF) 6.CEQA documents need to be the NOE filed with and stamped by the county clerk,or the complete set of Initial StUdy,Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report,Notice of Determination filed with and stamped by the county clerk,and the State Clearinghouse response. ATTACHMENT - 55 Joel Rojas Page Four 7.Section 106 compliance following the process to request records search from the appropriate California Historic Information System (CHRIS)center. In addition to the conversion request discussed above,construction of the outpost building as described in the EIR would require the City to submit a Request for Public Facility.The City will need to complete a separate PD-ESF as indicated below to request a public facility in a Section 6(f)area: •Cover page -Complete with required information •Step 1 -Check second line "Project Amendment"and third box "Request for public facility in a Section 6(f)area." •Step 3C -Provide answers for 1 through 4 •Steps 5 through 7 -See instruction given in number 2 above. It is the goal of OGALS to maintain close communication with the City throughout the park planning and compliance process.Feel free to contact Jeanne Ekstrom,Project Officer at (916)651-7756 or jmeks@parks.ca.gov,Cynthia Wong,Supervisor at (916)651-8574 or cwong@parks.ca.gov,or Barbara Baker,Manager at (916)651-7743 or bbaker@parks.ca.gov if you have any questions regarding the conversion process and request for public facility process described in this letter. For general questions regarding any projects previously or currently administered by OGALS,including requests for copies of documents in project files,please contact your Project Officer,Dave Smith,at dsmith@parks.ca.gov. Sincerely, O~ Patti Keating,Supervis r Office of Grants and Local Services Enclosures cc:Leonard Aube,The Annenberg Foundation David Siegenthaler,National Park Service Barbara Baker,Manager,Office of Grants and Local Services Cynthia Wong,Supervisor,Office of Grants and Local Services Dian Chun,Supervisor,Office of Grants and Local Services Jeanne Ekstrom,Project Officer,Office of Grants and Local Services Dave Smith,Project Officer,Office of Grants and Local Services ATTACHMENT - 56 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION·P.O.Box 942896·Sacramento,CA 94296·0001 (916)653-7423 June 18,2009 Dear Local Officials and Interested Parties, Ruth Coleman,Director This letter provides new information relating to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)Program and sanctions for entities with a current conversion status. Land and Water Conservation Fund Comp'liance An important part of the Federal LWCF grant program is the requirement that all property acquired or developed with LWCF assistance be maintained perpetually in public outdoor recreation use.Section 6(f)(3)of the LWCF Act protects parklands that receive LWCF assistance.The law safeguards park and recreation facilities by ensuring that changes or "conversions from recreation use"will bear a cost; investments in public outdoor recreation will not be lost. Section 6(f)(3).No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall,without the approval of the Secretary of Interior,be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses.The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if s/he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as is deemed necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. Effective immediately,any agency not in compliance with this section of the LWCF Act or with outstanding conversions is not eligible for new LWCF grants,and may find existing grants suspended,terminated,or have a hold placed on reimbursement payments.Entities will regain eligibility with the successful resolution of their compliance issue(s). Agencies with both unresolved conversions and current active grants shall be placed on probation.Mutually agreed upon benchmarks may be established to resolve the outstanding conversion.Failure to meet these benchmarks may result in the sanctions mentioned above. This requirement applies to all sites that have received LWCF assistance,whether for acquisition of parkland,development or rehabilitation of facilities.Conversions are not always obvious;expanding a community center,installing a cell phone tower, widening a road,or constructing a cafe are all examples of potential conversions. Even a relatively small LWCF grant (e.g.,for development of a picnic shelter)in a park of hundreds or even thousands of acres provides protection to the entire park site. ATTACHMENT - 57 I. LAND ANO WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROJECT AGREEMENT Definitions A.The term "HCRS"as used herein means the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,l- of the Interior. B.The term "Director"as used herein means the Director of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,or any representative lawfully delegated the authority to act for such Director. C.The term "Liaison Officer"as used herein means the California Director of Parks and Recreation,or other State officer as designated by the Governor from time to time and authorized by the State Legislature. D.The term "Manual"as used herein means the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Manual,formerly the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Manual (Outdoor Recreation Grants-in·Aid Manual). E.The term "Project"as used herein means the project or project segment which is the subject of this agreement as defined in the Project Proposal. F.The term "Project Proposal"as used herein means the form and all supplemental attachments used to describe and estimate the cost of a planning,acquisition,or development project filed with the Liaison Officer in support of an application for federal financial assistance. G.The term "State"as used herein means the State of California,and/or its official representative,the Department of Parks and Recreation. H.The term "Participant"as used herein means the recipient of the federal funds to be disbursed in accordance with the terms of this agreement. I.The term "State Funds"as used herein means those moneys made available by the State as matching money for pro· jects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,78 Stat.897 (1964), II.Continuing Assurances The parties to the project agreement specifically recognize that the Land and Water Conservation Fund assist..nce project creates an obligation to maintain the property described in the project agreement consistent with the Land and Water Con· servation Fund Act and the following requirements. Further,it is the acknowledged intent of the parties hereto that recipients of assistance will use moneys granted hereunder for the purposes of this program,and that assistance granted from the Fund will result in a net increase,commensurate at least with the State cost·share,in a participant's outdoor recreation.It is intended by both parties hereto that assistance from the Fund will be added to,rather than replace or be substituted for,State and local outdoor recreation funds. A.The participant agrees,as recipient of this assistance,that it will meet the following specific requirements and the terms of the project agreement. B.The participant agrees that the property described in the project agreement and the dated project boundary map made part of that agreement is being acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance or is integral to such acquiSition or development,and that,without the approval of the Liaison Officer,the Director,and/or the Secretary of the Interior,it shall not be converted to other than public outdoor recreation use but shall be maintained in public outdoor recreation in perpetuitY or for the term of the lease in the case of leased property.The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.This replacement land becomes subject to Section 6(f)(3)protection.The approval of conversion shall be at the sole discretion of the Secretary,or his designee.Prior to the completion of this project,the participant,the Liaison Officer,and the Director may mutually alter the area described in the project agreement and the dated project boundary map to provide the most satisfactory public outdoor recreation unit,except that acquired parcels are afforded Section 6{f)(31 protection as Fund reimbursement is provided. In the event the HCRS provides Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance for the acquisition and/or development of property subject to reversionary interests with full knowledge of those reversionary interests,conversion of said property to other public outdoor recreation uses as a result of such reversionary interest being exercised is approved.In receipt of this approval,the participant agrees to notify the State oJ the conversion as soon as possible and to seek approval of replacement property in accord with the conditions set forth in these provisions.The participant further agrees to effectuate such replacement within a reasonable period of time,acceptable to the State,after the conversion of property takes place.The provisions of this paragraph are also applicable to:leased properties acquired and/or developed with Fund assistance where such lease is terminated prior to its full term due to the existence of provisions in such lease known and agreed to by the State;and properties subject to other outstanding rights and interests that may result in a conversion when known and agreed to by the State. 2 ATTACHMENT - 58 C.The participant agrees that the benefit to be derived by the State from the full compliance by the participant with the terms of this agreement is the preservation,protection,and the net increase in the quality of public outdoor recreation facilities and resources which are available to the people of the State and of the United States,and such benefit exceeds to an immeasurable and unascertainable extent the amount of money furnished by the State by way of assistance under the terms of this agreement.The participant agrees that payment by the participant to the State of an amount equal to the amount of assistance extended under this agreement by the State would be inadequate compensation to the State for any breach by the participant of this agreement.The participant further agrees,that the appropriate remedy in the event of a breach by the participant of this agreement shall be the specific performance of this agreement. D.The participant agrees to comply with the policies and procedures set forth in the Heritage Conservation and Rec· reation Service (HCRS)Grants-in-Aid Manual.Provisions of said Manual are incorporated into and made a part of the project agreement. E.The participant agrees that the property and facilities described in the project agreement shall be operated and main· tain~d as prescribed by Manual requirements. F.The participant agrees that a permanent record shall be kept in the participant's public property records and available for public inspection to the effect that the property described in the scope of the project agreement.and the dated project boundary map made part of that agreement,has been acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance and that it cannot be converted to other than public outdoor recreation use without the written approval of the Liaison Officer,the Director,and/or the Secretary of the Interior. G.Nondiscrimination 1.The participant shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L.88-352)and in accordance with Title VI of that Act,no person in the United States shall,on the ground of race,religion,color,or national origin,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of.or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to the project agreement.The participant shall immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this provision.This assurance shall be binding on the participant or any political subdivision or other appropriate public agency to which Fund assistance or property acquired or developed with Fund assistance has been transferred for public recreation purposes. 2.The participant shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act OT 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000dl prohibiting em- ployment discrimination where (1)the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment of (2) discrim-inatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be bene- fitting from the grant·aided activitY. 3.The participant shall comply with the regulations and guidelines promulgated pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the Secretary of the Interior and the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 4.The provisions of the first three paragraphs apply to any part of the recreation system within which the assisted facility or property exists. 5.The participant shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence,except to the extent that reasonable differences in admission or other fees may be maintained on the basis of residence as set forth in the Manual. 1/1.Project Assurances A.Applicable Federal Circulars The participant shall comply with applicable regulations,policies,guidelines and requirements including Office of Management and Budget Circulars No.A-95 (Evaluation,review.and coordination of federal assistance programs and projects)and A-102 (Uniform administrative requirements for grants·in-aid to state and local governments)and FMC 74-4 (Cost principles applicabte to grants and contracts with state and local governments)as they relate to the appli- cation,acceptance and use of federal funds for th is federally assisted project. B.Project Proposal 1.The project proposal for State assistance bearing the same project number as the agreement and associated documents is by this reference made a part of the agreement. 2.The participant possesses legal authority to apply for the grant,and to finance and construct the proposed facilities.A resolution,motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed authorizing the filing of the project proposal.including all understandings and assurances contained therein.and directing and authorizing ~he person identified as the official representative of the participant to act in connection with the project proposal and to provide such additional information as may be required. 3.The participant has the ability and intention to finance the non-state share of the costS for the project.Sufficient funds will be available to assure effective operation and maintenance of the facilities acquired or developed by the project. 3 ATTACHMENT - 59 C.Project Execution 1.It k .l1derstood by the parties hereto that this agreement shall not obligate State of California funds for the project costs described herein.The participant hereby promises,in consideration of the promises made by the Liaison Officer herein,to execute the project stage described herein,in accordance with the terms of this agree- ment.Any disbursement hereunder shall not be made unless and until funds therefor are received by the Liaison Officer from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.This item shall not apply when the participant is an agency of the State of California. 2.The Liaison Officer hereby promises,in consideration of the promises made by the participant herein,to accept appropriated federal fundS for the purposes of the project and disburse the same to reimburse the participant up to 50 percent of the eligible project cost not to exceed 50 percent of the direct project cost shown in this agreement;except for a surcharge for administrative costs to be applied to twice the federal share of direct eligible project costs.The surcharge is to be deducted from the reimbursements received from the Federal Government applicable to this project and will be computed at the federally approved surcharge rate in effect at the time the billing is submined to the Federal Government. 3.The project period shall begin with the date of approval of the project agreement or the effective date of a waiver of retroactivity and shall terminate at the end of the stated or amended project period unless the project is completed or terminated sooner in which event the project.period shall end on the date of completion or termination.For project elements added to a consolidated project,the project period will begin on the date the project element is approved. 4.The participant will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification that funds have been approved and assure that the project will be prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. 5.The participant will require the facility to be designed to comply with the"American Standard Specifications [::Ir Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to,and Usable by,the Physically Handicapped,"Number A117.1-161,as modified (41 CFR 101·17.703).The State will be responsible for conducting inspections to insure compliance with these slJecifications by the contractor. 6.The participant shall secure completion of the work in accordance with approved construction plans and spec' ifications,and shall secure compliance with all applicable federal,state,local laws and regulations. 7.In the event the project covered by the project agreement,including future stages of the project,cannot be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications for the project;the participant shall bring the project to a point of recreational usefulness agreed upon by the participant and,the Director or his designee,and the Liaison Officer. 8.The participant will provide for and maintain competent and adequate architectural engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site to insure that the completed work conforms with the approved plans and specifications;that it will furnish progress reports and such other information as the HCRS may require. 9.The participant will comply with the terms of Title II and Title III,the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L.91-6461.94 Stat.1894 (1970),and the applicable regulations and procedures implementing such Act for all real property acquisitions and where applicable shall assure that the Act has been complied with for property to be developed with assistance under the project agreement. 10.The participant will comply with the provisions of:Executive Order 11988,relating to evaluation of flood hazards;Executive Order 11288,relating to the prevention,contra.!,and abatement or water pollution,and Executive Order 11990,relating to the protection of wetlands. 11.The participant will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a)of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,Public Law 93·234,87 Stat.975,approved December 31,1976.Section 1021a) requires,on and after March 2,1975,the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of any federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area that has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Develop· ment as an area having special flood hazards. The phrase "federal financial assistance"includes any form of loan, grant,guaranty,insurance payment,rebate,subsidy,disaster assistance loan or grant,or any other form of direct or indirect federal assistance. 12.The participant will insure that the facilities under its ownership,lease or supervision which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)list of Vio- lating Facilities,pursuant to 40 CFR,Part 15.20 and that it will notify the State and HCRS of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Actvities indicating that a facility to be utilized in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA.The participant agrees to comply with all applicable standards,orders,or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1970.The participant further agrees to insert this clause into any contract or subcontract in excess of $100,000. 13.The participant will assist the State and HCRS in its compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C.470),Executive Order 11593,and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.469a·1 et seq.)bv (a)consulti.ng with the State Historic Pres· 4 ATTACHMENT - 60 ervation Officer on the conduct of investigations,as necessary,to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are subject to effects {see 36 CF R Part (800.81 by the activity,and notifying the federal grantor agency of the existence of any such properties,and by (b)complying with all requirements established by the federal grantor agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such properties. D.Construction Contracted for by the Participant Shall Meet the Following Requirements: 1.Contracts for construction in excess of $10,000 shall be awarded through a process of competitive bidding involving formal advertising,with adequate purchase description,sealed bids,and public openings.Copies of all advertisemen'ts,bids,and a copy of the contract shall be retained for inspection by the Director and the State. 2.The participant shall inform all bidders on contracts for construction that federal funds are being used to assist in construction. 3.Written change orders shall be issued for all necessary changes in the facility being constructed under contracts of $10,000 or more.Such change orders shall be made a part of the project file and should be kept available for audit. 4.Contracts for construction shall include a provision for compliance with the Copeland"Anti-Kickback"Act (18 U.S.C.874\as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR,Part 3\. 5.The participant will comply with other procurement standards of OMB Circular A-102,Attachment 0,except for provisions related to compliance with Davis Bacon Act requ·irements lunless required by a program providing supplemental funding).Should supplemental funding be provided which requires compliance with Davis Bacon Act requirements,all construction contracts awarded by the grantee aod subgrantee in excess of $2,000 shall include a provision for compliance with such Act (40 U.S.C.276a to a·7)and as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR,Part 51. 6.The participant shall incorporate,or cause to be incorporated,into all construction contracts exceeding $10,000 (ten-thousand),the following provisions: "During the performance of this contract,the contractor agrees as follows: "(1)The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion,color,sex,or national orign.The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed,and that employees are treated during employment,without regard to their race,creed,color,or national orgin.Such action shall include,but not be limited to,the following:Employment;upgrading;demo- tion or transfer;recruitment or recruitment advertising;layoff or termination;rates of payor other forms of compensation;and selection for training,including apprenticeship.The contractor agrees to post in con- spicuous places,available to employees and applicants for employment,notices to be provided by the contra- cting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. "(2)The contractor will,in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor,state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, religion,color,sex,or national origin. "(3)The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding,a notice,to be provided by the agency contracting officer,advising the labor union or workers'representative of the contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order No.11246 as amended (3 CFR 169 (1974)),and shall post copies of notices in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. "(4)The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No.1 1246,as amended,and the rules, regulations,and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. "(5)The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No.1 1246,as a- mended,and by the rules,regulations,and orders of the Secretary of Labor,or pursuant thereto,and will permit access to his books,records,and accounts by the contracting agency,the State,and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules,regulations,and orders. "(61 In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules,regulations,or orders,this contract may be canceled,terminated,or suspended in whoie or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No.11246,as amended,and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No.1 1246,as amended,or by rules,regulations,or orders of the Secretary of Labor,or as otherwise provided by law. "(7)The contractor will include the provisions of Paragraphs (1)through (7)in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules,regulations,or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246,as amended,so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor.The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the con- tracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions,including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided,however,that in the event the contractor becomes involved in,or is threatened with,litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the contracting agency,the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. ATTACHMENT - 61 7.The participant shall (1)comply with the above provisions in construction work carried out by itself,(2)assist and cooperate actively with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining :...~~ompliance of contractors and subcontractors with the above contract provisions and with the rules,regulations,and rei· evant orders of the Secretary of Labor,(3)obtain and furnish to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Sec· retary of Labor such information as they may require for the supervision of such compliance,(4l enforce the obligation of contractors and subcontractors under such provisions,rules,regulations,and orders,(5)carry out sanctions and penalties for violation of such obligations imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the State,or the Secretary of Labor,or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to Part II,Subpart D,of Executive Order No.11246,as amended,and (6)refrain from entering into any contract with a contractor debarred from Government contracts under Part II,Subpart D,of Executive Order No.11246,as amended.In addition,the participant agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings,the HCRS may take any or all of the following actions:Cancel,terminate,or suspend in whole or in part this grant;refrain from extending any further assistance to the applicant under the program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such applicant;and refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. E.Conflict of Interests 1.No official or employee of the participant,State,or Federal Government who is authorized in his official capac· ity to negotiate,make,accept,or approve,or to take part in such decisions regarding a contract or subcontract in connection with this project shall have any financial or other personal interest in any such contract or sub· contract. 2.No person performing services for the participant in connection with this project shall have a financial or other personal interest other than his employment or retention by the participant,in any contract or subcontract in connection with this project.No officer or employee of such person retained by the participant shall have any financial or other personal interest in any real property acquired for this project unless such interest is openly disclosed upon the public records of the participant,and such officer,employee or person has not participated in the acquisition for or on behalf of the participant. 3.No member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement,or to any benefit to arise hereupon,unless such benefit shall be in the form of an agreement made with a corporation for its general benefit. 4.The participant,State,and the Director shall be responsible for enforcing the above conflict of interest provi· sions. F.Hatch Act Tht;!participant will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which provides that no officer or employee of the participant whose principal employment is in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part pur' suant to this agreement shall take part in any of the political activitY prescribed in the Hatch Political ActivitY Act Act,5 U.S.C.Sec.118k (1964).with the exceptions therein enumerated. G.Project Costs 1.Project costs eligible for assistance shall be determined upon the basis of the criteria set forth in the Manual and FMC 74-4. 2.The agreement may include the use of the indirect cost rate currently approved,in accordance with FMC 74-4, for the participant that is a party to this agreement. H.Project Administration 1.The participant shall promptly submit such reports and documentation as the Director or Liaison Officer may request. 2.Any moneys advanced to the participant are "public moneys"and shall be deposited in a bank with FDIC insurance coverage and the balances exceeding the FDIC coverage shall be collaterally secured as provided for in 12 U.S.C.265. 3.The participant shall use any funds received by way of advance payment from the State under the terms of this agreement solely for the project or project stage described in the agreement. 4.Properties and facilities acquired or developed with Fund assistance shall be available for inspection by the State or the HCRS at such intervals as the Liaison Officer or the Director shall require. I.Retention and Custodial Requirements for Records 1.Financial records.supporting documents,statistical records,and all other records pertinent to this grant shall be retained for a period of three years;except the records shall be retained beyond the three·year period if audit findings have not been resolved. 2.The retention period starts from the date of the final expenditure report for the project or.the consolidated project element. ATTACHMENT - 62 3.State and local governments are authorized to substitute microfilm copies in lieu of original records. 4.The Liaison Officer,Secretary of the Interior,and the Comptroller General of the United States,or any of their duly authorized representatives,shall have access to any books,documents,papers,and records of the partic- ipant and their subgrantees which are pertinent to a specific project for the purpose of making audit.exam- ination,excerpts and transcripts. J.Project Termination 1.The Liaison Officer of the Director may temporarily suspend State assistance under the project pending correc- tive action by the participant or pending a decision to terminate the grant by the HeRS or the State. 2.The participant may unilaterally terminate the project or consolidated project element at any time prior to the first payment on the project or consolidated project element.After the initial payment,the project may be terminated,modified,or amended by the participant only by mutual agreement. 3.The Liaison Officer or the Director may terminate the project in whole,or in part,at any time before the date of completion,whenever it is determined that the grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of the grant. The Liaison Officer or Director will promptly notify the participant in writing of the determination and the reasons for the termination,together with the effective date.Payments made to the participant or recoveries by the State under projects terminated for cause shall be in accord with the legal rights and liabilities of the parties. 4.The Director,State,or participant.may terminate grants in whole,or in part at any time before the date of completion,when both parties agree that the continuation of the project would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds.The twO parties shall agree upon the termination con- ditions,including the effective date and,in the case of partial termination conditions,including the effective date and,in the case of partial termination,the portion to be terminated.The grantee shall not incur new obligations for the terminated portion after the effective date,and shall cancel as many outstanding obligations as'possible.The State may allow full credit to the participant for the state share of the noncancellable obliga· tions,properly incurred by the grantee prior to termination. 5.Termination either for cause or for convenience requires that the project in question be brought to a state of recreational usefulness agreed upon by the participant,the Liaison Officer,or the Director,or that all funds provided by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service be returned. K.Fund Acknowledgment The participant will permanently display in a conspicuous place a bronze plaque which acknowledges Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance.The plaque will be provided by the State Department of Parks and Recreation and its installation by the participant will be required upon initial development of the property. L.Hold Harmless The participant shall indemnify the State of California and its officers,agents and employees against and hold the same free and harmless from any and all claims,demands,damages,losses,costs,and/or expenses of liability due to,or arising out of,either in whole or in part,whether directly or indirectly,the organization,development,construction, operation,or maintenance of the project. 7 ATTACHMENT - 63 Prerequisites to Conversion Source:NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual,Effective 10/1/2008 3.Prerequisites to the NPS consideration of conversions.Formal requests from the project sponsor for permission to convert LWCF assisted properties in whole or in part to other than public outdoor recreation uses must be submitted by the State Liaison Officer to NPS in writing and conform to the prerequisites set forth in 36 CFR 59. States shall consult with NPS when conversions are proposed or discovered and prior to making the formal request to NPS.States shall use the Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form (PD/ESF)to prepare its conversion proposal. 4).The PD/ESF guides the development of the conversion proposal,including the incorporation of the following prerequisites that must be met before NPS will consider the formal conversion request: a.All practical alternatives to the conversion have been evaluated and rejected on a sound basis. b.The fair market value of the property to be converted has been established and the property proposed for substitution is of at least equal fair market value as established by a state approved appraisal (see Chapter 4 for appraisal gUidance)excluding the value of structures or facilities that will not directly enhance its outdoor recreation utility. c.The property proposed for replacement is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location as that being converted.Depending on the situation, and at the discretion of the NPS,the replacement property need not provide identical recreation experiences or be located at the same site,provided it is in a reasonably equivalent location.Generally,the replacement property should be administered by the same political jurisdiction as the converted property.NPS will consider state requests to change the project sponsor for any replacement property when it is determined a different political jurisdiction can meet the criteria for replacement properties.EqUivalent usefulness and location will be determined based on the following criteria: (1)Property to be converted must be evaluated in order to determine what recreation needs are being fulfilled by the facilities which exist and the types of outdoor recreation resources and opportunities available.The property being proposed for substitution must then be evaluated in a similar manner to determine if it will meet recreation needs that are at least like in magnitude and impact to the user community as the converted site.This criterion is applicable in the consideration of all conversion requests with the exception of those where wetlands are proposed as replacement property.Wetland areas and interests therein shall be considered to be of reasonably equivalent usefulness as compared to the recreational usefulness of the property proposed ATTACHMENT - 64 for conversion if they have been identified in the wetlands provisions of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)in accordance with Section 6(f)(3)of the LWCF Act as amended (36 CFR 59.3)by Section 303 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. (2)Replacement property need not necessarily be directly adjacent to or close by the converted site.This policy provides the administrative flexibility to determine location recognizing that the property should meet existing public outdoor recreation needs.While generally this will involve the selection of a site serving the same community(ies)or area as the converted site,there may be exceptions.For example,if property being converted is in an area undergoing major demographic change and the area has no existing or anticipated future need for outdoor recreation,then the project sponsor should seek to locate the substitute area at another location within the jurisdiction. (3)Should a local project sponsor be unable to replace converted property,the State would be responsible,as the primary recipient of federal assistance,for assuring compliance with these requirements and for the substitution of replacement property. (4)The acquisition of one parcel of land may be used in satisfaction of several approved conversions (see Section 6 below)and vice versa. d.The property proposed for replacement meets the eligibility requirements for LWCF assisted acquisition (see Chapter 3).The replacement property must constitute or be part of a viable recreation area.Viability and recreational usefulness is dependent upon the proposed outdoor recreation development plan and timetable for the development of the replacement parks.If full development of the replacement site(s)will be delayed beyond three years from the date of conversion approval,the conversion proposal shall explain why this is necessary (see Chapter 3.8.7). For proposed replacement property with a history of contamination,proposals must address the nature of the contamination,how the contaminated area has been or will be and how provisions will be put in place to monitor the new replacement parkland to ensure public health and safety in perpetuity. Certain contaminated areas may not meet the equal or greater recreational usefulness prerequisite for replacement land.Early coordination with NPS for conversion proposals involving contaminated replacement land,even if remediated,is required (see 3.4 below). Unless each of the follOWing additional conditions (also see Chapter 3)is met, land currently owned by another public agency may not be used as replacement land for land acquired as part of an LWCF project: (1)The replacement land was not originally acquired by the sponsor or selling agency for recreation. ATTACHMENT - 65 (2)The replacement land has not been previously dedicated or managed for recreational purposes while in public ownership. (3)No federal assistance was provided in the replacement land's original acquisition unless the assistance was provided under a program expressly authorized to match or supplement LWCF assistance. (4)Where the project sponsor acquires replacement land from another public agency,the selling agency must be required by law to receive payment for the land so acquired (see Chapter 3.A.9). An exception may be made to this condition only in the case of development projects for which the project sponsor's match was not derived from the cost of the purchase or value of a donation of the land to be converted,but from the value of the development itself.In this case,pUblic land that has not been previously dedicated or managed for recreation/conservation use may be used as replacement land even if this land is currently owned by the project sponsor or is transferred from one public agency to another without cost. e.In the case of Section 6(f)(3)protected areas that are partially rather than wholly converted,the impact of the converted portion on the remaining area shall be considered.If such a conversion is approved,the unconverted area must remain recreationally viable or be replaced as well. f.All necessary coordination with other federal agencies has been satisfactorily accomplished including,for example,compliance with Section 4(f)of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. g.The guidelines for environmental review under NEPA have been satisfactorily completed and considered by NPS during its review of the proposed Section 6(f)(3)action.In cases where the proposed conversion arises from another federal action,NPS final review of the State's proposal shall not occur until the NPS is assured all environmental review requirements for the other federal action have been met,e.g.,Army Corps of Engineer permits. The environmental review process must analyze not only the Section 6(f)(3) area proposed for conversion,but also the development of the replacement parkland.The purpose and scope of the environmental review must focus on the impacts on the "human environment"resulting from the loss of the Section 6(f)(3)parkland,impacts on any remaining Section 6(f)(3)parkland for partial conversions,and the development of new Section 6(f)(3)replacement park(s).The scope of the environmental review should not include impacts of the action precipitating the conversion on resources beyond the Section 6(f)(3)boundary,such as impacts of a new housing development or a school on a neighborhood. The environmental analysis must be conducted in a neutral and factual manner and result in statements that reflect this same neutrality so the interested and affected public can focus on and understand the details of the proposed federal action of converting parkland including the replacement of new parkland according to 36 CFR 59.The environmental analysis ATTACHMENT - 66 documents should not include statements that promote or justify the action precipitating the conversion,such as proclaiming that the subject parkland is the best location for a new fire station. For detailed guidance on NEPA and how to conduct environmental reviews for LWCF conversions,consult Chapter 4 of this manual,and the NPS. h.Adherence to state intergovernmental review procedures as appropriate (see Chapter 4). i.The proposed conversion and substitution are in accord with the SCORP. ATTACHMENT - 67 LWCF Conversion Links (Revised 8/16/2010 -Revisions are in bold print) These are the links to the basic requirements for the Land &Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)conversion package,which the Office of Grants and Local Services will forward to the National Parks Service for approval when all the requirements are received. National Park Service lWCF State Assistance Manual Chapter 8 Section E.3 of the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual describes the requirements called prerequisites to the NPS consideration of conversions.Find the entire Chapter 8 Section E.Conversions of Use in the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual at: http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf Proposal Description-Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF) The correct version effective October 1,2008 of the Proposal Description- Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF)must be completed.Complete the cover page,check the second box labeled "6(f)conversion proposal" under "Project Amendment"in Step 1 and complete Steps 38 and 5 through 7.Find the PD-ESF at the following link on the NPS web site: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/forms/PD ESF.doc Section 6(f)(3)Map The checklist and sample for preparing the required Section 6(f)(3)maps are found on pages 18 through 20 of the Draft lWCF Program Grant Application Guide,dated May 27,2010.A revised Section 6(f)(3)map for the park with the total acreage of the boundary which does not include the land taken and a new Section 6(f)(3)map for the replacement property with its total acreage are required.Find the complete Draft lWCF Program Grant Application Guide for these pages at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/lwcf app guide 5- 2010 draft.pdf 1 ATTACHMENT - 68 ... California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The CEQA documents required for the replacement property are the Initial Study,Notice of Exemption filed with and stamped by the county clerk,or Ne§ative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report with a Notice of Determination filed with and stamped by the county clerk.The CEQA ·Certification Form cannot be used with LWCF.The PD-ESF will determine the NEPA pathway in Steps 5 throu§h 7.An Environmental Assessment (EA)is usually required at a minimum for a conversion.Find the required EA format in Chapter 4.B.6.b.(1)in the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual from the link shown above. Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA) Appraisals of the total acreage of the land taken at the park and the replacement property as it is are required.Each appraisal must also have an independent review certifying that it meets the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA).Find the UASFLA requirements at: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/land-ack National Historic Preservation Act,Section 106 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,Section 106 is required for the replacement property and its proposed development.The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)includes the statewide Historical Resources Inventory (HRI)database maintained by OHP and the records maintained and managed,under contract,by eleven independent regional Information Centers (ICs).If the Information Center record search indicates a survey is required for the replacement property development area,then this would be completed after acquisition.Find the link for the CHRIS Historical Resources Consultants list at: www.chrisinfo.org Federal Forms The Office of Grants and Local Services prepares the required federal forms,including the NPS 10-902 A Amendment and SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance.The State Liaison Officer (SLO)signs the federal forms including the PD-ESF.For California,the SLO is the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2 ATTACHMENT - 69 LWCF Proposal for a Public Facility Links These are the links to the basic requirements for the Land &Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)request to construct a public facility within a 6(f)(3)area,which the Office of Grants and Local Services will forward to the National Parks Service for approval when all the requirements are received. National Park Service LWCF State Assistance Manual Chapter 8 Section H of the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual describes the requirements for NPS to approve a public facility within a 6(f)(3)area.The construction of the public facility has to be sponsor- funded,which means the LWCF grantee.The LWCF grantee needs to provide a cover letter signed by the authorized representative with their request for a proposed public facility.Include a floor plan of the proposed public facility with the use for each room.The answers for the requirements given in Chapter 8,Section H will be provided by the LWCF grantee in Step 3C of the Proposal Description-Environmental Screening Form (see the link for it below).Find the entire Chapter 8 Section H. Proposals to Construct Public Facilities in the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual at: http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf Proposal Description-Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF) The correct version effective October 1,2008 of the Proposal Description- Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF)must be completed.Complete the cover page,check the third box labeled "Request for a public facility in a Section 6(f)area"under "Project Amendment"in Step 1 and complete Steps 3C and 5 through 7.Find the PD-ESF at the following link on the NPS web site: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/forms/PD ESF.doc 1 ATTACHMENT - 70 Section 6(f)(3)Map The checklist and sample for preparing the required Section 6(f)(3)maps are found on pages 50 and 51 of the LWCF Procedural Guide,effective June 2008.A revised Section 6(f)(3)map for the park with the new footprint for the proposed public facility with its square footage is required. Find the complete LWCF Procedural Guide for these pages at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1 008/files/lwcf procedural guide 06- 2008.doc California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The CEQA documents required for the pUblic facility are either the Notice of Exemption,filed with and stamped by the county clerk,or the complete set of the Initial Study,Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report with a Notice of Determination filed with and stamped by the county clerk and State Clearinghouse response.The CEQA Certification Form cannot be used with LWCF.The PD-ESF will determine the NEPA pathway in Steps 5 through 7.If an Environmental Assessment (EA)is required,find the required EA format in Chapter 4.6.b.(1)in the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual from the link shown above. Federal Forms The Office of Grants and Local Services prepares the required federal forms,including the NPS 10-902 A Amendment and SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance.The State Liaison Officer (SLO)signs the federal forms including the PD-ESF.For California,the SLO is the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2 ATTACHMENT - 71 LWCF Proposal for a Public Facility Links These are the links to the basic requirements for the Land &Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)request to construct a public facility within a 6(f)(3)area,which the Office of Grants and Local Services will forward to the National Parks Service for approval when all the requirements are received. National Park Service LWCF State Assistance Manual Chapter 8 Section H of the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual describes the requirements for NPS to approve a public facility within a 6(f)(3)area.The construction of the public facility has to be sponsor- funded,which means the LWCF grantee.The LWCF grantee needs to provide a cover letter signed by the authorized representative with their request for a proposed public facility.Include a floor plan of the proposed public facility with the use for each room.The answers for the requirements given in Chapter 8,Section H will be provided by the LWCF grantee in Step 3C of the Proposal Description-Environmental Screening Form (see the link for it below).Find the entire Chapter 8 Section H. Proposals to Construct Public Facilities in the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual at: http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/programsllwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf Proposal Description-Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF) The correct version effective October 1,2008 of the Proposal Description- Environmental Screening Form (PD-ESF)must be completed.Complete the cover page,check the third box labeled "Request for a public facility in a Section 6(f)area"under "Project Amendment"in Step 1 and complete Steps 3C and 5 through 7.Find the PD-ESF at the following link on the NPS web site: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/forms/PD ESF.doc 1 ATTACHMENT - 72 Section 6(f)(3)Map The checklist and sample for preparing the required Section 6(f)(3)maps are found on pages 50 and 51 of the LWCF Procedural Guide,effective June 2008.A revised Section 6(f)(3)map for the park with the new footprint for the proposed public facility with its square footage is required. Find the complete LWCF Procedural Guide for these pages at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/lwcf procedural guide 06- 2008.doc California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The CEQA documents required for the public facility are either the Notice of Exemption,filed with and stamped by the county clerk,or the complete set of the Initial Study,Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report with a Notice of Determination filed with and stamped by the county clerk and State Clearinghouse response.The CEQA Certification Form cannot be used with LWCF.The PD-ESF will determine the NEPA pathway in Steps 5 through 7.If an Environmental Assessment (EA)is required,find the required EA format in Chapter 4.6.b.(1)in the NPS LWCF State Assistance Manual from the link shown above. Federal Forms The Office of Grants and Local Services prepares the required federal forms,including the NPS 10-902 A Amendment and SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance.The State Liaison Officer (SLO)signs the federal forms including the PD-ESF.For California,the SLO is the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2 ATTACHMENT - 73 The purpose of this Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Fonn (PDIESF)is to provide descriptive and environmental infonnation about a variety of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)state assistance proposals submitted for National Park Service (NPS)review and decision.The completed PDIESF becomes part of the "federal administrative record"in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)and its implementing regulations.The PD portion .of the fonn captures administrative and descriptive details enabling the NPS to understand the proposal.The ESF portion is designed for States and/or project sponsors to use while the LWCF proposal is under development.Upon completion,the ESF will indicate the resources that could be impacted by the proposal enabling States and/or project sponsors to more accurately follow an appropriate pathway for NEPA analysis:1)a recommendation for a Categorical Exclusion (CE),2)production of an Environmental Assessment (EA),or 3)production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The ESF should also be used to document any previously conducted yet still viable environmental analysis if used for this federal proposal.The completed PDIESF must be submitted as part ofthe State's LWCF proposal to NPS. Except for the proposals listed below,the PD/ESF must be completed,including the appropriate NEPA document,signed by the State,and submitted with each new federal application for LWCF assistance and amendments for:scope changes that alter or add facilities and/or acres;conversions;public facility exceptions;sheltering outdoor facilities;and changing the original intended use of an area from that which was approved in an earlier LWCF agreement.Consult the LWCF Program Manual (www.nps.gov/lwct)for detailed guidance for your type of proposal and on how to comply with NEPA. For the following types of proposals only this Cover Page is required because these types of proposals are administrative in nature and are categorically excluded from further NEPA environmental analysis.NPS will complete the NEPA CE Fonn. Simply check the applicable box below,and complete and submit only this Cover Page to NPS along with the other items required for your type of proposal as instructed in the LWCF Program Manual. o SCORP planning proposal o Time extension with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope o To delete work and no other work is added back into the project scope o To change project cost with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope o To make an administrative change that does not change project scope Name of LWCF Proposal:Date Submitted to NPS: Prior LWCF Project Number(s)List al/prior LWCF project numbers and all park names associated with assisted site(s): local or State Project Sponsoring Agency (recipientorsub-recipientin case ofpass-through grants): Local or State Sponsor Contact: NamelTitle: Office/Address: Phone/Fax:Email: Cover Page 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 74 ,~Using a separate sheet for narrative descriptions and explanations,address each item and question in the order it is presented, and identify each response with its item number such as Step 1-A1,A2;Step 3-81;Step 6-A1,A29;etc. New Project Application D Acquisition D Development Go to Step 2A Go to Step 28 D Combination (Acquisition &Development) Go to Step 2C Project Amendment D Increase in scope or change in scope from original agreement. Complete Steps 3A,and 5 through 7. D 6(f)conversion proposal.Complete Steps 38,and 5 through 7. D Request for public facility in a Section 6(f)area.Complete Steps 3C,and 5 through 7. Request for temporary non-conforming use in a Section 6(f)area. Complete Steps 4A,and 5 through 7. Request for significant change in use/intent of original LWCF application. Complete Steps 48,and 5 through 7. Request to shelter existing/new facility within a Section 6(f)area regardless of funding source.Complete Steps 4C,and 5 through 7. A.For an Acquisition Project 1.Provide a brief narrative about the proposal that provides the reasons for the acquisition,the number of acres to be acquired with LWCF assistance,and a description of the property.Describe and quantify the types of existing resources and features on the site (for example,50 acres wetland,2,000 feet beachfront,200 acres forest,scenic views,100 acres riparian,vacant lot,special habitat,any unique or special features,recreation amenities,historic/cultural resources,hazardous materials/contamination history,restrictions,institutional controls,easements,rights-of-way,above ground/underground utilities,including wires,towers,etc.). 2.How and when will the site be made open and accessible for public outdoor recreation use (signage,entries, parking,site improvements,allowable activities,etc.)? 3.Describe development plans for the proposal for the site(s)for public outdoor recreation use within the next three (3)years. 4.SLO must complete the State AppraisallWaiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 certifying that the appraisal(s)has been reviewed and meets the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions"or a waiver valuation was approved per 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2)(ii).State should retain copies of the appraisals and make them available if needed. 5.Address each item in "0"below. B.For a Development Project 1.Describe the physical improvements and/or facilities that will be developed with federal LWCF assistance, including a site sketch depicting improvements,where and how the public will access the site,parking,etc. Indicate entrances on 6(f)map.Indicate to what extent the project involves new development,rehabilitation, and/or replacement of existing facilities. 2.When will the project be completed and open for public outdoor recreation use? 3.Address each item in "0"below. 2 1010112008ATTACHMENT - 75 C.For a Combination Project 1.For the acquisition part of the proposal: a.Provide a brief narrative about the proposal that provides the reasons for the acquisition,number of acres to be acquired with LWCF assistance,and describes the property.Describe and quantify the types of existing resources and features on the site (for example,50 acres wetland,2,000 feet beachfront,200 acres forest,scenic views,100 acres riparian,vacant lot,special habitat,any unique or special features, recreation amenities,historic/cultural resources,hazardous materials/contamination history,restrictions, institutional controls,easements,rights-of-way,above ground/underground utilities,including wires, towers,etc.) b.How and when will the site be made open and accessible for public outdoor recreation use (signage, entries,parking,site improvements,allowable activities,etc.)? c.Describe development plans for the proposed for the site(s)for public outdoor recreation use within the next three (3)years. d.SLO must complete the State AppraisallWaiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 certifying that the appraisal(s)has been reviewed and meets the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land AcqUisitions"or a waiver valuation was approved per 49 CFR 24.1 02(c)(2)(ii).State should retain copies of the appraisals and make them available if needed. 2.For the development part of the proposal: a.Describe the physical improvements and/or facilities that will be developed with federal LWCF assistance, including a site sketch depicting improvements,where and how the public will access the site,parking, etc.Indicate entrances on 6(f)map.Indicate to what extent the project involves new development, rehabilitation,and/or replacement of existing facilities. b.When will the project be completed and open for public outdoor recreation use? 3.Address each item in "0"below. D.Additional items to address for a new application and amendments 1.Will this proposal create a new public park/recreation area where none previously existed and is not an addition to an existing public park/recreation area?Yes __(go to #3)No __(go to #2) 2.a.What is the name of the pre-existing public area that this new site will be added to? b.Is the pre-existing public park/recreation area already protected under Section 6(f)?Yes _No_ If no,will it now be included in the 6(f)boundary?Yes _No_ 3.What will be the name of this new public park/recreation area? 4.a.Who will hold title to the property assisted by LWCF?Who will manage and operate the site(s)? b.What is the sponsor's type of ownership and control of the property? Fee simple ownership Less than fee simple.Explain: Lease.Describe lease terms including renewable clauses,#of years remaining on lease,etc. Who will lease area?Submit copy of lease with this PD/ESF.(See LWCF Manual for program restrictions for leases and further gUidance.) 5.Describe the nature of any rights-of-way,easements,reversionary interests,etc.to the Section 6(f)park area?Indicate the location on 6(f)map.Do parties understand that a Section 6(f)conversion may occur if private or non-recreation activities occur on any pre-existing right-of-way,easement,leased area? 6.Are overhead utility lines present,and if so,explain how they will be treated per LWCF Manual. 7.As a result of this project,describe new types of outdoor recreation opportunities and capacities,and short and long term public benefits. 3 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 76 8.'Explain any existing non-recreation and non-public uses that will continue on the site(s)and/or proposed for the future within the 6(f)boundary. 9.Describe the planning process that led to the development of this proposal.Your narrative should address: a.How was the interested and affected public notified and provided opportunity to be involved in planning for and developing your LWCF proposal?Who was involved and how were they able to review the completed proposal,including any state,local,federal agency professionals,sUbject matter experts, members of the public and Indian Tribes.Describe any public meetings held and/or formal public comment periods,including dates and length of time provided for the public to participate in the planning process and/or to provide comments on the completed proposal. b.What information was made available to the public for review and comment?Did the sponsor provide written responses addressing the comments?If so,include responses with this PD/ESF submission. 10.How does this proposal implement statewide outdoor recreation goals as presented in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)(include references),and explain why this proposal was selected using the State's Open Project Selection Process (OPSP). 11.List all source(s)and amounts of financial match to the LWCF federal share of the project.The value of the match can consist of cash,donation, and in-kind contributions.The federal LWCF share and financial matches must result in a viable outdoor recreation area and not rely on other funding not mentioned here. Other federal resources may be used as a match if specifically authorized by law. Source Type of Match Value $ $ $ 12.Is this LWCF project scope part of a larger effort not reflected on the SF-424 (Application for Federal Assistance)and grant agreement?If so,briefly describe the larger effort,funding amount(s)and source(s). This will capture information about partnerships and how LWCF plays a role in leveraging funding for projects beyond the scope of this federal grant. 13.List all required federal,state,and local permits/approvals needed for the proposal and explain their purpose and status. Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 A.Increase/Change in Project Scope 1.For Acquisition Projects:To acquire additional property that was not described in the original project proposal and NEPA documentation,follow Step 2A-Acquisition Project and 20. 2.For Development Projects:To change the project scope for a development project that alters work from the original project scope by adding elements or enlarging facilities,follow Step 2B-Development Project and 20. 3.For Combination Projects:Follow Step 2C as appropriate. B.Section 6(f)(3)Conversion Proposal Prior to developing your Section 6(f)(3)conversion proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual and 36 CFR 59.3 for complete gUidance on conversions.Local sponsors must consult early with the State LWCF manager when a conversion is under consideration or has been discovered.States must consult with their NPS-LWCF manager as early as possible in the conversion process for guidance and to sort out and discuss details of the conversion proposal to avoid mid-course corrections and unnecessary delays.A critical first step is for the State and NPS to agree on the size of the Section 8m park land impacted by any non-recreation,non-public use, 4 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 77 especially prior to any appraisal activity.Any previous LWCF project agreements and actions must be identified and understood to determine the actual Section 6(f)boundary. The Section 6(f)(3)conversion proposal including the required NEPA environmental review documents (CE recommendation or an EA document)must focus on the loss of public outdoor recreation park land and recreational usefulness,and its replacement per 36 :::=R 59,and not the activities precipitating the conversion or benefits thereof,such as the impacts of constructing a new school to relieve overcrowding or constructing a hotel/restaurant facility to stimulate the local economy.Rather,the environmental review must 1)focus on "resource impacts"as indicated on the ESF (Step 6),including the loss of public park land and recreation opportunities (ESF A-15),and 2)the impacts of creating new replacement park land and replacement recreation opportunities.A separate ESF must be generated for the converted park area and each replacement site.Section 6(f)(3)conversions always have more than minor impacts to outdoor recreation (ESF A-15)as a result of loss of parkland requiring an EA, except for "small"conversions as defined in the LWCF Manual Chapter 8. For NPS review and decision,the following elements are required to be included in the State's completed conversion proposal to be submitted to NPS: 1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2.A detailed explanation of the sponsor's need to convert the Section 6(f)parkland including all efforts to consider other practical alternatives to this conversion,how they were evaluated,and the reasons they were not pursued. 3.An explanation of how the conversion is in accord with the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 4.Completed "State AppraisalIWaiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 for each of the converted and replacement parcels certifying that the appraisals meet the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions."States must retain copies of the appraisals/waiver valuations and make them available for review upon request. 5.For the park land proposed for conversion,a detailed description including the following: a.Specific geographic location on a map,9-digit zip code,and name of park or recreation area proposed for conversion. b.Description of the area proposed for the conversion including the acreage to be converted and any acreage remaining.For determining the size of the conversion,consider not only the physical footprint of the activity precipitating the conversion,but how the precipitating activity will impact the entire 6(f)park area.In many cases the size of the converted area is larger than the physical footprint.Include a description of the recreation resources,facilities,and recreation opportunities that will be impacted, displaced or lost by the proposed conversion.For proposals to partially convert a Section 6(f)park area, the remaining 6(f)park land must remain recreation ally viable and not be impacted by the activities that are precipitating the conversion.If it is anticipated that the precipitating activities impact the remaining Section 6(f)area,the proposed area for the conversion should be expanded to encompass all impacted park land. c.Description of the community and population served by the park,including users of the park and uses. d.For partial conversions,a revised 6(f)map clearly indicating both the portion that is being converted and the portion remaining intact under Section 6(f). 6.For each proposed replacement site: a.Specific geographic location on a map,9-digit zip code,and geographical relationship of converted and replacement sites.If site will be added to an existing public park/outdoor recreation area,indicate on map. b.Description of the site's physical characteristics and resource attributes with number and types of resources and features on the site,for example,15 acres wetland,2,000 feet beachfront,50 acres forest, scenic views,75 acres riparian,vacant lot,special habitat,any unique or special features,structures, recreation amenities,historic/cultural resources,hazardous materials/contamination history,restrictions, institutional controls,easements,rights-of-way,overhead/underground utilities including overhead wires, towers,etc. 5 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 78 c.Identification of the owner of the replacement site and its recent history of use/function up to the present. d.Detailed explanation of how the proposed replacement site is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location as the property being converted,including a description of the recreation needs that will be met by the new replacement parks,populations to be served,and new outdoor recreation resources,facilities, and opportunities to be provided. e.Identification of owner and manager of the new replacement park? f.Name of the new replacement park.If the replacement park is added to an existing public park area,will the existing area be included within the 6(f)boundary?What is the name of the • existing public park area? g.Timeframe for completing the new outdoor recreation area(s)to replace the recreation opportunity lost per the terms of conversion approval and the date replacement park(s)will be open to the public. h.New Section 6(f)map for the new replacement park. 7.NEPA environmental review,inclUding NHPA Section 106 review,for both the converted and replacement sites in the same document to analyze how the converted park land and recreational usefulness will be replaced.Except for "small"conversions (see LWCF Manual Chapter 8), conversions usually require an EA. Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 C.Proposal for a Public Facility in a Section 6(f)Area Prior to developing this proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.In summary,NPS must review and decide on requests to construct a public indoor and/or non-recreation facility within a Section 6(f) area.In certain cases NPS may approve the construction of public facilities within a Section 6(f)area where it can be shown that there will be a net gain in outdoor recreation benefits and enhancements for the entire park.In most cases,development of a non-recreation public facility within a Section 6(f)area constitutes a conversion.For NPS review,the State/sponsor must submit a proposal to NPS under a letter of transmittal from the SLO that: 1.Describes the purpose and all proposed uses of the public facility such as types of programming,recreation activities,and special events including intended users of the new facility and any agency,organization,or other party to occupy the facility.Describe the interior and exterior of the facility,such as office space, meeting rooms,food/beverage area,residential/lodging area,classrooms,gyms,etc.Explain how the facility will be compatible with the outdoor recreation'area.Explain how the facility and associated uses will significantly support and enhance existing and planned outdoor recreation resources and uses of the site,and how outdoor recreation use will remain the primary function of the site.(The public's outdoor recreation use must continue to be greater than that expected for any indoor use,unless the site is a single facility,such as a swimming pool,which virtually occupies the entire site.) 2.Indicates the exact location of the proposed public facility and associated activities on the site's Section 6(f) map.Explain the design and location alternatives considered for the public facility and why they were not pursued. 3.Explains who will own and/or operate and maintain the facility?Attach any 3fd party leases and operation and management agreements.When will the facility be open to the public?Will the facility ever be used for private functions and closed to the pUblic?Explain any user or other fees that will be instituted,including the fee structure. 4.Includes required documents as a result of a completed NEPA process (Steps 5 -7). Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 6 1010112008ATTACHMENT - 79 A.Proposal for Temporary Non-Conforming Use Prior to developing this proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.NPS must review and decided on requests for temporary uses that do not meet the requirements of allowable activities within a Section 6(f)area.A temporary non-conforming use is limited to a period of six months (180 days)or less.Continued use beyond six-months will not be considered temporary,and may result in a Section 6(f)(3)conversion of use requiring the replacement of converted parkland.For NPS review,describe the temporary non-conforming use (activities other than public outdoor recreation)in detail including the following information: 1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2.Describe in detail the proposed temporary non-conforming use and all associated activities,why it is needed, and alternative locations that were considered and why they were not pursued. 3.Explain length of time needed for the temporary non-conforming use and why. 4.Describe the size of the Section 6(f)area affected by the temporary non-conforming use activities and expected impacts to public outdoor recreation areas,facilities and opportunities.Explain efforts to keep the size of the area impacted to a minimum.Indicate the location of the non-conforming use on the site's 6(f)map. 5.Describe any anticipated temporary/permanent impacts to the Section 6(f)area and how the sponsor will mitigate them during and after the non-conforming use ceases. 6.Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal. Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 B.Proposal for Significant Change in Use Prior to developing the proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.NPS approval must be obtained prior to any change from one eligible use to another when the proposed use would significantly contravene the original plans or intent for the area outlined in the original LWCF application for federal assistance. Consult with NPS for early determination on the need for a formal review.NPS approval is only required for proposals that will significantly change the use of a LWCF-assisted site (e.g.,from passive to active recreation). The proposal must include and address the following items: 1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2.Description of the proposed changes and how they significantly contravene the original plans or intent of LWCF agreements. 3.Explanation of the need for change in use and how the change is consistent with local plans and the SCORP. 4.Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal. Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 c.Proposal for Sheltering Facilities Prior to developing this proposal,you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance.NPS must review and decide on all proposals to shelter an existing outdoor recreation facility or construct a new sheltered recreation facility within a Section 6(f)area regardless of funding source.The proposal must demonstrate that there is an increased benefit to public recreation opportunity.Describe the sheltering proposal in detail,including the following: 1.A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2.Describe the proposed sheltered facility,how it would operate,how the sheltered facility will include recreation uses that could typically occur outdoors,and how the primary purpose of the sheltered facility is recreation. 7 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 80 3.Explain how the sheltered facility would not substantially diminish the outdoor recreation values of the site including how the sheltered facility will be compatible and significantly supportive of the outdoor recreation resources present and/or planned. 4.Explain how the sheltered facility will benefit the total park's outdoor recreation use. 5.Describe efforts provided to the public to review the proposal to shelter the facility and has local support. 6.Document that the sheltered facility will be under the control and tenure of the public agency which sponsors and administers the original park area. 7.Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal. Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 To avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary delays,describe any prior environmental review undertaken at any time and still viable for this proposal or related efforts that could be useful for understanding potential environmental impacts.Consider previous local,state,federal (e.g.HUD,EPA,USFWS,FHWA,DOT)and any other environmental reviews.At a minimum,address the following: 1.Date of environmental review(s),purpose for the environmental review(s)and for whom they were conducted. 2.Description of the proposed action and alternatives. 3.Who was involved in identifying resource impact issues and developing the proposal including the interested and affected pUblic,government agencies,and Indian tribes. 4.Environmental resources analyzed and determination of impacts for proposed actions and alternatives. 5.Any mitigation measures to be part of the proposed action. 6.Intergovernmental Review Process (Executive Order 12372):Does the State have an Intergovernmental Review Process?Yes __No __.If yes,has the LWCF Program been selected for review under the State Intergovernmental Review Process?Yes __No __.If yes,was this proposal reviewed by the appropriate State,metropolitan,regional and local agencies,and if so,attach any information and comments received about this proposal.If proposal was not reviewed,explain why not. 7.Public comment periods (how long,when in the process,who was invited to comment)and agency response. 8.Any formal decision and supporting reasons regarding degree of potential impacts to the human environment. 9.Was this proposed LWCF federal action and/or any other federal actions analyzed/reviewed in any of the previous environmental reviews?If so,what was analyzed and what impacts were identified?Provide specific environmental review document references. Use resource impact information generated during previous environmental reviews described above and from recently conducted site inspections to complete the Environmental Screening Form (ESF)portion of this PD/ESF under Step 6.Your ESF responses should indicate your proposal's potential for impacting each resource as determined in the previous environmental review(s),and include a reference to where the analysis can be found in an earlier environmental review document.If the previous environmental review documents contain proposed actions to mitigate impacts,briefly summarize the mitigation for each resource as appropriate.The appropriate references for previous environmental review document(s)must be documented on the ESF,and the actual document(s)along with this PD/ESF must be included in the submission for NPS review. Proceed to Steps 6 through 1 8 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 81 This portion of the PD/ESF is a working tool used to identify the level of environmental documentation which must accompany the proposal submission to the NPS.By completing the ESF,the project sponsor is providing support for it~recommendation in Step 7 that the proposal either: 1.meets criteria to be categorically excluded (CE)from further NEPA review and no additional environmental documentation is necessary;or 2.requires further analysis through an environmental assessment (EA)or an environmental impact statement (EIS). An ESF alone does not constitute adequate environmental documentation unless a CE is recommended.If an EA is required,the EA process and resulting documents must be included in the proposal submission to the NPS.If an EIS may be required,the State must request NPS gUidance on how to proceed. The scope of the required environmental analysis will vary according to the type of LWCF proposal.For example, the scope for a new LWCF project will differ from the scope for a conversion.Consult the LWCF Manual for guidance on defining the scope or extent of environmental analysis needed for your LWCF proposal.As early as possible in your planning process,consider how your proposal/project may have direct,indirect and cumulative impacts on the human environment for your type of LWCF action so planners have an opportunity to design alternatives to lessen impacts on resources,if appropriate.When used as a planning tool in this way,the ESF responses may change as the proposal is revised until it is ready for submission for federal review.Initiating or completing environmental analysis after a decision has been made is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the law of the NEPA. The ESF should be completed with input from resource experts and in consultation with relevant local,state,tribal and federal governments,as applicable.The interested and affected public should be notified of the proposal and be invited to participate in scoping out the proposal (see LWCF Manual Chapter 4).At a minimum,a site inspection of the affected area must be conducted by individuals who are familiar with the type of affected resources,possess the ability to identify potential resource impacts,and to know when to seek additional data when needed. At the time of proposal submission to NPS for federal review,the completed ESF must justify the NEPA pathway that was followed:CE recommendation,production of an EA,or production of an EIS.The resource topics and issues identified on the ESF for this proposal must be presented and analyzed in an attached EA/EIS.Consult the LWCF Manual for further guidance on LWCF and NEPA. The ESF contains two parts that must be completed: Part A.Environmental Resources Part B.Mandatory Criteria Part A:For each environmental resource topic,choose an impact estimate level (none,negligible,minor,exceeds minor)that describes the degree of potential negative impact for each listed resource that may occur directly, indirectly and cumulatively as a result of federal approval of your proposal.For each impacted resource provide a brief explanation of how the resource might be affected,how the impact level was determined,and why the chosen impact level is appropriate.If an environmental review has already been conducted on your proposal and is still viable,include the citation including any planned mitigation for each applicable resource,and choose an impact level as mitigated.If the resource does not apply to your proposal,mark NA in the first column.Add any relevant resources (see A.24 on the ESF)if not included in the list. Use a separate sheet to briefly clarify how each resource could be adversely impacted;any direct.indirect.and cumulative impacts that may occur;and any additional data that still needs to be determined.Also explain any planned mitigation already addressed in previous environmental reviews. Part B:This is a list of mandatory impact criteria that preclude the use of categorical exclusions.If you answer "yes"or "maybe"for any of the mandatory criteria,you must develop an EA or EIS regardless of your answers in Part A.Explain all "yes"and "maybe"answers on a separate sheet. 9 1010112008ATTACHMENT - 82 For conversions,complete one ESF for each of the converted and replacement sites. 1.Geological resources:soils,bedrock, slo es,streambeds,landforms,etc. 2.Air quality 3.Sound (noise impacts) 4.Water quality/quantity 5.Stream flow characteristics 6.Marine/estuarine 7.Floodplainslwetlands 8.Land use/ownership patterns; ro e values'communi livabili 9.Circulation,transportation 10.Plant/animal/fish species of special concern and habitat;state/ federal listed or ro osed for Iistin 11.Unique ecosystems,such as biosphere reserves,World Heritage sites,old rowth forests,etc. 12.Unique or important wildlife/wildlife habitat 13.Unique or important fish/habitat 14.Introduce or promote invasive s ecies lant or animal 15.Recreation resources,land,parks, open space,conservation areas,rec. trails,facilities,services,opportunities, public access,etc.Most conversions exceed minorim acts.See Ste 3.B 16.Accessibility for populations with disabilities 17.Overall aesthetics,special characteristics/features 18.Historical/cultural resources, including landscapes,ethnographic, archeological,structures,etc.Attach SHPOITHPO determination. 19.Socioeconomics,including employment,occupation,income chan es,tax base infrastructure 20.Minority and low-income o ulations 21.Energy resources (geothermal, fossil fuels,etc. 22.Other agency or tribal land use lans or olicies 23.Land/structures with history of contamination/hazardous materials even if remediated 24.Other important environmental resources to address. 10 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 83 1.Have significant impacts on public health or safety? 2.Have significant 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 (E.O.11990); flood lains E.O 11988 ;and other ecolo icall si nificant or critical areas. 3.Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concern in alternative uses of available resources NEPA section 1022 E ? 4.Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve uni ue or unknown environmental risks? 5.Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with otentiall si nificant environmental effects? 6.Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant,but cumulativel si nificant,environmental effects? 7.Have significant impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,as determined by either the bureau or office.Attach SHPOITHPO Comments 8.Have significant impacts on species listed or proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species,or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these s ecies. 9.Violate a federal law,or a state,local,or tribal law or requirement imposed for the rotection of the environment? 10.Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority o ulations Executive Order 12898 ? 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 ? 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 ? 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 state compliance file for any future program review and/or audit.The ESF may be completed as part of a LWCF pre-award site inspection if conducted in time to contribute to the environmental review process for the proposal. 1. 2. 3. The following individuals conducted a site inspection to verify field conditions. List name of inspector(s),title,agency,and daters)of inspection. 1. 2. 3. State may require signature of lWCF sub-recipient applicant here:Date _ 11 1010112008 ATTACHMENT - 84 First,consult the attached list of "Categorical Exclusions (CEs)for Which a Record is Needed."If you find your action in the CE list and you have determined in Step 6A that impacts will be minor or less for each applicable environmental resource on the ESF and you answered "no"to all of the "Mandatory Criteria"questions in Step 68, the proposal qualifies for a CEo Complete the following "State LWCF Environmental Recommendations"box indicating the CE recommendation. If you find your action in the CE list and you have determined in Step 6A that impacts will be greater than minor or that more data is needed for any of the resources and you answered "no"to all of the "Mandatory Criteria" questions,your environmental review team may choose to do additional analysis to determine the context, duration,and intensity of the impacts of your project or may wish to revise the proposal to minimize impacts to meet the CE criteria.If impacts remain at the greater than minor level,the State/sponsor must prepare an EA for the proposal.Complete the following "State Environmental Recommendations"box indicating the need for an EA. If you do not find your action in the CE list,regardless of your answers in Step 6,you must prepare an EA or EIS. Complete the following "State Environmental Recommendations"box indicating the need for an EA or EIS. SLO/ASLO Original Signature:----------------Date:_ Typed Name,Title,Agency: 12 10/0112008ATTACHMENT - 85 ? National Environmental Policy Act National Park Service-Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program Categorical Exclusions for Which a Record is Needed Note:The following are the NEPA Categorical Exclusions approvedfor use with all NPS programs.Only the unshaded categories apply to LWCF proposals.Before selecting a categorical exclusion (CE), complete the PDIESF for the LWCF proposal to support the CE selection. A.Actions related to general administration (1)Changes or amendments to an approved action when such changes would cause no environmental impact.LWCF actions that are covered include amendmentsfor: -time extensions with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope; -deleting work and no other work is added back into the project scope; -changing project cost with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope; -making administrative changes that do not affect project scope. (3)Rc-issmmce/renewal of pennits,dghts··of.."vay,or easernents not involving new environmental impacts provided the impacts the original actions were evaluated in an environmental document (4)Conversion of existing hJ vlhcn potentially initiate environmental condit.ions,pro\' were evaluated an environmental document. conversions cnntimlc nor the irnpacts or actions Issuances,or rninol"modi [ications cd'conct~ssiun contnKts or pcrrnits that do not cntaill1e\V construction or any potential for new environmental impact as a result of' concession operations. (6)Incidental business permits (tofIn\;;rly called commercia!use licenses)involving no constnJction or potential f()f nev\!environmental impact. (7)Leasing of historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 18 and NPS··38. (8)Modifications or revisions to existing regulations,or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS- administered areas,provided the modifications,revisions,or new regulations do not: (a)increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause physical damage to it. (b)introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it. (e)conniet with adjacent ownerships or land uses. (d)cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions 10/01/2008ATTACHMENT - 86 (9)At the direction of the NPS responsible official,actions where N PS has concurrence or co-approval with another bureau and the action is a CE for that bureau,and where NPS agrees that there is no potential for environmental impact. (10)Routine transfers of jurisdiction between the NPS and the District of Columbia accomplished through existing statutory authority,where no change of usc the land is anticipated upon transfer. B.Plans,studies,and reports (1)Changes or amendments lc.l an approved plan,wh~:n such CI1;:lJl~1.es enviromnental impact. no nol:c:ntlal for (2)Cultural resources maintenance guides,collection management plans,and historic furnishings reports. (3)Interpretive plans (interpretive prospectuses,audio-visual plans,nmscul11 exhibit plans,"""'.""',1(1", exhi.bit plans). (4)Plans,including priorities,justifications,and strategies,for 1100Hnanipulative research,monitoring, inventorying,and information-gathering. (5)Agreements between NPS offices f(1f plans and studies. (6)Authorization,funding,or approval for the preparation of statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans (SCORPs). (7)or approval of acadernic or reseat'ch not contain and 'Nill not result in NPS rec:onHncm.1a lons. Hnd similar docmnenLs "8)Land protection plans that propose changes to existing land or visitor use when the changes have no potential environmental impact c.Actions related to development (1)Land acquisition within established park boundaries,if future anticipated uses would have no potential for environmental impact. (2)Land exchanges that will not lead to anticipated changes in the use of land and that have no potential for environmental impact.For LWCF,some small conversions may meet this criterion.See the LWCF Manual Chapter 8 for further guidance. (3)Routine maintenance and repairs to non-historic structures,facilities,utilities,grounds,and trails. (4)Routine rnaintenance and repairs to cultural resource sites,structures,utilities,and grounds if the action falls uncleI'an approved Historic Structures Preservation Guide or Cyclic Maintenance Guide or if the action would not adversely affect the cultural resource. (5)Installation of LWCF eligible signs,displays,and kiosks. LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions 2 10/0112008 ATTACHMENT - 87 (6)lnstallation of navigation aids. (7)Experimental testing of short duration (no more than one season)of mass transit systems,and changes in operation of existing systems,that have no potential for environmental impact. (8)Replacement in kind of minor structures and facilities with little or no change in location,capacity, or appearance--for example,comfort stations,pit toilets,fences,kiosks,signs and campfire circles. (9)Repair,resurfacing,striping,installation of traffic control devices,and repair/replacement of guardrails,culverts,signs,and other minor existing features on existing roads when no potential for environmental impact exists. (10)Changes in sanitary facilities operation resulting in no new environmental effects. (11)Installation of wells,comfort stations,and pit or vault toilets in areas of existing use and in developed areas. (12)Minor trail relocation or development of compatible trail networks on logging roads or other established routes. (13)Upgrading or adding new overhead utility facilities on existing poles,or on replacement poles that do not change existing pole line configurations. (14)fSSUitfH.',C of rights-of-wav overhead line vvhcrc installation vV'ill not result in than t~)r placement of poles. t lines to an individual,bLlilding or well from an eXIsting intrusion and '"vill in no clearance of 'on other (1 Issuance of rights-of:'way minor overheml UI i1ity lines not involving p!acenlcnt of poles or lC)\'I'crs and not involving vegetation management or visual intrusion in an area administered by N (16)Installation of underground utilities in areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance or areas within an existing road prism or within an existing overhead utility right-of-way. (17)Minor landscaping in areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance. (18)Installation of fencing enclosures,exclosures,or boundary fencing posing no effect on wildlife migrations. (1)Minor changes in amounts or types of visitor use for the purpose of ensuring visitor satc"ty or resource protection in accordance with existing regulations. (2)!Vlinor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to visitor activities. (3)Issuance of permits for demonstrations,gatherings,ceremonies,concerts,arts and crafts shows,and so forth,entailing only short-·term or readily remediable environmental disturbance. LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions 3 10/0112008 ATTACHMENT - 88 (4)Designation of trailside cmnping zones with minimal or no improvements. E.Actions related to resource management and protection (1)Archeological surveys and pennits involving only surface collection or small-scale test excavations. (2)Restoration of norH~ontroversjal(based on internal scoping requirements in section 2.6)native species into suitable habitats within their historic range. (3)Removal of individual members of a non-threatened/endangered species or populations of pests and plants that pose an imminent danger to visitors or an immediate to resources. (4)Removal of non-historic materials and structures in order [0 restore natural condi lions when the removal has no potential t~)r environmental impacts,including impacts to cultural landscapes or archeological resources. (5)Devcloprnenl of standards J(X,and ick:ntification,nomination,certification,and determination of: eligibility of properties for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,the National Historic Landmark and National Natural Landmark Programs,and biosphere reserves. (6)Non-destructive data coHection,inventory (including field,and satellite surveyll1g and mapping),study,research,and monitoring activities (this is also a Departmental eE). (7)Designation if environmental study areas and research natural areas,including those closed temporarily or perman~:ntly to the public,unless potential fix environmental (including socioeconomic)impact exists. F.Actions related to grant programs (1)Proposed actions essentially the same as those listed in paragraphs A-E above not shaded in gray. (2)Grants for acquisition to areas that will continue in the same use or lower density use with no additional disturbance to the natural setting or type of use. (3)Grants for replacement or renovation of facilities at their same location without altering the kind and amount of recreational,historical,or cultural resources of the area or the integrity of the existing setting. (4)Grants for construction of facilities on lands acquired under a previous NPS or other federal grant, provided that the development is in accord with plans submitted with the acquisition grant,and that environmental documents have been completed on the impacts of the proposal funded by the original grant. (5)Grants for the construction of new facilities within an existing park or recreation area,provided that the facilities will not: (a)conflict with adjacent ownerships or land use,or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants,such as would happen if use were extended beyond daylight hours. LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions 4 10/0112008 ATTACHMENT - 89 (b)introduce motorized recreation vehicles,including off-road vehicles,personal water craft,and snowmobiles. (c)introduce active recreation pursuits into a passive recreation area. (d)increase public use or introduce non-compatible uses to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the property or causing physical damage to it. (e)add or alter access to the park from the surrounding area. (6)Grants f~Jr restoration,rehabilitation,stabilization,preservation,and reconstruction (or the authorization thereof)of properties listed on or eligible 1(lf listing on the National of llis(;iric Places,at their same location,and provided that such actions: (3)will not alter the integrity of the property or its setting (b)will not increase public use of the area to the extent of cornpromising the nature and character 0 the property. LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions 5 10/0112008 ATTACHMENT - 90 -".....""'-'v c:u OCT 18 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Rollin Sturgeon 5456 Bayridge Rd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 (310)378-4345 October 18,2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 City Council City Manager City Attorney Planning Commission Planning Department The Annenberg Foundation Subject:The nine deed restrictions in opposition to the Lower Point Vicente Proposal. This letter is in furtherance ofthe addendum to my letter of September 11,2010. The addendum noted that the lower Point Vicente was deed restricted to public use and thus the City Council did not have the authority to deed or lease the property in question to a private entity as it might have had with a city purchased property.Also noted was that priority be given to the resolution of the forgoing,for without the authority to act all other considerations are for naught.The City's authority to act is further compromised by the deed restrictions put forth as follows. On September 12,1978 the U.S.Department of the Interior deeded Lower Point Vicente to L.A.County,which provided that the premises reverts back to the grantee ifthe deed's land use restrictions are not honored. ATTACHMENT - 91 On July 17,1979 the property was leased to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes by the county,which added further land uses restrictions. On December 16,2003 the property was deeded to the city by the county with the county lease restrictions running with the land. The deed restrictions imposed by the U.S.Department of the Interior are in brief as follows:(1)Use ofthe premises are for public park and public recreation purposes,(2)the property shall not be sold or leased or assigned except to another government agency for public park or public recreational use.The Annenberg Foundation is thus precluded. The County under its authority leased the property to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.The lease provided that the program be subject to review of the County Director of Beaches and use be subject to lease exhibit C which provides:(3)the development of the sight will provide for passive recreational pursuits,closely oriented to the Pacific Ocean. Though it has been asserted that the dog and cat hospital is oriented to the unique attributes of the sight,it has not been shown how it is even remotely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean where closely oriented is required. (4)Every effort will be made to use indigenous plant material and to keep plant profiles low so that they provide a spatial definition and do not reduce visibility.A two- story 50,000 square foot building flies in the face of that intent. (5)The site will provide for a low profile interpretive structure.That precludes a two-story 50,00 square foot structure. (6)Information at the structure might include information related biological species found at the sight.That precludes dogs and cats. ATTACHMENT - 92 (7)Information related ecological phenomena of the Palos Verdes area,Catalina Island,cetacean activities along the coastline,or similar activities.A dog and cat hospital is thus precluded. When the property was deeded to the City by the county the deed provided among others that the conveyance include all restrictions of record which would include the deed conveying the property to the County from the Department of the Interior and the use restrictions found in the county lease of the property to the City.If court sanctioned noncompliance with the deed restrictions was sought,then a need for a dog and cat hospital at that location would have to be established,in contrast to a wished for dog and cat hospital at that location. (8)(9)The deed to the land requires that both the LA.County's and the U.S. Department ofthe Interior's concurrence that the proposed is in compliance with their deed restrictions.Thus this concurrence should be the Number One priority for without that concurrence all other considerations are a total waste of time,money,sweat,and tears. -Addendum- When the City Council informed the Annenberg Foundation that the cite was available for a dog and cat hospital was the foundation misled by rightly assuming there were no deed restrictions to be evaluated for possible conflict with the proposed use?Also, was the foundation informed that written approvals from both L.A.County and the U.S. Department of the Interior are deed requirements for the use of the land?Ifthis information was not presented to the Foundation can the City Councilor the City proper be held liable for indemnification of the Foundation's expenditures if so requested? ATTACHMENT - 93 ·.. The intent of the proposed is a dog and cat hospital with secondary programs complimentary to the primary intent,as such the proposed should be so referenced. Sincerely, If~--J?~ Rollin Sturgeon ATTACHMENT - 94 RECEIVED OCT 18 2010 p~~NING.BUILDING AND DE ENFORCEMENT October 16,2010 Yvonne Goppert 5507 Bayridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes Ca 90275 Tel.No:310-373-2559 Etnail:ygope~aoLqofi1. Annenberg, Based on the recent finding about history of the land at Lower Point Vicente I will vote"NOli. I atn a long titne resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes,watched proudly as it becatne a City and in tny later years enjoyed the walks around the existing Point Vicente. I have often observed frotn resting on a well-needed sit- down of strategically placed benches,the pleasure that the children have when the fatnily picnic site is decided the children dash off to hide behind the trees and bushes or chase each other. When I saw the artist's conception of the udiscovery park" at Point Vicente I was appalled.How cozy that looked,how idyllic,how boring. The artist left out the buildings where the yapping dogs etc.will be confined,the large tnessy area where the dig will be with the fields to show how our native population fartned.Much of this can be studied in our well-run existing Interpretive Centre which already has lecture halls that can be used and delightful weddings perfortned at sunset. ATTACHMENT - 95 Imagine perfect picnic weather,a huge wedding party and a special demonstration on suitable companion animals such as pythons,alligators or caged birds. It will need traffic lights before long!Just think of the parking problem. Very concerned older resident, Yvonne Goppert (Mrs.) ATTACHMENT - 96 Thomas Long Mayor Pro Tern City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391 Dear Thomas Long: October 25,2010 OCT REF:NPS-2011-00038 Page 1 of 1 The National Park Service received your FOIA request dated October 19,2010 on October 22, 2010 and assigned it Request No.NPS-2011-00038.Please reference this number on correspondence concerning your request.We will advise you of the status of our response within 20 workdays if we anticipate a delay.Unusual circumstances may warrant an additional 10-workday extension. If you have any questions,feel free to contact Dee Sousa at (510)817-1303. Sincerely, ~~ Dee Sousa NY5 PO/A ecv~d/f\CL-fo,...... ?Ct-t--r'h £:.-tJ t<\+~I ~ https://198.183.147.174/efts/printLetter.jsp ATTACHMENT - 97 September 29,2010 Mr.Ara Mihranian Principal Planner Community Development Department Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 To the Planning Commission: RECEIVED OCT 13 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT I am writing in support of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.I believe the discovery park that has been proposed will be an ideal addition to our community,adding natural beauty, recreational options and much needed educational and volunteer opportunities. I urge you to approve the project! Sincerely,.,~.. fi?1J1~ ATTACHMENT - 98 .- m1l ~m:~ ~~t~iii 4"~~~'~e!'~:~~:r~Jj 't>!:iI ~""=,......_~"""=.",..~"'-========._.~~-=======--"""=~ .\ ...~~:'llfJ1"t.•:;i.=I·".,;ll;;m i•..•.~.)'1;'~'~::r(l!",': t1 .,~tl fif r::~ I II, 1,1 ~~='1 ..~z;r.;-r~~~~~$~"':4~~~·Z:~·~1'~..~~;t:~;;''';tW,''~~~P'..'''-~~~Q<'!t-~r=a~.s:;::.;':l-~.:w=i.,,:,~·~,::;~~~....n!.Z~~~::t.w...".:.!~~l"~t:r~""':."l~~~}'Wl~r:3 II IJ :1 i II '1G!Jt·,It.n fj":l!\..f ~{fiJ ,j""."1.N :'''''''"''''"1 l"J t1 f::J ';;1 ~t4~.:;Y~~ff'dJ'" If,,)({~~~~,;:9 ~(o~'t.U 1JJ1/VYla /(?07?tf'MerJ is First Floor Medical &Special Services =6,249 SF Retail =1,305 SF i~e/,~-f 5 uf'f'J/ps Second Floor Lobby &Exhibits =3,837 SF Animal Holding &Socialization =2,931 SF Reception,Staging Rm,Offices,Conference Rm =5,639 SF Canine Exercise on artificial turf on terrace =app.2,450 SF ~~.....tJ:lt'..:t ==~-=.-,~f:-~f?ii$ilfl'f'r'~~'-- A T T A C H M E N T - 9 9 " t!G I ns& too ti r estri ~<¢'_"",,,,,"_=====,,,,,=====~~....:c::;:;za:$?1"'XT ii ~~."tlS&t'i'S'l'~M'M g-~_X'Ci~:li-~ml~~r~-iWJm:il:w::m::W:rz&:;A:l;3$ ~~~.:z:y;;;g::;;g:MM*~i8iW&S!~:;S~"&5E5~;'">&l.wSg£8iid&....«*&:."&'&i.~-1:ii'5?'S'!i~m ~~~&&:&:;;:;:«{~'ill:t.~ ,;(~/t".,,.'j~~~C"'+/,-R",."'/.P".''''''''''''''./_,.~~~,:;<~/0"":,/\~~~~z-:)~~:::;~~:,~,\ /'"~......,",~''''',.",~,-II'\.'/.:........~_....\ ,.'v ~""'_\'('~,\"'-~/-"'-:"-",~_••~',"v .::.:::-:\~.",\/ .'...../~.-'-,~\\.,/'t'~\,;:.,:<;,/" J .;;,"....,~:-,>~~:"-:'?".~" '-"::::::'--.,'~.-;:.-"-'"".~.r'~"';'""7,''':~,~~:),~;;, -..;~i--~";;;;;"-' Quitclaim Deed legal documents express condition that the property shall be used for public park &recreational use Map relating to the LWCF restrictions for land grant "City is bound by the LWCF to keep the park in public outdoor recreation use in perpetu IOty"."~.,....,§'.'::V.J,<£....''''~.·:''i;..."::....·.'·r.,;r.::~..........~"""".'."'-----..~-;<:--- I I I I mage from Legal documents on RPV Planning Commission Agenda &Staff Reports A T T A C H M E N T - 1 0 0 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carroll Fisher [fishercarroll@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 12,20105:35 PM To:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:re:Annenberg project I am writing this because we will not be able to attend the planning meeting this evening,but I do want to add my voice to those who do not think that using this open space is a good use for our existing open land. We have an interpretive center and the county has facilities for animals. We only have a limited amount of open land and we must take care to use it wisely. For these reasons I am against Annenberg project.It would be better if instead we supported our county facilities for animals and our existing interpretive center. Carroll Fisher 30545 Rhone Dr. RPV 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 101 Ara Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 October 12,2010 Re:Proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Dear Mr.Mihranian; Thank you for the opportunity to share my opinion in regards to the Lower Point Vicente Project.I will be very brief:A great design in the wrong place. It is my hope that the leadership of the Palos Verdes Peninsula honor the deep environmental,educational,historical and sacred value of Point Vicente and seek for ways to restore it to its original natural glory rather than developing a plan such as the Annenberg proposal under consideration at this time. Respectfully, Griselda Sasayama Torrance resident. ATTACHMENT - 102 MARINE MAMMAL CARE CENTER at Fort MacArthur 3601 S.Gaffey Street •San Pedro,CA 90731 (310)548-5677 •(310)548-6394 Fax David Bard,Operations Director To:Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission As Operations Director ofthe Marine Mammal Care Center at Fort MacArthur,I have a longstanding commitment to education and volunteerism.As a local wildlife rehabilitator,I know firsthand the value of teaching the public about how to ensure safety when they and their pets encounter native animals and wildlife. I wholeheartedly support the Annenberg Foundation's proposal and believe that the proposed center would be a world-class asset to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents.The center would be an enjoyable family destination promoting environmental awareness.I would look forward to participating in any cooperative educational opportunities. Lower Point Vicente,already a treasured local asset,would certainly be enhanced by the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente,fitting well with the Palos Verdes Interpretive Center and helping us enjoy the ocean,the land,and living things. Sincerely, ATTACHMENT - 103 Page 1 of2 AraM From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,October 14,2010 11:34AM To:'Ara M' Subject:FW:Planning Department Staff From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] sent:Thursday,October 14,2010 8:44 AM To:sharon yarber Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com Subject:Re:Planning Department Staff Dear Sharon,The staff is trying to advance a city council policy decision.It is the council that made a policy decision in favor of the project.If you have a problem with that decision please direct your concern to the council and please do not improperly attack our staff who are simply attempting to implement council policy--which is their job.It is also staffs responsibility to give their best advice even if you,others and/or commissioners or councilmembers disagree with it.Staff does not make the final decision.If you want to express views about what the decision should be the right way to do that is to express your views and the reasons behind them to the council.I would be happy to discuss the Annenberg project with you anytime and why I support it and why I think it in fact does comply with our land use requirements.Instead of misdirecting your concerns toward employees who are simply trying to do their job,why don't you direct your concern to me?Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message----- From:"sharon yarber" Sent 10/13120103:13:44 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Planning Department Staff Gentlemen: I attended the Planning Commission meeting last night wherein the Annenberg Project's application for a CUP was discussed.I must say I am shocked and dismayed by what I observed. Whether I am in favor of,or opposed to,the project is irrelevant.I am writing to express my displeasure with the staff and its report to the Commission,which report was also intended to be read by interested citizens.It is clear from the tone of the report,as well as the live presentation given by staff at the hearing,that they are enthusiatic supporters of the project,and are,in fact,affirmatively advocating for it.Their lack of impartiality is patent.It is not the function of staff to be an advocate for an applicant -its mandate is to make factual determinations as to whether the applicant's project conforms to the City's laws,and make such recommendations as necessary to allow it to be brought within compliance. The report was written in such a manner as to deliberately mislead and misrepresent the zoning and the uses permitted therein,the effect (or lack thereof)of the adoption by the Council of the Coastal Vision (staff implied that by virtue of the Council having adopted the Coastal Vision and authorized the 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 104 Page 2 of2 Annenberg Foundation to submit its proposal that the City Council had already determined that the project comports with existing zoning),and the convoluted manner in which it found that this project is in compliance with zoning and constitutes a passive recreational use would have been amusing to read were this project not such a serious matter. As you no doubt are aware,the Council's Adoption of the Coastal Vision Plan does not effect a zone change.A zone change must be accomplished by public hearings and a change to the General Plan. Since the project is most assuredly NOT in compliance with the General Plan or zoning (not to mention that it is totally violative of the POU and deed restrictions set forth in the deed from the US government) it was inappropriate for the Council and/or staff to indicate to Annenberg that a CUP application was the proper approval process.Indeed,an approval of the CUP application based on the faulty analysis of staff (and presumably the City Attorney)would effect an end run around the proper procedures for a zone and general plan change. Fortunately,you have a very smart citizenry and competent Planning Commissioners.The Commissioners were unanimous,reagrdless of their opinions of the project,in deciding that they could not make a finding that the project comports with existing zoning,which finding is a condition precedent to making a ruling on the CUP application. It is my view that the conduct of staff in preparing the report and presentation was sufficiently egregious to warrant reprimand or termination.This conduct is reprehensible and cannot,and will not,be tolerated by the citizens of RPV. Thank you. Sharon Yarber 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 105 Page 1 of2 AraM From:david david [pvhome2002@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,October 18,2010 8:51 PM To:aram@rpv.com;PC@rpv.com Subject:ANNENBERG PROJECT PROPOSED FOR LOWER POINT VICENTE Ara Mihranian,AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 October 18,2010 Dear Mr.Mihranian: RE:ANNENBERG PROJECT PROPOSED FOR LOWER POINT VICENTE The California Native Plant Society,South Coast Chapter (CNPS)has the following concerns: National Park Service deed restrictions CNPS certainly hopes that the City will act with the utmost integrity to adhere to the intent and letter of all deed restrictions placed on property owned by the City for the protection of natural open space.We are quite concerned that the current Annenberg proposal violates the deed stipulations for Lower Point Vicente.The National Park Service has clearly pointed out those violations in their letter L1425;L3219 (PWR-PR)dated September 15 from David Siegenthaler.CNPS fully supports the Park Service's position on this matter.We request that the Planning Commission immediately require that the project be modified by the Applicant to be in compliance with the existing deed restrictions.We further request that the City not attempt to weaken or modify the deed restrictions in any way or to engage in any kind of "land swap"solely in order to accommodate the goals of the Annenberg Foundation. Potential impacts to existing NCCP Preserve The National Park Service deed restrictions certainly also apply to the Alternative sited closer to the bluff.However,it is not clear to us whether the Upper Point Vicente Alternative location is subject to identical deed restrictions as Lower Point Vicente. 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 106 Page 2 of2 CNPS is concerned about the DEIR's failure to provide any substantive analysis for biological impacts to the neighboring NCCP Preserve areas or any mitigation measures to address such impacts if a project is sited on Upper Point Vicente.Ifthat site is considered for project development,CNPS requests that there be additional environmental review to thoroughly address potential impacts and to provide mitigation measures to avoid such impacts to the adjacent NCCP Preserve areas.The DEIR must include a thorough examination of potential impacts to the Preserve,including but not limited to potential impacts from:fire safety requirements for any structures;storm water and irrigation runoff;use of pesticides;invasive species;and lighting.Any project should be designed to avoid all such impacts to the adjacent Nature Preserve. Sincerely David Berman President,South Coast Chapter California Native Plant Society 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 107 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 19,20106:54 AM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:to the editor--Annenberg project From:Diane L.Hayden [mailto:dianeLhayden@cox.net] sent:Monday,October 18,2010 9:04 PM To:mscott@pvnews.com Cc:cc@rpv.com Subject:to the editor--Annenberg project To The Editor: Marymount College,at significant expense,is bringing Measure P before RPV voters to approve campus improvements,circumventing conditions imposed previously by the City that allow City review and regulation of the development and ongoing operation of their campus. Our City Council asks us to reject Measure P because it "undermines local control by resident-selected leaders who apply the standards and values of our community to land use decisions,after input from all interested residents ...for the protection of all residents." There is another land-use issue before the RPV City Council (not the voters),that involves a question about how much the City should allow a well-financed interest to overrule community values and quality of life.The Annenberg Family Foundation has made an impressive proposal to erect a $40 million Discovery Park on Lower Point Vicente next to the Interpretive Center.It would include a 50,000 square foot building to house an education and pet adoption center.However,Lower Point Vicente was deeded to RPV by the federal government for the general public's enjoyment in perpetuity as public-recreation open space. The City is now considering how it might accede to the Annenberg Family Foundation's project in spite of the zoning restrictions.Many RPV residents attended the Planning Commission meeting on October 12 to protest using this scarce coastal bluff-top site for such a purpose.This particular site on Lower Point Vicente has been woefully neglected and is in sore need of habitat restoration,but more land development is not the solution. Upper Point Vicente,on the other hand,is already zoned for civic use and land development.An education and pet adoption center would fit better at this locale without undue impact on neighbors and nature. I (and others)hope that the City will examine and apply our community's standards and values to this particular land-use decision and encourage the Annenberg Family Foundation to reconsider its current proposal to locate the project on Lower Point Vicente and locate it instead where it logically belongs,on Upper Point Vicente. Sincerely, (])iane L.J-faycfen Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-1051 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 108 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com] Tuesday,October 19,20103:23 PM 'Ara M' FW:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove Sincerely, Gregory Pfost,AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 (310)544-5228 -----Original Message----- From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 19,2010 11:33 AM To:cc@rpv.comi planning@RPV.com Subject:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove Good morning, I have been reading the letters sent by the NPS and the State regarding the proposed development at Lower Point Vincente. I keep asking myself why do we need another builidng on our open coastline,simply because someone offers us money.Is there really a pressing need to build the facility at Lower Pointe Vicente.No.I am not sure there is even a pressing need for such a facility in RPV,while other areas of the county may be much more deserving.The only place to put this facility is on the coast? What is also of concern is that the mention of the POU seems to be an after thought of the City Planning staff.Was this an intentional oversight? The October 12,2010 memo to the Planning Commission,from the Community Development Director,says on Page 52,the third paragraph under item number 4,"The Project dones not propose to change the current land use,but rather,purposes to expand the recreational and educational facilites for the public's use." Who is writing this editorial (er ...report)?Big Brother?The land is non-developed coastline,building a 50,979 square foot building,with a 35,000 square foot print with a 197 parking spaces is not changing the land use.What? Why does our City Council always see a need to have more structures on our coastline,it would be a shame to drive along the coast just to seen more buildings around each corner. I urge you to stop any proposed development at Lower Point Vicente and Abalone Cove. Sincerely, Brian Haig SHOCKING:$100 Walmart Gift Card for $6.39 SPECIAL REPORT:High ticket items are being auctioned for an incredible 90%off! <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4cbde47ae35a03442dest05duc> memphisgazette.com <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4cbde47ae35a03442dest05duc> 1 ATTACHMENT - 109 Page 1 of3 Ara M From:Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 19,20105:45 PM To:CC@rpv.com Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Joel Rojas';'Ara M' Subject:RE:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove Mr.Haig, Thank you for your comment letter. It will be provided to the Planning Commission as an attachment to the next staff report in November. I do want to take this opportunity to point out that the Program of Utilization was not overlooked by City Staff.In fact,the Draft EIR which circulated for public comment between July 22 and September 15,2010 directly cited the Program of Utilization (POU)and the various components of the POU (see page 4.6-6).Moreover,the Draft EIR states that the National Park Service (NPS)monitors the POU and the proposed project may be subject to review by the NPS (see page 4.6-24).The Draft EIR is posted on the City's website (along with other information on the proposed project)at the following link: http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/Annenberg/EIR.cfm I also want to point out that communications between the City and NPS (David Siegenthaler)dates back to early Spring 2010.The email communications were transmitted to the Planning Commission as part of the late correspondence for the October 12,2010 Staff Report (see the following link): hup:l!paJosVeIQes,GOmlrpv!p!anningIAnneIJOerg!.bAH:-CQ RR ES.PQNQENCE~,.PQf Lastly,you state in your email "The land is non-developed coastline ..."as you may know from visiting the site,Lower Point Vicente is developed with the 10,000 square foot PVIC building. In order to stay informed on the proposed,I suggest you join the list-serve group to receive electronic notices and updates at the following link: h:t1Q://rpvalert.comL You can also read more on the proposed project,including background information,on the City's website at the following link: If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 110 Page 2 of3 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/t:py J:i Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 19,2010 11:33 AM To:cc@rpv.com;planning@RPV.com Subject:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove Good morning, I have been reading the letters sent by the NPS and the State regarding the proposed development at Lower Point Vincente. I keep asking myself why do we need another builidng on our open coastline,simply because someone offers us money.Is there really a pressing need to build the facility at Lower Pointe Vicente.No.I am not sure there is even a pressing need for such a facility in RPV,while other areas ofthe county may be much more deserving.The only place to put this facility is on the coast? What is also of concern is that the mention of the POD seems to be an after thought of the City Planning staff.Was this an intentional oversight? The October 12,2010 memo to the Planning Commission,from the Community Development Director, says on Page 52,the third paragraph under item number 4,"The Project dones not propose to change the current land use,but rather,purposes to expand the recreational and educational facilites for the public's use." Who is writing this editorial (er...report)?Big Brother?The land is non-developed coastline,building a 50,979 square foot building,with a 35,000 square foot print with a 197 parking spaces is not changing the land use.What? Why does our City Council always see a need to have more structures on our coastline,it would be a shame to drive along the coast just to seen more buildings around each comer. I urge you to stop any proposed development at Lower Point Vicente and Abalone Cove. Sincerely, Brian Haig Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 111 SeeRefinanceRates.com 11/12/2010 Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT - 112 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:caryl schwartz [pvcaryl@verizon.net] Sent:Wednesday,October 20,2010 8:20 PM To:pc@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com Cc:aram@rpv.com Subject:I support the Annenberg Project I am really looking forward to the Annenberg Project opening in Palos Verdes.I feel that the center is consistent with "recreational passive use"and I urge you to consider it compatible with General Plan and the Coastal Vision Plan. The new trails allowing access to land that currently is fenced off is a wonderful addition to the community.The new paths landscaped with native plants will be beautiful and the improved watershed management is a defmte plus.The educational programs,intemaships and volunteer opportunities will add so much to our community. I urge you to support a project that contributes so much to our community. Thank you, Caryl Schwartz 6719 Monero Drive RPV,CA 90275 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 113 AraM From:Christi Teachenor [christiteachenor@hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,October 20,2010 11:44 PM To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Cc:pc@rpv.com;'Brian Campbell' Subject:Annenberg Project support Dear RPV City I am an RPV Annenberg F Page 1 of 1 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 114 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Carolyn Lehr [c1ehr@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010 7:39 AM To:'Ara M' Subject:FW:I support the "Annenberg Project"in RPV! Thank you, CCtY~V\I Lehv City Manager III City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 clehr@rpv.com -(310)544-5202 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:Vivien Yang [mailto:vivien.yang@cox.net] sent:Wednesday,October 20,2010 8:43 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:I support the "Annenberg Project"in RPV! Please forward me by email for meetings and project time frame if it is financially stable not like the Terranea Resort/Hotel borrowing tax fund from the RPV property owners and the City!Ha Ha!!Happy H.Day coming up~ vy 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 115 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,October 21,20108:18 AM To:'Ara M' SUbject:FW: From:barbara shen [mailto:barbarashen@cox.net] Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010 12:04 AM To:pc@rpv.com Subject: We are long time resident of RPV.We believe that the annenberg project will enhence our city appear.Please approve the project. Peter shen Lillette shen 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 116 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:mrsrpv@aol.com Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010 10:26 AM To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project To:The Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Staff RE:The Annenberg Project Gentlemen: The Annenberg Project is an absolutely wonderful project.It is compatible with the General Plan and will be a great companion facility to the Palos Verdes Interpretive Center.I strongly support this project and hope you will take whatever steps necessary to make it a reality. My husband joins me in supporting this plan.When he was president of the Palos Verdes Sunset Rotary,the group took on,as their Centennial Philanthropic Project,the funding and installation of the Native Plant Garden at the PVIC.Not only did the group fund the project,but also participated in the digging,weeding,and planting of the garden.The Annenberg Project would also improve the vegetation of the rest of that property.Native vegetation will replace the current mess of overgrown invasive plants and deteriorating,rusting non-usable farm equipment abandoned on the property. My husband,Charles,and I both urge you to make whatever findings necessary and move this project forward quickly. Thanks very much. Sincerely, Barbara Ferraro 3530 Seaglen Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 117 Page I of I AraM From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010 1:10 PM To:'Ara M' Subject:FW:Pt.Vicente From:Rebecca Cicoria [mailto:rebeccacicoria@att.net] Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010 12:15 PM To:pc@rpv.com Subject:pt.Vicente Dear RPV Planning Commissioner, I am writing to express my sincere concerns regarding the Annenberg proposal to build an education/pet adoption facility at lower Pt.Vicente.I grew up in RPV and currently live in San Pedro.I spend more of my days on the hill than anywhere else and not one of them goes by that I don't give thanks for my good luck to be in the midst of such beauty.Of all the peninsula's coastline,it's the area near Golden Cove that has the largest stretch of beautiful open scrubland along its bluff.It's incomprehensible that anyone would even consider sacrificing a part of this for development --no matter how well-intentioned that development may be. I missed out on signing the petition,but would like to add my name to the many local residents who are against this ill-conceived project. Sincerely, Rebecca C.Cicoria P.S.As someone very involved in animal rescue,I can think of myriad ways that The Annenberg Foundation could contribute far more effectively towards the welfare of animals in our local communities. 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 118 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com] Thursday,October 21,2010 3:55 PM 'Ara M' FW:Annenberg Project -----Original Message----- From:Arlene Zimmer [mailto:crea tech@earthlink.netJ Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010-3:56 PM To:pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project The project is a "Win-Win"for the community and the young people who will benefit and learn the highly valuable lessons it will afford. It would certainly be something of which we can all be proud and will set an excellent example for other communities,here and throughout this country. With thanks for your consideration, Arlene Zimmer,Rancho Palos Verdes 1 ATTACHMENT - 119 AraM From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: joanndaddario@cox.net Thursday,October 21,20105:12 PM cc@rpv.com aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com ANNENBERG PROJECT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THIS IS JUST A NOTE TO LET YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE PROPOSED ANNENBERG PROJECT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT COME TO LIFE,IT WILL ADD SO MUCH TO THE COMMUNITY. BE ABLE TO ENJOY ALL IT HAS TO OFFER. JOANN DADDARIO 1 WE WILL ALL ATTACHMENT - 120 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Ellen November [ellen.november@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,October 21,2010 9:50 PM To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Subject:In support of the Annenberg Project I was at the Annenberg Project meeting the other week and sat through all 40+speakers. I am a 27 year resident of RPV and am 100%in support of this project. Having a facility of this caliper with the humanitarian goals would make me even more proud of our city. Just because we live near the ocean,does not mean we OWN the ocean or the marine animals. No one owns these natural gifts. As the one docent said,visits to the center have to be scheduled so there are sufficient staff there to guide the visitors. And how did our area handle having Marineland here for all those years.Certainly tons of cars and buses passed through. As far as traffic goes,and the so-called 'outsiders'I heard referenced,people from allover the world come to Trump and Terranea for visits and spend plenty of money there which benefits the city. The City is being offered a remarkable gift and opportunity. I did not hear one argument that made any sense as to why this project should not be approved. Sincerely, Ellen November 6711 Monero Dr. RPV Ellen November mobile:310-384-6912 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 121 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Judy Willis [judywillis3@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,October 23,201010:56 AM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Pointe Vincente Annenberg Project Dear Council Members: I am writing to again voice my support for the Annenberg Project at Lower Pointe Vincente. The thought that this generous,amazing gift could be turned down is just terrifying to me.We will never have another opportunity like this.The project will enrich the community,create many jobs and bring much needed business to our restaurants and retailers.More importantly,it will give unmatched opportunities to thousands of school children to experience something that will affect their lives forever. Due to Annenberg's scrupulous attention to every detail,the Project will in no way lessen the beauty of the open space there,but will create an environment where people will be able to study the area and enjoy the beauty that surrounds it.I do not think that the objections of a few should negatively impact this Project which is going to impact so many. I strongly urge that this Project be approved.If it is not approved,it will be a huge loss for the Community.And, it's a loss which cannot be recaptured. Thank you, Judy Willis PV Resident cc.Ara Mihranian,Principal Planner Planning Commission 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 122 Page 1 of2 AraM From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 26,2010 7:41 AM To:'Ara M' Subject:FW:Annenberg Project fyi From:Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com] sent:Monday,October 25,2010 7:27 PM To:'Lori Jones' Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Joel Rojas' Subject:RE:Annenberg Project Ms.Jones, Thank you for your email request.As with other City issues I am glad to meet and listen.However it is normally best to meet sometime close to the date that a topic will be on the City Council agenda.As you know during the recent discussion by the Planning Commission the issue of the Program of Utilization (POU)arose.That specific issue is likely to be presented to the Council in the near future.The purpose of that discussion is not for the Council to consider the actual project as the Planning Commission still needs to complete their consideration of the project.Once a Planning Commission decision is made,the Council would then hear the project on appeal,most likely sometime in early 2011. If you would like to discuss the project in that context than let me know once this is set for our agenda. Regards, Steve Wolowicz Steve Wolowicz Mayor Rancho Palos Verdes Phone 310-378-9911 email --stevew@rpv.com From:Lori Jones [mailto:lori@ultramercial.com] Sent:Monday,October 25,20108:38 AM To:stevew@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project Good Morning Steve, Would it be possible to met with you for 15 or 20 minutes to discuss the Annenberg Project?I have 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 123 Page 2 of2 gone to the planning commission meetings and viewed the RPV city website and the Annenberg website.As an 18 year resident,I would now appreciate a one on one with a city officer. Thank you, Lori Jones Lori Jones VP Corporate Communications Ultramercial LLC 32200 Valor Place Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 (310)750-6600 lori@ultramercial.com 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 124 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Vic &Sil Quiarte [vicsilq@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,October 26,2010 4:38 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Subject:THE ANNEN BERG PROJECT Sirs, On September 2,2008 you gentlemen adopted the Coast Vision Plan and authorized the Annenberg Foundation to file planning applications for the project at Lower Point Vicente.Given the approval to proceeds the Annenberg Personnel have worked diligently to present their plans to the public.They have made more than 150 outreach presentations to organizations and other public groups.Each time they have made changes to their plan in accord with public input.They have listened and reacted positively to the public.Now the plan has evolved into a wonderful project within the City's building codes in all respects. On October 12,2010 the project came under review of the Planning Commission. At that meeting,well attended by Docents and proponents of the project,we were somewhat surprised when a letter was presented from a state agency questioning whether the Annenber Project is consistent with our General Plan.I was on the General Plan Ad Hoc Committee and I don't recall any conflict during the review of the plan. The point of this letter is to ask you to continue to support the plan as it is important to the City,and those of us who have worked hard for many years to get such an enhancement for PVIC.Actually the Annenberg Project can also be considered as an Interpretive project as it will provide adults and children with knowledge of the Tongva Indians who lived on the Peninsula,as well as providing geological instructions and education about indigenous animals and companion animals. Please,support our efforts in this regard.We need your help now as we have in the past.Thank you in advance for preserving our goals and dreams that we will have with the Annerberg Project. Vic Quirarte 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 125 Page 1 of2 AraM From:cicoriae@aol.com Sent:Tuesday,October 26,20109:43 PM To:clehr@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Subject:Re:Records Request Attachments:Oce_207_20101020_08331 O.pdf Dear Mayor Wolowicz,City Council Members,Carolyn and Ara, Will the attached letter be on the agenda for the upcoming City Council meeting?I'd be very interested to know whether this approach to dealing with the Lower Point Vicente deed restrictions has the support of other members of Council. If the public cannot rely on our elected representatives to respect legal restrictions on development at Lower Point Vicente,what does that say about the future of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve?What message is our City conveying to National Park Service,LWCF,OGALS,and other state and federal agencies about whether our City can be trusted with title to these lands? At the very least,please include the letter in correspondence for the meeting. Eva Cicoria -----Original Message----- From:Carolyn Lehr <clehr@rpv.com> To:cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com> Cc:Tom Long'<tomlong@palosverdes.com> Sent:Tue,Oct 26,20105:20 pm Subject:Records Request Hello Eva, Tom Long asked that I forward to you a copy of the Public Records Request letter he sent to the National Park Service;it is attached. Thank you, CCl¥~VlI Lehv City Manager I'City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 clehr@rpv.com -(310)544-5202 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 126 Page 2 of2 or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 127 RANCHO PALOS VERDES October 19,2010 Mr.David Siegenthaler Federal Lands to Parks Program Coordinator Land and Water Conservation Fund Project Manager United States Department of the Interior National Park Service -Pacific West Region 1111 Jackson Street,Suite 700 Oakland,CA 94607-4807 Re:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente -Zoning Case No.ZON2009-0042 Your Reference No.:L 1425;L3219 (PWR-PR) Dear Mr.Siegenthaler: I am in receipt of a copy of your letter of October 8,2010.In order for the City to be responsive to the concerns you have raised going forward in the future,it would be helpful for me to have a full understanding of the basis of your concerns.Accordingly,as one voting member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,I ask that you provide me with a copy of your file on the Lower Point Vicente site. Included in my request are all communications,including electronic mail,between you, City staff,Council Members,Planning Commissioners and members of the public regarding this project site.I also request copies of all files pertaining to all documentation and all communication regarding the National Park Service's position on other uses of land at Lower Point Vicente,including the commercial farm and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center.I also request all documents reflecting the deed restrictions you reference including copies of the deeds as recorded,and all NPS written policies regarding such deed restrictions.My request for documents and communication includes a request for all documents whether kept in hard copy form or electronic form or both. The City Council may be asked to make decisions on this proposed project in the near future.As a result,it is important to me to understand all of the facts relating to your concerns. To do so,I must receive a prompt response to this inquiry.Please consider that this request is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. As issues relating to the Annenberg Project come before the City Council,I am hopeful that you will also be able to att,end our Council meetings and I look forward to the opportunity to learn more about your concerns. I would also ask that in the future you copy me and other City Council members on your correspondence with City staff and the City Planning Commission,as well as interested 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard /Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275·5391/(310)377·0360/FAX (310)377·9868 Printed on Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT - 128 Mr.David Siegenthaler October 19,2010 Page 2 residents.This will make it easier for us to be promptly advised of your concerns.I learned of your letter by happenstance when a planning commissioner forwarded it to me.I can address your concerns in a more timely manner if I hear of them more directly.I very much appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your reply. Thomas D.Long Mayor Pro Tem City of Rancho Palos Ver s ATTACHMENT - 129 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Mark Seal [mbealmba@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Thursday,October 28,20102:15 PM To:aram@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenburg Project:Support For Proposed Project As an 8+year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes who lives along the coastline &enjoys panoaramic views of Catalina Island and Western sunsets,I am writing to strongly suport the proposed Annenberg Project. This project would appear consistent with the General Plan and the Coast Vision Plan.As our communiyty grows and more families are moving ointo the area this proposed project allows for a unique geographic and teaching center that would be unparalleled.It would also allow volunteers and educators a special recreation area in which to teach the youth of CA about ecosystems,nature presereves &the humane treatment of all types of field and marine animals. I hope that you will agree and that your decisions will support both the value and the strengths of this Annenberg Teaching center for the youth ofRPV,the Peninsula &Southern California &enjoyment of their families. Best Regards, Ellen &Mark Beal 114 Spindrift Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 mbealmba@sbcglobal.net 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 130 Mary Jane Schoenheider 3700 Palos Verdes Drive North Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274 310-375-3051 mjsels@aol.con October 28,2010 TO:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission RE:The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente I have heard at least three presentations on this project,and viewed the plans and renderings as presented by Leonard Aube,and am very supportive of the project. I enjoy and support the open space we have around the Peninsula,but I feel the Annenberg Project is perfect for the vacant land at lower Point Vicente.It will add to the Interpretive Center and will be a wonderful educational facility for our community and beyond. What a wonderful gift to our community the Annenberg Foundation has chosen for the Peninsula in preserving the history of this beautiful area.I look forward to bringing my grandchildren hopefully someday soon. Although I seldom get involved in public issues,as a resident I am so supportive of this project that I am waiting for the right opportunity to present the Annenberg Project in Peninsula People magazine. Mary Jane Schoenheider Publisher Peninsula People P.O.Box 832 Hermosa Beach,Ca 90254 310-372-4611 Ext 121 pen people@easyreader.info ATTACHMENT - 131 Page 1 of2 Ara M From:Julie Virjee [julesvirjee@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,October 28,20105:26 PM To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg project Hello everyone! I am writing to you today because I am a strong supporter of the Annenberg Project.I have lived in Palos Verdes for over 25 years and in southern California my entire life.I know the value of the land,the value of land preservation and most of all the value of education.I have raised three young men (24, 20 and 18)on the Peninsula,all attending PV schools.My husband grew up here and attended PV schools.We knew we couldn't live anywhere else and raise our children.I have served as PEF Trustee,Boy Scout Troop 378 Treasurer for 15 years,PTA President for 9 of those years and on PVP Council of PTA's for even more years ...needless to say,this is my home. I want it to be the best it can be!I want to preserve it as a place rich in culture,nature, education and preservation. I have come to past meetings and am unable to come to the November meeting,but I am urging you to consider and support this amazing project.We know that the quality and integrity of the Annenberg projects are just that--highly regarded and our community deserves nothing less.What a gift to all of us--I am thrilled to know that this is on the horizon for young and old to enjoy for years to come!! This project will: "Improve and expand coastal and open space access It Replace non-native and invasive plants with a native landscape •Improve watershed management •Offer exhibits and programs about our links to marine ecology and terrestrial habitats •Create jobs,volunteer and internship opportunities PVIC and the proposed Annenberg Center would together occupy just 4%of the site,leaving 96%without buildings or structures,and with much greater accessibility and improved public amenities. Thank you so much for being considerate and careful in your decision and thank you for 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 132 Page 2 of2 your time and energy to read and listen to the community! Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions!I look forward to speaking to any of you at anytime! Julie Virjee 2 Cinch ring Road Rolling Hills,CA 90274 310-377-0709 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 133 AraM From: Sent: To: Subject: ROSEMARY CAMPBELL [rose 1Ogrows@aol.com] Thursday,October 28,2010 6:10 PM Ara M Perspective I would still like to see a perspective series of shots from the proposed "accessible living roof"angle of our homes and the invasion of privacy it will bring. Please do an authentic study or I will be forced to do it myself and convey it truthfully. I am still extremely disappointed that the Ham's residence,for building impacts,was not included in your presentation,when they are the most significantly impacted by this project. Sincerely, Rosemary Campbell Sent from my iPhone 1 ATTACHMENT - 134 Page 1 of 4 AraM From:eahaig@netzero.com Sent:Friday,October 29,201010:50 AM To:aram@rpv.com Cc:clehr@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;CC@rpv.com Subject:Re:FW:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove You are right lower point vicente is developed,the land where the 50,979 square foot building,with a 35,000 square foot print with a 197 parking spaces is not developed.So it does not seem to be accurate that putting a building there would not change the use of the land. ----------Original Message ---------- From:"Ara M"<aram@rpv.com> To:<eahaig@netzero.com> Cc:"'Carolyn Lehr'"<clehr@rpv.com>,"'Joel Rojas'"<joelr@rpv.com>,"'Ara M'"<aram@rpv.com>, <CC@rpv.com> Subject:FW:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove Date:Tue,19 Oct 2010 17:48 :48 -0700 Mr.Haig, Thank you for your comment letter. It will be provided to the Planning Commission as an attachment to the next staff report in November. I do want to take this opportunity to point out that the Program of Utilization was not overlooked by City Staff.In fact,the Draft EIR which circulated for public comment between July 22 and September 15,2010 directly cited the Program of Utilization (POU)and the various components of the POU (see page 4.6-6).Moreover,the Draft EIR states that the National Park Service (NPS)monitors the POU and the proposed project may be SUbject to review by the NPS (see page 4.6-24).The Draft EIR is posted on the City's website (along with other information on the proposed project)at the following link: h.ttp:llpaIQsverdes.com/rpv/plao.o.ing/6nneo.oerg/EIB..cfm I also want to point out that communications between the City and NPS (David Siegenthaler)dates back to early Spring 2010.The email communications were transmitted to the Planning Commission as part of the late correspondence for the October 12,2010 Staff Report (see the following link): 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 135 Page 2 of4 http://p<:lIO$verde$,GQm!rpvlpl<:lnning/Annenberg/LAII::-CQRRE;$PQNPI::NCI::~,pof Lastly,you state in your email "The land is non-developed coastline ..."as you may know from visiting the site,Lower Point Vicente is developed with the 10,000 square foot PVIC building. In order to stay informed on the proposed,I suggest you join the list-serve group to receive electronic notices and updates at the following link: h11p.:llmy~l~Jj:,.GQrnl You can also read more on the proposed project,including background information,on the City's website at the following link: http://p<:lIQ$veroe$,Gom/rpylpl<:loning/Annenberg!inoex,Gfm If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 136 Page 3 of4 31 0-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized disseminatjon,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] sent:Tuesday,October 19,2010 11:33 AM To:cc@rpv.com;planning@RPV.com Subject:Anneneberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and Project At Abalone Cove Good morning, I have been reading the letters sent by the NPS and the State regarding the proposed development at Lower Point Vincente. I keep asking myself why do we need another builidng on our open coastline,simply because someone offers us money.Is there really a pressing need to build the facility at Lower Pointe Vicente.No.I am not sure there is even a pressing need for such a facility in RPV,while other areas of the county may be much more deserving.The only place to put this facility is on the coast? What is also of concern is that the mention of the POD seems to be an after thought of the City Planning staff.Was this an intentional oversight? The October 12,2010 memo to the Planning Commission,from the Community Development Director, says on Page 52,the third paragraph under item number 4,"The Project dones not propose to change the current land use,but rather,purposes to expand the recreational and educational facilites for the public's use." Who is writing this editorial (er...report)?Big Brother?The land is non-developed coastline,building a 50,979 square foot building,with a 35,000 square foot print with a 197 parking spaces is not changing the land use.What? Why does our City Council always see a need to have more structures on our coastline,it would be a 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 137 shame to drive along the coast just to seen more buildings around each comer. I urge you to stop any proposed development at Lower Point Vicente and Abalone Cove. Sincerely, Brian Haig Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program SeeRefinanceRates.com 11/12/2010 Page 4 of4 ATTACHMENT - 138 A T T A C H M E N T - 1 3 9 ~~~ 4106 Sunnyside Avenue Los Angeles,CA 90066 Home Tele/Fax:310.306.886 Email:jeanine.acres@ca.rr.com c:""'"a..-.S"".. Friday,November 12,2010 To the City Council,Rancho Palos Verdes I am the Director Emeritus of the Center for Marine Studies at Fort MacArthur,which serviced area citizens by providing educational interpretations at the Marine Mammal Care Center and the Los Angeles Oiled Bird Rescue and Education Center. I understand that the Planning Commission has asked the City Council to reassess whether the Annenberg Project is indeed in line with the City's General Plan.I also learned that the National Park Service has questioned whether interpretations of deed restrictions may limit how Lower Point Vicente might be put to public use. I want to encourage every member of the City Council to reaffirm that the Annenberg Project fits within the General Plan and is consistent with the planned use for Lower Point Vicente. The discovery park,the enhanced indoor and outdoor exhibits for PVIC,and the Annenberg Interpretive Center would together contribute to our community's understanding of the important links between marine life,terrestrial animals, and humans.It would also increase our access to Point Vicente and make the area more sustainable and more beautiful. As I stressed at the Planning Commission meeting,the importance of providing venues for community awareness and opportunities for volunteerism for young people will enrich and strengthen the community and engender a sense of pride in the special place that is Point Vicente. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding the importance of this project. Sincerely, Jeanine Mauch ATTACHMENT - 140 Ara M From: Sent: To: Cc: Schwartz,Mark Evan [Mark.Schwartz@lmu.edu] Saturday,October 30,20105:04 PM cc@rpv.com aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to voice my support for the Annenberg Project at Lower Vincente. it will be an asset to our community,creating jobs and worthwhile programs. Mark Schwartz 1 I believe Thank you. ATTACHMENT - 141 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:sjshultz3@aol.com Sent:Tuesday,November 02,2010 1:22 PM To:pc@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com;Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; tom.long@rpv.com;Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Cc:Sjshultz3@aol.com Subject:Annenberg proposal Please forgive me if this is a duplicate email,but I had some computer problems and I don't know if you received my earlier letter.Thank you- Dear RPV Representative, After being present at the RPV Planning Commission meetings and reading through numerous emails and reports,I have come to the realization that the two sides on the issue of the Annenberg proposal are still very far apart. I am hopeful,however,that perhaps we can come to some sort of a compromise.I propose that we follow the suggestion in the National Parks Service letter dated Oct.8 and the Draft EIR which state that the Upper Point Vicente property is a reasonable alternate site for the at least part of this project,while the Lower Point Vicente site could benefit from other aspects. I think that the components deemed "compliant"to the current zoning at the Lower Point Vicente property in the NPS letter-such as the "further development of trails,native plant landscaping,bio-swale, benches,picnic tables and restrooms,modifications to the existing Interpretive Center,outdoor interpretive exhibits and trail interpretive elements that focus on the indigenous terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems"could be wonderful and positive improvements. On the other hand,I propose that all of the components deemed "non-compliant"-such as the "non-outdoor recreation components of the proposal including the facilities for pet care,pet training,pet adoption services, education that is not directly related to the park site,facilities for general community,civic,and governmental functions,and office,parking and other support structures related to those non-conforming uses"would be much better suited for the Upper site where the zoning is not an issue and there are no immediate residential neighborhoods. Furthermore,I propose that the city request that the Annenberg Foundation help to fund a much needed new city hall and civic center on the Upper site.The two new civic facilities could be tied to the Annenberg Center both structurally and visually. This separation of the two sites (Upper and Lower Point Vicente)allows each site to be used in a manner that is consistent with current zoning,meets the concerns of the NPS,as well as appeases the majority of the fears of the opponents.Additionally,it meets the needs of the city government.I see it as a win/win for everyone. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.I welcome any discussion. Sincerely, Susan Shultz 16 Calle Viento 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 142 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Janine Davis Oanineldavis@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 02,20102:47 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente To RPV City Council, I'm writing to express my interest and support in/for the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.I support this project for several reasons.First,as the mother of two teens that are part of a self-formed volunteer group,I would LOVE to have more local volunteer opportunities. We are specifically looking for a volunteer cause focused on helping animals,which makes this an ideal fit for our group's goals.Second,the area is current a bit of an eyesore.Having Annenberg landscape and develop the area free of taxpayer's charges is a great potential gift to our community.Finally,I am personally an animal fanatic,and love any/all organizations in support of the ethical,kind and healthy treatment of animals.One that educates the community and children on animal care issues would be a wonderful addition to the community. All the best, Janine 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 143 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Charles Agnew [cvagnew@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,November 02,2010 3:44 PM To:aram@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Education Center Regarding the Annenberg Education Center- I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes before its'inception. Lower Point Vicente was deeded to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the federal government for the general public's enjoyment IN PERPETUITY AS PUBLIC RECREATION OPEN SPACE.Yet,the City is currently considering an application from the Annenberg Foundation to provide a dog and cat adoption and education center. I think this is an inappropriate use for this land.Please reject this proposal in its' entirety. Charles Agnew 32261 Phantom Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 144 AraM From: Sent: To: Cc: SUbject: Nov.2,2010 Lenee Bilski [Ienee91 O@intergate.com] Tuesday,November 02,20104:11 PM pc@rpv.com aram@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com Planning Commission Nov.9 item -Lower Pt.Vicente Public Hearing Dear Planning Commissioners, Regarding the Annenberg Propsoal for Lower Pt.Vicente Parkland: The proposed development is Not consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan (Ref.RPV Coastal Specific Plan pgs.S2-8,9,11, 15,16} The major criteria of concern are: enhancement of visual quality - a large building for the Annenberg Foundation's Animal Care Center would Not enhance this site protection of visual corridors -there Would be view obstruction from many viewpoints attentuation of noise and light increased Use that another building would generate is not consistent with the goals of the city for this site protection of the environment no matter what,there is no doubt that the environment Would be significantly damaged by not only the construction activity but also the enormous amount of hardscape proposed a development's appearance from residential areas -the proposal would obstruct views and also present a view of walls and hardscape that is not in keeping with this particular coastal parkland. pg.9 states "It is recognized,however,[by the LA County Dept.of Beaches],that the natural character of the area must be retained by limiting the number of visitors.This will be done by limiting the amount of parking . . . . "The ultimate goal is a relatively low level of development,maintaining as far as possible the natural and aesthetic setting,providing primarily picnic areas and parking to accomodate demand." "A low-profile structure ...will serve as a an interpretive center for marine sciences." The City agreed to restrictions when the property was acquired from the County of Los Angeles,which received the property from the Federal government. Based on these criteria above as well as other factors,the 50,000+SF Animal Care Center building primarily for dogs and cats is totally inconsistent with the Coastal Specific Plan for this site.Another site should be selected for this proposal. As for the Grading Permit,the huge amount of grading (Finding #1)cannot be found consistent with the primary use of the land as outlined in the Coastal Plan and the General Plan. Findings #3,4,7,8 -the huge amount of grading proposed would drastically disturb the natural contours,disturb the wildlife and birds (which would leave this area and may not return after construction)and would create 73,000+SF of roads and hardscape on publicly-owned land that is supposed to be open space recreational. For the reasons above as well as for the fact that this proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan,please do not even consider approving any permits for this proposal 1 ATTACHMENT - 145 on this site.Such a project is Not needed at this site. Thank you for your consideration. L.Bilski This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program. 2 ATTACHMENT - 146 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Mark Detwiler [MDetwiler@bebe.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 02,20104:32 PM To:'aram@rpv.com' Subject:Annenberg project First,I'll state I'm flat out against this Annenberg project. The fact based on the EIR that there will be increased traffic on PV South and the possibility of traffic signal blight with light pollution for the sake of an animal shelter is enough to make me think the entire city has gone the wrong direction.In fact,this has the smell of political cronyism. I cannot believe the discussion of permit issuance can even be brought up at the Nov 9th meeting due to what I thought was a stay of issuance due to legal issues (Department of Interior questions). Anyway,comparing the obvious city push for the Annenberg project and obvious city opposition to the Marymount measure "P"smacks of a double standard.It is Nov.2nd as I write this and I'm heading for the polls.I had intended to vote "NO"on measure "P"but I think I'll change my mind and vote "Yes",mostly due to my loss of respect and trust of our city leaders. Thank You Mark Detwiler 11112/2010 ATTACHMENT - 147 Page 1 of1 Ara M From:irene henrikson [irene.henrikson@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,November 02,20108:40 PM To:aram@rpv.com Subject:opposed to Annenberg Project Our coastal area is the wrong place for a animal rescue.Don't let money drive this project for the council.We have lived in RPV for over 20 years,please respect our opinion. Irene and Paul Henrikson 32404 Sea Raven Dr. RPV 90275 11112/2010 ATTACHMENT - 148 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:scbryan@aol.com Sent:Wednesday,November 03,201010:13 AM To:aram@rpv.com Subject:Regarding Annenberg Project Please do not be short sighted and allow the Annenberg Project to be built at the lower Pt. Vicente site.This is an inappropriate use of this land and does not meet the criteria outlined by the National Park Service.Pt.Vicente should be preserved for future generations.I have spent hundreds of hours at Pt.Vicente volunteering with the ACS whale census program. Over the years I have seen loss of habitat in the area and a decrease in the wildlife populations.Any further development will insure a greater loss.Visitors come to Pt.Vicente for its natural beauty and to see the ocean and its creatures.I am all for a dog and cat rescue center,but not at this location. Thank you. Stephanie Bryan 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 149 AraM From: Sent: To: Subject: Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com] Wednesday,November 03,2010 1:28 PM 'Ara Mihranian ' FW:The Annenberg Project Sincerely, Gregory Pfost,AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos verdes,CA 90275 (310)544-5228 -----Original Message----- From:Robert King [mailto:robtking@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,November 03,2010 1:07 PM To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Cc:ROSEMARY CAMPBELL;GGleghor@nas.edu;fhkoehler@cox.net Subject:The Annenberg Project Members of the RPV City Council and Planning Commission, I would like to express my opposition to the location of the Annenberg Project in Lower Point vicente. This domestic animal hostel,which has been torturously re-labeled as an education facility is an inappropriate,irrelevant and possibly illegal use of prime coastal view property.This property was deeded to the city for public recreational use not for furthering the mission of a private philanthropic organization. If we must have a facility of this type please find a location for it which is not on the scenic coast.If we must have an educational facility at this location please see that it is pertinent to the immediate local environment and/or history,as is PVIC,and not devoted to the care and feeding of common domestic animals.I would suggest an inland location more convenient to schools and which presents less of a traffic handling problem than Pt.Vicente. As our recent local election has demonstrated our citizens believe that RPV is Not For Sale and I might add,EVEN at the price Annenberg is willing to pay. As a 50 year resident of the Peninsula and RPV,I ask you to please vote No on further implementation of this flawed project. Thank you. Robert E.King 30764 Via La Cresta,RPV 1 ATTACHMENT - 150 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Terrence Hayes [tdhaze@earthlink.net] Wednesday,November 03,2010 2:54 PM aram@rpv.com Annenberg Project SIRS: Just what part of NO don't they understand ...!!! T.D.Hayes 1 ATTACHMENT - 151 SHARON YARBER Attorney at Law 6012 Sandbrook Drive Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 Telephone(s)-310/378-9412 Cell 213/712-8066 Email:momofyago@cox.net Via email pc@rpv.comandaram@rpv.com November 3,2010 To the Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re :Planning Committee Meeting to be held November 9th (as it may be continued from time to time)and the Annenberg Project (Agenda item number unknown at date of writing) Gentlemen: To the extent the applications for the Grading and Coastal Development Permits being considered at the upcoming November 9,2010 meeting are related solely to the proposed construction by the Annenberg Foundation,as a gift to the City,of the improvements to the PVIC that were approved by this Commission on February 9,2010,request is hereby made that consideration of the applications be postponed until such time,if any,that (i)a license agreement authorizing Annenberg's construction of such work on the City's behalf has been entered into between the City and Annenberg,and (ii)a determination has been made that all governmental agencies from which approval of the Annenberg Project is required,including the National Park Service ("NPS")and the State of California Office of Grants and Local Services ("OGALS"),have had an opportunity to review the PVIC project and determine whether their approval is required for it,and if so required,that they have approved it. To the extent the applications being considered at the November 9,2010 meeting are in connection with the project that is the subject of the pending Annenberg CUP application, and such CUP application excludes the PVIC improvements,request is hereby made that said applications should be denied on the grounds that the Application for the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project cannot ultimately be approved Commissioners ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 2 ATTACHMENT - 152 for the reasons set forth below,thus rendering the remaining applications moot. Alternatively,pending further land use determinations as may be made by the City Council at its upcoming November 16,2010 meeting,as it may be continued from time to time,and receipt of directions,if any,from the Council to staff and this Commission resulting therefrom,the Planning Commission should postpone making any determinations with respect to the Grading Permit and Coastal Development permit applications on the grounds that such applications are not ripe until (i)a finding has been made by the Council that the project is not contrary to the General Plan,and (ii)a finding has been made by this Commission that the CUP application should be granted. To the extent that the permits pertain to both the PVlC improvement project and the Annenberg project,then this Commission should vacate its prior approval ofthe PVlC improvements on the basis that such approval was issued in violation of CEQA inasmuch as the two projects are obviously now connected and need to be reviewed and approved together rather than separately. A.The Project is not in compliance with the City's General Plan As stated in the DEIR and staffs many reports,Lower Pt.Vicente is designated as Recreational-Passive under the General Plan.The General Plan provides (at Page 94) "Active recreational facilities are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas,such as recreation buildings,tennis courts,baseball fields,children's play apparatus,etc.On the other hand,passive recreational facilities are mostly unstructured in order to allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance.Passive sites are usually used for nature studies,hiking trails, limited picnicking areas,etc."(emphasis added)Further,at Page 197 the General Plan provides that "Environmental impacts should be low". While education can have a recreational effect,and while recreational activities can be educational in result,the word recreational is not synonymous with the word educational.However beneficial the educational components of the Annenberg project may be,they are not,by and large,recreational in nature. Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 3 The Annenberg project is anything but passive or recreational.It is highly structured, includes a massive building and attendant parking,will necessitate enormous amounts of ATTACHMENT - 153 human disturbance,and the environmental impacts are not low. The definition of "Passive Recreation"is set forth in Zoning Code Section 17.96.1520, towit: "Passive recreation means outdoor recreation activities that are nonstructured in nature such as picnicking,sightseeing,nature study areas,etc." The entire property is designated Recreational -Passive,not just portions.Therefore, even though some elements of the definition may be present in the project (e.g. picnicking),the remainder of the elements are clearly outside ofthe definition.A 50,000 square foot building does NOT provide outdoor recreation.Furthermore,the uses to which the proposed building would be put -animal care,education and adoptions, grievance counseling,theater,classrooms,etc.-are not outdoor recreation by any stretch of the imagination. Inasmuch as this Commission was unable to make the required finding that the Project is not contrary to the General Plan at its October 12,2010 meeting,and therefore could not approve of the application for a CUP,it would be irrational to grant related permits when the threshold approval of the CUP application has not been made. B.The Project is not in compliance with the Land Use Designation shown on the General Plan Land Use Map The Land Use designation for the subject property as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map is Recreational -Passive.As discussed above,land to be used for passive recreation is to be used for outdoor recreational activities,and the Annenberg project is not an outdoor recreational activity project. C.The Project is not in compliance with the Open Space Recreational (OR)Zoning as shown on the City's Zoning Map. Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 4 The zoning map for the City shows this property zoned Open Space Recreational (OR). PerRPVMC Section 17.34.010: "The open space recreation district (OR)provides open space for outdoor recreation (emphasis added),including,but not limited to,areas particularly suited for park and ATTACHMENT - 154 recreational purposes,including access to beaches,natural drainage channels and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations,including utility easements,banks of natural drainage channels,trails and scenic corridors." Per RPVMC Section 17.34.020.A.3,ifland zoned OR is PUBLICLY owned it may be used for active recreation.The active aspect of this section does not supersede the foregoing provision that it is to be OUTDOOR recreation. Since the land use designation,however,is PASSIVE,as is the General Plan designation, those two PASSIVE aspects ofthe General Plan supersede the ACTIVE zoning permitted (not required)under 17.34.020.A.3. The Annenberg project is the antithesis of a development that is in compliance with, much less in keeping with the spirit of,the foregoing provisions of our General Plan and zoning ordinances.It is VERY structured with a very large building,tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of square feet ofhardscape and man made trails,and will cause anything but "the least amount of human disturbance".The mental gymnastics that staff and/or Rincon,the environmental consultant,went through to develop,and the creative writing employed to present,its/their analysis to find the project not contrary to the General Plan and compliant with the zoning and land use designations makes for entertaining reading,if nothing else. D.The project does not comply with the Plan of Utilization ("POU")and deed restrictions Overarching ALL of the General Plan,zoning and land use designation issues are the RESTRICTIONS set forth in the Deed from the United States of America to the County of Los Angeles,which deed recites"...for and in consideration of the perpetual use of the Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 5 hereinafter described premises as and for public park and public recreation area purpose ....It is Agreed and Understood by and between Grantor and Grantee,and the Grantee by its acceptance ofthis deed,does acknowledge its understanding ofthe agreement,and does covenant and agree for itself,and its successors and assigns,forever, as follows: 1.This property shall be used and maintained for the public purposes for which it was conveyed in perpetuity as set forth in the program of utilization and plan contained in the application ..... ATTACHMENT - 155 2.The Grantee shall,within 6 months of the date of the deed of conveyance,erect and maintain a permanent sign or marker near the point of principal access to the conveyed area indicating that the property is a park or recreation area ... 3.....continued use and maintenance of the property for public park or public recreational purposes " While a copy of the plan of utilization ("POU")does not appear to have been attached to said recorded deed,a document on the City's website marked Exhibit "c"apparently sets forth the terms of the POD.These terms are also reflected on Page 4.6-6 of the DEIR. The first item shown on both said Exhibit C and on Page 4.6-6 ofthe DEIR is the following: "Development ofthe rifle range portion of the surplus Nike site will provide for passive recreation pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean and will accommodate individuals as well as groups."(emphasis added) By virtue of incorporating by reference the plan of utilization,under California real property law the POU is thus a deed restriction running with the land and binding on the property in perpetuity,unless amended or terminated by the party imposing the restriction,the Department ofthe Interior acting through the National Park Service.Thus, even if the property were zoned multi-family or commercial or whatever,nothing that otherwise complied with the City's zoning (and the General Plan and Land Use Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 6 designation)would be permitted to be built on,and indeed,no use can be made of,the property unless it does not violate the terms and provisions of the POD. As we have all been aware from the letters of September 15,2010 and October 8,2010 from the National Park Service ("NPS"),the NPS does not believe that the project,taken as an integrated whole,complies with the deed restrictions or the POU. Furthermore,under the terms ofthe Deed,the property cannot be sold,transferred or leased to a NON-GOVERNMENTAL agency.The Annenberg Foundation's proposed lease of the property would clearly be a violation of this Deed prohibition. To further complicate matters,past improvements at the site (PVIC)were partially funded with grant money from the State of California as part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.While I have not seen any documentation in connection with this ATTACHMENT - 156 grant,said staff report states on Page 60 that when the funds were granted restrictions were placed on the property limiting uses to outdoor recreation.(emphasis added).Thus, these two agencies need to approve whatever goes on the project (see page 60 ofthe staff report for a full explanation). I find it fascinating that the Initial Study for the project,dated February 4,2010,failed to disclose to the public that both the Department ofthe Interior,acting by and through the National Park Service (NPS)and the State of California Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)were agencies whose approval was required. Similarly,the California Coastal Commission,which has jurisdiction over the land,has preliminarily expressed its concerns,and on page 3 of its September 13,2010 letter states that "it is debatable whether these uses fit into the policy goals ofthe Passive Recreation/Open Space Recreation designation." E.The Connection Between and PYlC Parking Improvements and the Annenberg Foundation Project Is Great Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 7 With regard to the PVIC parking improvement project approval,I find it fascinating that the Negative Declaration of December 2009 states at page 2 that "No new uses, buildings,exhibits or activity areas are proposed"and that the contemplated improvements are being done to "serve better the PVIC facilities ...".yet at the time that statement was made,negotiations had already been underway for at least two years with Annenberg,the Coast Vision Plan which was adopted in September 2008 depicted the Annenberg project on Lower Pt.Vicente,and the current project's DEIR indicates that 100 spaces from the PVIC project will be available to it.While the Annenberg project was not technically "proposed'in the PVIC project,it was clearly contemplated at that time.I understand that in 1998 approval was given for an expansion ofthe parking at PVIC,but the plan approved this year completely redesigned the parking obviously to accommodate the Annenberg project.I do not yet know whether the NPS and OGALS approved the PVIC improvements,or if their approval was even sought,but inasmuch as the projects seem inextricably intertwined,their approval should be obtained before any permits are issued. Until this connection can be considered,and the approval by NPS and OGALS of the PVIC parking is sought and,if required,obtained,no permits of any kind should issue. ATTACHMENT - 157 F.The PYlC Improvements approval may not comply with CEQA If the grading pennit sought by Annenberg includes the grading work required to construct the separately approved PVIC project improvements,then that fact alone establishes that the two projects are,indeed,connected,and that the splitting ofthe project was in violation of CEQA.The DEIR would need to be redone to incorporate the PVIC work,the Negative Declaration would have to be ignored and the approval given for the PVIC project would have to be vacated. G.Conclusion It is patently obvious that the project is NOT in compliance with the POU,the deed restrictions imposed when the grant was made,or the tenns of the grant from the State, just as it is NOT in compliance with the General Plan,the designated Land Uses,or the Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 8 zoning.Inasmuch as denial of the CUP in inevitable,no further action should be taken with respect to the related additional pennit applications as they pertain to the Annenberg project. Furthennore,it is also clear that if the scope of work for the Annenberg project pennits includes the work for the PVIC project,then the approval ofthe PVIC project was given in violation of CEQA,and must be vacated,the Annenberg DREI needs to be redone and the Negative Declaration in connection with the PVIC project needs to be ignored. For the foregoing reasons,request is hereby made that: a.to the extent the Grading and Coastal Development Pennit Applications pertain solely to the improvements already approved for the PVIC site,the Commission refrain from making any detenninations with respect to such pennits until a license has been entered into between the Annenberg and the City to pennit entry onto the site by the Foundation to perfonn such work,and any approvals from the NPS or OGALS related thereto have been sought and obtained in light of the nexus between the two projects, b.the Commission recognize that the application for the CUP must inevitably be denied for the reasons set forth in this letter,and that,therefore,the applications for the Grading Pennit and Coastal Development Pennit,as they pertain to the Annenberg project,are moot;or alternatively,the Commission postpone any decision on said applications ATTACHMENT - 158 pending the outcome ofthe City Council meeting of November 16,2010 and until (i)a finding is made by said Council that the proposed project is not contrary to the General Plan,Land Use Designation,Zoning and/or POU,and until,following any such determination by the City Council,this Commission approves the CUP application,and c.to the extent that the PVIC improvements are included within the work covered by the Grading Permit and Coastal Development Permit,that this Commission (i)vacate its prior approval of the PVIC project,(ii)ignore the Negative Declaration issued in connection therewith,and (iii)require that a new DEIR be prepared by an independent consultant with no prior relationship with the Annenberg Foundation or Mr.Wallis Annenberg which treats the two projects as one and includes the totality of the impacts. Commissioners of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission November 3,2010 Page 9 Respectfully submitted, Sharon Yarber ATTACHMENT - 159 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Ara, ROSEMARY CAMPBELL [rose10grows@aol.com] Thursday,November 04,20108:54 AM AraM Perspective I would still like to see a perspective series of shots from the proposed "accessible living roof"angle of our homes and the invasion of privacy it will bring. Please do an authentic study or I will be forced to do it myself and convey it truthfully. I am still extremely disappointed that the Ham's residence,for building impacts,was not included in your presentation,when they are the most significantly impacted by this project. Sincerely, Rosemary Campbell Sent from my iPhone 1 ATTACHMENT - 160 AraM From: Sent: To: Subject: Willis Binnard [willis@binnard.com] Thursday,November 04,2010 11 :28 AM cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Annenberg Project Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, As a 30+year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes I want to express my strong support for the proposed Annenberg Project for Lower Point Vicente.The facility will provide the community with an invaluable resource for children and adults.Just as Terranea has proved to be a wonderful addition to our community I believe that the project will enhance opportunities for all.The small footprint of the buildings and the low profile will not harm the sense of open space.Furthermore the current vegetation would be replaced with native plants.All in all it is a benefit to the community to approve the project. I must add that the enhancements to the existing Pt Vicente Interpretive Center cannot be ignored.As a docent at PVIC I welcome visitors from across the country and around the world.Why not have all visitors to PVIC benefit from the improved and enhanced exterior and interior exhibits. Let's not lose this opportunity to bring an educational facility to Rancho Palos Verdes. Please take the necessary steps so the Annenberg project can move forward and become an asset to us all. Willis Binnard 1 ATTACHMENT - 161 Ara M From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council, Will Nicklas [wjnick@cox.net] Thursday,November 04,2010 12:48 PM cc@rpv.com aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com November 16th City Council Meeting I am not sure yet if I will be able to make the meeting coming up in regards to The Annenberg Project,so I thought I'd send a letter to be a part of the record.I wanted to let you know that I,as a resident of Palos Verdes,am really excited about the project, and I definitely think it fits under the "passive recreation"category.I walk my dog all around the light house area,and I am really looking forward to seeing that area of PV opened up for all of us to enjoy.What a better way to use that land!A great place for kids to come and learn about Palos Verdes and to interact with marine and other wildlife. A water purification system that will help our pollution problem.My son is a surfer,and anything that will help to clean up the ocean after the rains is a plus in my opinion. And lastly,I am looking forward to the jobs that our local kids will be able to participate in.I think they mentioned internships and paid positions,which would be great.I have several friends who's kids work at Cabrillo in the internship programs,and it is such a great opportunity.I love to have something similar right here in Palos Verdes. The best part about this project is that The Annenberg Foundation is not asking the City for any money!To have all of these benefits,all we have to do is say YES!What a great deal.I hope the City Council will vote to go ahead with this awesome opportunity for the Peninsula.It is definitely an addition to our beautiful community. Jane Nicklas 1 ATTACHMENT - 162 SHARON YARBER Attorney at Law 6012 Sandbrook Drive Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 Telephone(s)-310/378-9412 Cell 213/712-8066 Email:momofyago@cox.net Via email cc@ryv.comandaram@rpv.com November 4,2010 To the Honorable Mayor Stefan Wolowicz and Members of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,CA Re :City Council Meeting to be held November 16th (as it may be continued from time to time)and the Annenberg Project (Agenda item number unknown at date of writing) Gentlemen: I am opposed to the Annenberg Project.This opposition is based upon the following analysis: A.The Project is not in compliance with the City's General Plan As stated in the DEIR and staffs many reports,Lower Pt.Vicente is designated as Recreational-Passive under the General Plan.The General Plan provides (at Page 94) "Active recreational facilities are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas,such as recreation buildings,tennis courts,baseball fields,children's play apparatus,etc.On the other hand,passive recreational facilities are mostly unstructured in order to allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance.Passive sites are usually used for nature studies,hiking trails, limited picnicking areas,etc."(emphasis added)Further,at Page 197 the General Plan provides that "Environmental impacts should be low". While education can have a recreational effect,and while recreational activities can be educational in result,the word recreational is not synonymous with the word educational.However beneficial the educational components of the Annenberg project may be,they are not,by and large,recreational in nature. Mayor Wolowicz and the Members of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 2 ATTACHMENT - 163 The Annenberg project is anything but passive or recreational.It is highly structured, includes a massive building and attendant parking,will necessitate enormous amounts of human disturbance,and the environmental impacts are not low. The definition of "Passive Recreation"is set forth in Zoning Code Section 17.96.1520, towit: "Passive recreation means outdoor recreation activities that are nonstructured in nature such as picnicking,sightseeing,nature study areas,etc." The entire property is designated Recreational -Passive,not just portions.Therefore, even though some elements of the definition may be present in the project (e.g. picnicking),the remainder of the elements are clearly outside of the definition.A 50,900 square foot building does NOT provide outdoor recreation.Furthermore,the uses to which the proposed building would be put -animal care for dogs and cats,education and adoptions,grievance counseling,theater,classrooms,etc.are not outdoor recreation by any stretch of the imagination. B.The Project is not in compliance with the Land Use Designation The Land Use designation for the subject property is Recreational-Passive.As discussed above,land to be used for passive recreation is to be used for outdoor recreational activities,and the Annenberg project is not an outdoor recreational activity project. Co The Project is not in compliance with the Open Space Recreational (OR)Zoning. PerRPVMC Section 17.34.010: "The open space recreation district (OR)provides open space for outdoor recreation (emphasis added),including,but not limited to,areas particularly suited for park and recreational purposes,including access to beaches,natural drainage channels and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations,including utility easements,banks of natural drainage channels,trails and scenic corridors." Per RPVMC Section 17.34.020.A.3,if land zoned OR is PUBLICLY owned it may be Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 3 used for active recreation.The active aspect ofthis section does not supersede the ATTACHMENT - 164 foregoing provision that it is to be OUTDOOR recreation. Since the land use designation,however,is PASSIVE,as is the General Plan designation, those two PASSIVE aspects of the General Plan supersede the ACTIVE zoning permitted (not required)under 17.34.020.A.3. The Annenberg project is the antithesis of a development that is in compliance with, much less in keeping with the spirit of,the foregoing provisions of our General Plan and zoning ordinances.It is VERY structured with a very large building (approx.51,000 sq. feet),approximately 73,000 square feet ofhardscape and man made trails,and is anything but "the least amount of human disturbance".The mental gymnastics that staff and/or Rincon,the environmental consultant,went through to develop,and the creative writing employed to present,its/their flawed analysis to find the project not contrary to the General Plan and compliant with the zoning and land use designations makes for entertaining reading,if nothing else. D.The project does not comply with the Program of Utilization ("POU")and deed restrictions Overarching ALL ofthe General Plan,zoning and land use designation issues are the RESTRICTIONS set forth in the Deed from the United States of America to the County of Los Angeles,which deed recites "...for and in consideration of the perpetual use of the hereinafter described premises as and for public park and public recreation area purpose ....It is Agreed and Understood by and between Grantor and Grantee,and the Grantee by its acceptance ofthis deed,does acknowledge its understanding ofthe agreement,and does covenant and agree for itself,and its successors and assigns,forever, as follows: 1.This property shall be used and maintained for the public purposes for which it was conveyed in perpetuity as set forth in the program of utilization and plan contained in the application ..... 2.The Grantee shall,within 6 months of the date ofthe deed of conveyance,erect and maintain a permanent sign or marker near the point of principal access to the conveyed Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 4 area indicating that the property is a park or recreation area ... 3 .....continued use and maintenance ofthe property for public park or public recreational purposes " ATTACHMENT - 165 While a copy of the plan POD does not appear to have been attached to said recorded deed,a document on the City's website marked Exhibit "c"apparently sets forth the terms ofthe POD.These terms are also reflected on Page 4.6-6 ofthe DEIR.The first item shown on both said Exhibit C and on Page 4.6-6 ofthe DEIR is the following: "Development of the rifle range portion of the surplus Nike site will provide for passive recreation pursuits closely oriented to the attributes ofthe Pacific Ocean and will accommodate individuals as well as groups."(emphasis added) The POD constitutes a deed restriction running with the land and binding on the property in perpetuity,unless amended or terminated by the party imposing the restriction,the Department of the Interior acting through the National Park Service.Thus,even if the property were zoned multi-family,institutional,commercial or whatever,no use that otherwise complied with the City's zoning (and the General Plan and Land Dse designation)would be permitted on the property unless it did not violate the terms and provisions ofthe POD. The proposed project,which is not a passive recreational use,is likewise not the least bit closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean.Its focus is on terrestrial companion animals -dogs and cats.There is no correlation between marine life and companion animals other than the fact that they are living creatures!So,for that matter, are insects,buffalo,horses and cattle,none of which are closely oriented to the ocean! As you are aware from the letters of September 15,2010 and October 8,2010 from the National Park Service ("NPS"),the NPS does not believe that the project,taken as an integrated whole,complies with the deed restrictions or the POD. To further complicate matters,past improvements at the site (PVIC)were partially funded with grant money from the State of California as part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.While I have not seen any documentation in connection with this Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 5 grant,said staff report states on Page 60 that when the funds were granted restrictions were placed on the property limiting uses to outdoor recreation.(emphasis added).Thus, both the NPS and the State Office of Grants and Local Services ("OGALS")need to approve whatever uses are made of the property (see page 60 ofthe staff report for a full explanation). The California Coastal Commission also has jurisdiction over the land.The ATTACHMENT - 166 Commission's Coastal Program Analyst has preliminarily expressed concerns,and on page 3 of her September 13,2010 letter states that "it is debatable whether these uses fit into the policy goals of the Passive Recreation/Open Space Recreation designation." Thus,I do NOT think the project is in compliance with the POU,the deed restrictions imposed when the grant was made,or the terms of the grant from the State,just as it is not compliant with the General Plan,the designated Land Uses,the zoning or the Coastal Commission's goals. E.There is no need in the community for this project Based upon my review ofthe September 15,2010 and October 8,2010 letters from the National Park Service,obviously some significant analysis will need to be made of the recreational needs of the community in order to make the case to the DOIlNPS that this project is a need that should be addressed by the use of public land,and that either the POU as written does not prohibit this project,or that the POU should be amended to permit these needs to be satisfied by this project.In doing so,I ask that you be mindful of what community it is you serve.Indeed,let me ask you what community it is you think you serve.Is it just RPV,or is it all of the South Bay or the larger LA basin,or all of Southern California,for that matter?Perhaps you feel that serving a larger community than just RPV is your moral obligation,but I believe your roles as Mayor and City Council members ofRPV are limited to looking at the needs of this City only,though the NPS may require a broader perspective. Now,with respect to whether there is a need for this animal care and adoption facility on the Peninsula,I would like to know how many requests have ever been made of Council that a dog and cat adoption facility and educational center be developed anywhere in the City.The City is attempting to develop Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park and Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 6 incorporate into the designs for those parks the various wants and needs of the community that have been expressed during the outreach performed by the City through its 2003 Parks and Recreation and Open Space Community Survey.Nothing in the nature ofthis project has been requested.The recreational needs of the community that have been identified are:tennis courts,girls'softball field(s),dog park,swimming pool, unstructured playing fields for pick up games,etc.Yet the Council has apparently only entertained the notion of placing the Annenberg project on this site,though no need for it has ever been expressed. I would also expect you to gather ample data from local shelters,veterinarians and the ATTACHMENT - 167 like as to the number of companion animals from the Peninsula that are abandoned, abused,or euthanized because of behavior problems or rampant breeding resulting from failure of local owners to spay and neuter their pet dogs and cats (and,yes,I am drawing a distinction between a pet cat and a feral one).I am confident that such data gathering will disclose that this is not a problem in this community. With that said,certainly there are individuals,groups and cultures that abuse animals, force them to engage in dog fights (ala Michael Vick),ritualistically kill them as sacrifice,and the like,and certainly there are a lot of people who purchase a pet for a child's birthday or holiday,only to realize they were not really prepared to take on the financial responsibility or make the time commitment needed to properly care for the animal,and thus give them away or take them to the pound.Of course,education is the best way to address a host of our societal ills,and early childhood education is probably the best hope we will ever have for turning around the terrible problem our society at large faces with animal overpopulation and abuse.But this facility,which is geographically very remote,will not be a major draw for all the people who would most benefit from this education.$40 million could be spent much more beneficially by hiring several animal trainers and having them,along with their pets,give live demonstrations in classrooms throughout the state and country.Now,it's not my $40 million,and the Annenbergs are free to decide how they wish to spend it,but a facility that will accommodate a limited number of visitors and only approximately 20 animals at a time will hardly make a dent in the problem in my view.The Foundation should simply purchase a piece of land and build this vision on private property. As you are aware,there is a large and vocal group of people on the hill,myself being one Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 7 ofthem,who desperately want a dog park because we know one would improve the quality of life for our beloved pets.We animal owners and lovers already know how important the human animal bond is and spend vast amounts of time and money on the care,nurturing and feeding of these beloved companions.We don't need to attend class to realize we have a bond or learn how to form one!The expression that a dog is man's best friend has been around how long?????How on earth did all the animal owners before us figure it out without formal instruction? The bottom line is that there is absolutely no "need"for this project in this community. F.Use of Public Land to Promote a Questionable Private Agenda and Curriculum is Inappropriate ATTACHMENT - 168 This project is the personal vision of Wallis Annenberg.The RPV Coast Vision Plan was suggested by her,prepared by Melendrez,the consultant she recommended,and paid for with her funds.Not surprisingly,the Vision Plan mentions a possible animal education center as a proposed use for Lower Point Vicente,but it does not MANDATE it. Ms.Annenberg is quoted in an October 2009 Vanity Fair interview stating as follows: "I want to do the Mayo Clinic for companion animals,"she continues:"The idea is to teach people a reverence for animals and to tie it in to the local ecology and environment.After two years of negotiations,we have a magnificent piece of land in Rancho Palos Verdes."Officially called the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente, the 20-acre oceanfront site will include a model adoption center for cats and dogs."I call it my last hurrah,but who knows?My father used to say that about every project he ever did.And it was never his last hurrah."(emphasis added) I am extremely concerned about Ms.Wallenberg's Vanity Fair statement that "we have" a magnificent piece of land in Rancho Palos Verdes.I am confident that she is not a stupid woman.How could she be confused and think she "has"OUR PUBLIC land when she has not purchased it,does not have a lease or license to use it and does not have anything other than approval to seek entitlements with no commitments having been made (per our Council)that such approval will ever be granted?Is it her understanding that by virtue of these "negotiations"to which she refers this is a fait accompli? Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 8 Please explain what "negotiations"took place over a two year period.Why does a donation need to be negotiated?Negotiations imply a give and take between two or more parties.What was given by the City in exchange for taking this donation,and what is being taken by Annenberg in exchange for giving this gift? Please explain how a Mayo Clinic for companion animals is a use consistent with an outdoor,passive recreational park! Further,the following text was taken on October 30,2010 from the Annenberg Foundation website:"Working closely with the local community,the Foundation is creating the Wallis Annenberg Companion Animal Center at Lower Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes.This education center and family destination focuses on the compelling story of animal life on the Peninsula.The project includes:using architecture, art and exhibits to teach about local geology,history,marine ecology,terrestrial animals and habitats;creating a hands-on education center and outdoor exhibits;providing a model companion animal adoption program;giving behavior modification and ATTACHMENT - 169 socialization programs,as well as workshops and counseling related to domestic animals."(emphasis added)(note:on November 1,2010 the website had completely reworked and reworded its statement and,in addition to other things,it now reads"...the Foundation is proposing ..."): The statement from the Foundation's website that "the Foundation IS CREATING the Wallis Annenberg Companion Animal Center at Lower Point Vicente"failed to disclose that this is land owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,failed to disclose that they are in the process of seeking the rights to develop the project,and led a reader to believe it is well underway,when that is anything but the case.It likewise failed to disclose that there is strong opposition in the community with which she is closely working! Please explain how Ms.Annenberg can be so confused about the status of this project. If the project goes forward,who will be responsible for the curriculum and ascertaining the qualifications of the educators?I note that in the Vanity Fair article mentioned above, there is a photograph of Ms.Annenberg's standard poodle sitting on her sofa in the living room of her home.Many dog trainers will advise that it is not appropriate to elevate a dog to the status of a human and that it is important to maintain your role as the alpha of Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 9 the pack.These trainers will advise that pets should not (i)sit on furniture used by humans,(ii)sleep on the human's bed,(iii)be fed scraps of human food from the table, etc.While not all trainers agree with the foregoing,many if not most do (I have conducted an informal survey of local trainers that suggests the majority concur with the foregoing). In the October,2010 issue of Town and Country Magazine,there is an article about Ms. Annenberg's beachfront home in Malibu,in which she tells how her "dogs adore the beach"and how "in fall and winter the beach becomes their personal playground" and how "in the autumn,when her dogs CHASE AFTER DOLPHINS and HARBOR SEALS churning through the waves,life is good".Finally,the article includes a photograph ofthe steps placed at the foot of her bed that make it easy for her dogs to join her.(emphasis added) These articles raise several significant issues about the person who will be in control of the property and the curriculum to be advanced at the project. First,she permits her dogs on her furniture and allows them on her bed.Will she teach children that this is the proper way to treat your dogs?Next,she allows her dogs to chase ATTACHMENT - 170 after dolphins and harbor seals.Does this suggest an appropriate respect for marine life by the person who would be in charge of this coastal bluff property that is being promoted as a place to teach a reverence for animals?Indeed,do we really want to teach our children to REVERE animals?Respect them and treat them well,yes,but revere them?I think not.That elevates them to an inappropriate status!!Finally,the fact that her dogs are chasing marine life on the beach indicates that she is permitting them on the public beach where dogs are prohibited (they are free to roam on that portion ofthe beach which she owns,which is the portion landward of the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean.Anything below the mean high tide line is public beach).Further,they are obviously not on leashes,in violation ofthe leash laws in both the City of Malibu and the County of Los Angeles (yes,I checked with both).Do we want someone who flagrantly ignores our dog laws to be teaching children about proper animal training and care?I most certainly think not.. If Ms.Annenberg wants to build a shrine to dogs and cats,I suggest she purchase a piece ofland and build it herself.It is not appropriate for the City to provide public land for Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 10 Ms.Annenberg to advance her questionable views and agenda. Copies of these articles will be distributed to you at the meeting. G.We are merely tenants and stewards for future generations It is interesting to note that on page 47 ofthe General Plan it reads: "Through careful excavation of archaeological middens (campsites of ancient communities)it can be learned how previous tenants lived",(emphasis added). Our City's founders recognized that we are all tenants of this beautiful land.We do not really own it -we are stewards of what God gave us to enjoy,and it is our duty to preserve and protect it for all future generations. Councilman Long expressed to me his concern that many of those residents who are opposed to development are really motivated by a desire to keep out of our community people from off the hill.While there may be some people in this community who feel that way,I am not one of them,and,nothing could be further from the truth.What could a kid living in the concrete jungle possibly enjoy more than hiking in dirt,grass,weeds and mud SMELLING,FEELING and SEEING nature,instead of being in yet another classroom being "talked at"about it? ATTACHMENT - 171 I find it compelling that Mr.Aube ofthe Annenberg Foundation has stated that the Foundation is ONLY interested in completing this project on this specific parcel of precious coastal bluff land ("magnificent piece of land"in Ms.Annenberg's words)for the precise reason that it is so spectacular and unique.All the more reason to leave it unspoiled. I note that the argument as to why it MUST be located here is because ofthe purported tie between the mission ofthe PVIC (which focuses on marine life)and the mission of this project (terrestrial animals).The Foundation's newsletters contain lots of notifications about upcoming activities at the PVIC,in an obvious attempt to lead readers to believe there is an existing relationship between the two projects.This looks to me like a deliberate attempt to make a connection between totally unrelated missions as a Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 11 justification for requiring this coastal property,and this coastal property only,for the Project (please watch the Jackie Jaakola interview on Channel 33,which you can find on the Annenberg website.It is amusing to watch).While I do not endorse using public property for this project,the dog and cat facility could easily be located across the street at the Upper Point Vicente,as it has no connection whatsoever with the ocean.I anticipate that next the Foundation will make some revisions to the project to add ocean life components in an attempt to strengthen their argument that there is an unseverable connection between it and the PVIC. H.The Council should not be influenced by the Annenberg donations I note that during the City Council meeting of September 2,2008 Councilman Wolowicz expressed concern about the project being viewed as a "quid pro quo"(his words)for the Annenberg Foundation's donation to the PVLC for the acquisition of the Filiorum property.He is not alone in that concern. We all know that the Annenberg Foundation has generously made a large donation to the PVP Land Conservancy,has underwritten the cost of the Coast Vision Plan which was developed by Melendrez,the landscape architect hand selected by Annenberg,and has agreed to not only pay for,but also perform the construction of,the parking lot and other improvements at the Pt.Vicente Interpretive Center that were previously approved in February ofthis year (which approval is suspect,inasmuch as it appears to be a splitting ofthe project which,if so,would mean the requirements of CEQA have not been met, and a new DEIR may be required.More on that at a future date). ATTACHMENT - 172 Furthermore,the Rincon,the consultant retained for preparation of both the PVIC Negative Declaration and the DEIR,has never been used by the City previously and was no doubt suggested by Annenberg,for whom work had previously been performed.When the dots are connected,it is not unreasonable for someone to question whether the Lower Pt.Vicente project is the quid pro quo for that generosity,particularly given that "two years of negotiations"have resulted in this project's proposal.The City Council must be careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council November 4,2010 Page 12 Ie Conclusion The whole concept ofthis project is flawed.It is not the right project.It is not the right property.It is not the right vision. Let us end this now and stop wasting the time of staff,the Planning Commission,and the Council (as well as the residents who are opposed to it). For the foregoing reasons,request is hereby made that: a.the Council interpret and apply our General Plan,Land Use Designation and Zoning Ordinances as they were intended to be interpreted and applied,and find that this project is not consistent with them, b.the Council amend the Coast Vision Plan to delete all depictions ofthe Annenberg Project on the Lower Point Vicente site and start over again,and c.the City Council not pursue any amendments to the General Plan,Land Use designation,zoning classification or the POU and other deed restrictions in order to accommodate this inappropriate project at Lower Point Vicente. As one speaker at the October 12,2010 Planning Commission meeting said,quoting the famous song,"you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone"and let's not "take paradise and put up a parking lot"! Respectfully submitted, ATTACHMENT - 173 Sharon Yarber ATTACHMENT - 174 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Jerold Sicherman [jis72@cox.net] Friday,November 05,2010 11 :16 AM aram@rpv.com Annenberg Permit I'm opposed to the project.,The dogs,the height and modernity of the facade,etc. 72 Via Del Cielo RPV,90275 Jerold Sicherman 1 ATTACHMENT - 175 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Arlene Zimmer [crea_tech@earthlink.net] Friday,November 05,2010 3:06 PM aram@rpv.com The Annenberg Project The project is a "win-win"for the community and the young people who will benefit and learn the highly valuable lessons it will afford. It would certainly be something of which we can all be proud and will set an excellent example for other communities,here and throughout this country. with thanks for your consideration, Arlene Zimmer,Rancho Palos Verdes 1 ATTACHMENT - 176 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Denise Clement [1deniclement@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday,November 06,20107:26 AM To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project at Lower Pt.Vicente Dear RPV Council Members: Please view the Annenberg Project as a highly educational and community oriented addition to our peninsula. It will provide a rich local history connection for all our students,develop jobs,and the implementation of natural habitat at Lower Pt.Vicente.So many will benefit from this tremendous gift the Annenberg Foundation proposes.Please embrace these new and innovative ideas for the benefit of all. Sincerely, Denise Clement 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 177 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Jim &Diane Shneer [shax@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,November 06,20104:59 PM To:aram@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg RPC City Council, We are writing you to urge to approve the Annenberg Proposal.We are longtime residents of the peninsula,16 years in RPV and 24 in PVE,and are docents at PVIC.We have been getting many questions about the proposal and the flags that are up outlining the new buildings.We;';have been answering the visitors and showing them the written material and the drawings.Everyone,no exception,has been very impressed and excited about the possibilities for the peninsula.The new walking trails,Indian village,archeological digs,educational opportunities,volunteer opportunites and animal education has been exciting for everyone. For ourselves,we can't wait for the project to be complete.We envision us visiting often with our grandkids to let them explore the area they live in and teach them about our land,our wildlife,our history.We have no problem giving up the open space since it is unused now and will be heavily used in the future -used in a wonderful manner. Please approve this project and bring a magnificent asset to the peninsula. Thank you, Diane &James Shneer 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 178 Page 1 of2 AraM From:Adrian Rops [ajar.lax@verizon.net] Sent:Saturday,November 06,2010 6:01 PM To:aram@rpv.com Subject:Fw:The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente. Dear Sir: I am forwarding to you a copy of the message I sent today to "The Daily Breeze"in Torrance regarding this matter. It is of great concern to me and many of my fellow citizens. We do NOT need any more construction of buildings and/or facilities in the Point Vicente area,no matter what the flimsy excuse. There are many suitable alternatives and I would strongly urge you review them in detail.In fact,I implore you. Respectfully submitted, Adrian Rops (310)370-9343. ajar.lax@verizon.net When I moved from New York to Torrance 25 years ago,the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Point Vicente in particular,were a haven of space,clean air and quiet,dignified liVing amidst the cement jungle known as "Los Angeles". Since that time,developers,in their ever increasing needs of profits and expansion,have turned Palos Verdes Peninsula into a nightmare by bUilding and erecting monstrous domestic structures as well as a hotel/conference center,to please their self indulgent clientele. While I do appreciate the tremendous contribution that the Annenberg family has made to our society,I do not believe that their planned project at Lower Point Vicente serves any real useful purpose,other than to take up very precious space. I do not believe that the "Annen berg"name needs more recognition from our community.One more building with their name on it serves absolutely no useful purpose. I would suggest that the Annenberg Foundation buy an existing building in Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates,Torrance or San Pedro to show their commitment to their cause. We do NOT need another 51,000 square foot monstrosity on the few very precious square inches of 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 179 Page 2 of2 peaceful,quiet and highly enjoyable Lower Point Vicente. Bottom line: I object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed development. Please consider the damage that will occur to the remaining environment and the consequences of allowing this project to go forward. Who is the next applicant?How can you turn them down? Will there be any breathing space left for us to enjoy? Will they sacrifice more precious land to create parking space? When will this stop? Respectfully submitted, Adrian Rops. (310)370-9343. ~j~r,.I~X@Y.~.ri:Z:QIJ·n~t 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 180 Ara M From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: itsthebarrys@cox.net Sunday,November 07,20103:21 PM cc@rpv.com aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Annenberg Project Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Council Members: We are 37-year residents of Rancho Palos Verdes,and as such we want to fully endorse the Annenberg Project.We cannot speak for Los Serenos de Point Vicente,but as sixteen-year docents we can see the greatly enhanced opportunity to interpret the coastal and peninsula native habitat,the unique geology of this area,and the anthropology,as well as the interaction of humans with indigenous land and sea animals along with domestic ones. These are all forms of passive recreation use that would directly tie in to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center and create what has been known in the past as the "Outdoor Living History Museum",which the City Council approved in 2004. In addition,the Annenberg Project would create sound environmental practices,as shown by their plans to replace all the non-native plants with native ones,improve the watershed management,and offer programs and interpretation exhibits that demonstrate good stewardship of our land.We have seen how hard the Annenberg people have worked with the community over the past four years to create a project that will fit into our peninsula heritage and increase the value of living in this great area.We hope you agree that this is the right thing for our City and its citizens. Robert and Joan Barry 30770 Ganado Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 1 ATTACHMENT - 181 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,20107:48 AM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Annenberg Proposal From:Jim &Diane Shneer [mailto:shax@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,November 06,20104:57 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Proposal RPC City Council, We are writing you to urge to approve the Annenberg Proposal.We are longtime residents of the peninsula,16 years in RPV and 24 in PVE,and are docents at PVIC.We have been getting many questions about the proposal and the flags that are up outlining the new buildings.We;';have been answering the visitors and showing them the written material and the drawings.Everyone,no exception,has been very impressed and excited about the possibilities for the peninsula.The new walking trails,Indian village,archeological digs,educational opportunities,volunteer opportunites and animal education has been exciting for everyone. For ourselves,we can't wait for the project to be complete.We envision us visiting often with our grandkids to let them explore the area they live in and teach them about our land,our wildlife,our history.We have no problem giving up the open space since it is unused now and will be heavily used in the future -used in a wonderful manner. Please approve this project and bring a magnificent asset to the peninsula. Thank you, Diane &James Shneer 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 182 Ara M From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Monday,November 08,20102:19 PM 'Ara M' 'Joel Rojas' FW:Pet Adoption and Education Facility at Lower Pt.Vicente Park -----Original Message----- From:william wray [mailto:william.wray@verizon.net] Sent:Monday,November 08,2010 12:40 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Pet Adoption and Education Facility at Lower Pt.Vicente Park Good idea,bad location.sometimes the momentum of a good idea blinds us to the bad parts of that idea.Leave nature as it is,put this building near a more built up area.I'm guess this is a cost issue,people love animals--make an effort to organize with the opposition to raise money for another location as a compromise.I'd donate. William Wray -- http://williamwray.blogspot.com/ http://williamwray.com/ 1 ATTACHMENT - 183 Ara M From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,20102:28 PM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Annenberg Facility From:captain Gene [mailto:palucharters@gmail.com] sent:Monday,November 08,2010 2:23 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Facility I have lived in PVE for 25 yrs and am opposed to this development on public park land. PALU Captain Gene McNany 11/12/2010 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT - 184 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,20103:32 PM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Annenberg Project for PVIC From:George Neuner [mailto:neunerge@msn.com] sent:Monday,November 08,20103:27 PM To:RPV City Council Subject:Annenberg Project for PVIC Dear Sirs: .As a member of Los Serenos and a docent at the PVIC for many years,I have been opposed to this project since it first came to my attention in January 2007.I was a member ofthe committee in Los Serenos that reviewed this project.We heard several slick presentations from Annenberg representatives and I was amused by the clever ways they tried convince us that this cat and dog animal shelter fits within the scope of the PVIC. A homeless shelter,whether for people or animals,is not an appropriate use for this most valuable ocean front property.PVIC is,and should continue to be,an indoor and outdoor natural history museum,a nature learning center and picnic area for the benefit of adults and children from our community,as well as for visitors from everywhere around the world. Although financial support for PVIC from the Annenberg Foundation would be most appreciated,it should not cause us to deviate from the intended use of this property.If another use consistent with our natural history museum theme and nature learning center mission cannot be found,I feel that it is far preferable to keep this area as natural open space. I understand the city council will be meeting Tuesday,November 16,to decide whether to allow the project to move forward.I urge you to reject this project. Thank you, George Neuner 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 185 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,2010 5:33 PM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Annenburg Foundation's proposed bUilding on public parkland URGENT!!!! From:Antonietta Khvang [mailto:acicconell@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,2010 5:07 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:tino888@polymersgroup.com;renzo ciccone;nick ciccone;marco ciccone;michele schiappa;adriana schiappa Subject:Annenburg Foundation's proposed building on public parkland URGENT!!!! On behalf of the Ciccone-Khvang Family,residing at 13 Seacove Drive,RPV,I am writing to express our most deepest concerns regarding plans to destroy our coastline.Specifically,plans to construct a two story facility to be used to house pets for adoption,etc ...on our beautiful and serene coastal parkland adjacent to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. We are absolutely opposed to such a proposal.We and our children have been enjoying the parkland in its natural state for decades.We feel completely mislead.Our first impression of the Annenburg Foundation's proposal was that is was going to enhance our experience of what is already there.In NO way will a pet adoption facility enhance the Point Vicente Bluff/Oceanic Experience.We are so disappointed that this idea would even go so far.This is the wrong location for such a facility. We trust our City Officials to look out for the public's best interest and protect our coastline.Our Identity is at stake here.The wonderful people that reside in Racho Palos Verdes along with our beautiful coastline and coastal parks is what sets our city/community apart from all others.If this proposal is passed,we truly fear for our children's future and our City's future.We pray for our coastline and your thoughtful consideration. The Ciccone-Khvang Family Antonietta Ciccone-Khvang (310)629-9017 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 186 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,20105:35 PM To:lAra MI Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Pet adoption,Education and Medical facility Annenberg Foundation From:Madeleine McJones [mailto:madeleine@homecoding.com] sent:Monday,November 08,2010 5:04 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:PV news Editor Subject:Pet adoption,Education and Medical facility Annenberg Foundation I oppose a proposal to build a 50,979 square foot pet adoption,education and medical facility on lower Point Vicente Park.It ridiculous that pet animals need such a facility with such commanding views on rare coastal scrub bluff tops built on top of virgin land and wild animals homes.How can we be so blind as keepers of this land.This facility could be put in many other places,replace facilities that stand empty due to our economy and the animals would be just as happy in their whirlpool.On the subject of a pet whirlpool,to increase this travesty,this city community does not even provide a pool for its youth or elderly but will allow one to be built for pets. This project was a go-go years "boon-dog-gle"during this hard economy where many people struggle to eat or get health care I am very embarrassed to even thing of building a facility to groom dogs.To build such a facility on such beautiful land and compromise more view and open space,just take us one step closer to Laguna beach or Santa Monica,what is special about that.The more you cover up what is special with cement and concrete the more we will be just another city.When the building is no longer new it will fade and be an eye sore,and will need maintenance,torn down,or what have you.Beware that Nature is always pretty forever and is self- repairing,what a concept. This city was formed to preserve our land and to restrict building,this land was given with this intent clearly to be used by man not by contractors and pets and jobs and parking lots. You have other perfectly good chunks of land under old buildings for the Annenberg foundation to build a monument to the "companion animal".I have lost a lot of respect of the Foundation in their efforts to protect man made animals at the expense of many wild animals,such a fringe animal support target with a Ritz Carleton solution.This money would be better spent to find ways to control the pet industry and provide people in need with vet care when the economy challenges their ability to provide proper pet care for their animals. Madeleine McJones #3 Tangerine Road RPV CA 90275 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 187 Ara M From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Monday,November 08,2010 6:01 PM 'Ara M' 'Joel Rojas' FW:pt.vicente lanenberg bldg. -----Original Message----- From:jeanne henry [mailto:fnj.henry@verizon.netJ Sent:Monday,November 08,2010 5:48 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:pt.vicente janenberg bldg. We can not express to you strongly enough how much we object to this structure contemplated at the edge of the ocean.In all of Los Angeles we have so little public coastline to share.Please do NOT allow this large structure and the intention behind it to take up this sacred space. Jeanne and Fred Henry 35-year residents of Palos Verdes 1 ATTACHMENT - 188 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,20107:26 AM To:'Ara Mihranian';'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:a NO vote on Annenberg proposal From:Carmela Louie [mailto:carmela.louie@gmail.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,2010 10:58 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:a NO vote on Annenberg proposal Mr.Mayor and Councilmembers, I grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes,lived there for 23 years,and continue to visit the area several times a year.My husband,my children and I spend time hiking and enjoying the open spaces along the Palos Verdes coastline and would love to continue to do so in the future.I strongly recommend that you say NO to the Annenberg proposal to build a Pet Adoption and Education Facility on the Lower Pointe Vicente Park area.This area is supposed to be dedicated to public recreation open space. Sincerely,Carmela Louie 116 Yerba Buena Ave Los Altos,CA 94022 650 941-3991 11112/2010 ATTACHMENT - 189 To Mayor Steve Wolowicz and all City Council Members and Ara Mihranian From Dena Friedson --dlfriedson@gmail.com,November 9,2010 Re:The Proposed Annenberg Project RECEIVED NOV 09 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT In letters to the Planning Department,the Planning Commission,and the Public Works Department,three state and federal agencies warned the City that the proposed Annenberg project violates agreements and deed restrictions. On September 13,the Coastal Commission Program Analyst notified planning staff that "There is a significant question concerning whether the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and development policies contained in the certified Local Coastal Program for Rancho Palos Verdes." Consistency is required for approval. On August 17,the California Department ofParks and Recreation mailed a letter to the Public Works Department that stated,''No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section [Section 6{f)(3)ofthe Land and Water Conservation Fund Program]shall,without the approval ofthe Secretary of the Interior,be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses.The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if s1he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan ..." On September 15,the National Park Service reminded the Planning Department that the Quitclaim Deed for Lower Point Vicente stated,"This property shall be used and maintained for the public purposes for which it was conveyed in perpetuity as set forth in the program ofutilization ..."Its letter also stated that "The property shall not be sold,leased ...except to another eligible governmental agency that the Secretary of the Interior agrees in writing can assure the continued use and maintenance ofthe property for public park and recreation purposes ..."Obviously,the Annenberg Foundation is not a governmental agency. Proposed amendments must comply with the Quitclaim Deed and the Program ofUtilization. The Program of Utilization mandates that "Development ofthe rifle range portion of the surplus Nike site will provide for passive recreation pursuits closely oriented to the attributes ofthe Pacific Ocean ..." In a letter dated October 8 to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission,the National Park Service confirmed that "the City is bound contractually ...to keep the park in public outdoor recreation use in perpetuity." Recently the City decided to move ahead to construct additional parking spaces for the Interpretive Center to be shared with the proposed Annenberg Facility.Ifthe proposed Annenberg project is withdrawn,these spaces will not be needed.They have not been approved by the National Park Service.Since the extra spaces are intended to serve the proposed Annenberg facility,they need the approval ofthe NPS.Also, additional extra-wide roadways --required by fire trucks and emergency vehicles -and large areas of unsightly paving will not be necessary.No paving should begin until a final determination is reached. It is difficult to understand why the City is willing to lease public parkland to any private organization.A lease would cause the City to lose control over future developments on the site.Although legal protective provisions might be written into the contract,how can you expect them to be honored when so much City and Annenberg effort has been spent to circumvent state and federal restrictions? Ifthe proposed Annenberg facility is built in Rancho Palos Verdes,it should be located on non-restricted property,such as the Civic and Cultural Center near the City Hall or on appropriately zoned,privately owned property.Please protect our beautiful open-space passive parkland for current and future generations. ATTACHMENT - 190 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:TIMANDLORR@aol.com Sent:Tuesday,November 09,20109:59 AM To:cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Foundation Project support letter for 11/16 meeting To the esteemed City Council... My name is Lorraine O'Grady.Since 2002 I have been a resident in Oceanfront Estates,the development that abuts Lower Pt Vicente Park and the proposed Annenberg Project. Well before the Annenberg Foundation became involved,I was a concerned citizen regarding the future uses of Lower Pt.Vicente Park and other open spaces in Rancho Palos Verdes.I am a contributor to the PVP Land Conservancy and a walker on the trails throughout the Peninsula.Living right next to the Interpretive Center,we go there frequently,often with our grandchildren,and so enjoy the proximity of this gem. With my husband,I have attended numerous meetings when the Vision Plan and the Public Use Master Plan were being discussed and presented.I will not go through the "timeline"that I tried to present at the last Planning Commission meeting,as it ran over 3 minutes!But,I do have articles,letters and minutes regarding Lower Pt.Vicente's development plan that date back to 2003 with me for anyone interested. When we first heard about Wallis Annenberg's collaboration with the City,we sought out more information.I am here to state,as I have done a number of times before the Planning Commission and in emails to all of you,that we strongly favor this plan and look forward to its completion. The Annenberg Foundation is a highly-respected philanthropic organization with a history of good works world-wide.We are so fortunate to have the attention and funding offered by them.This is a GIFT and despite what naysayers may claim,I see no "down side"to accepting this gift,for the betterment of the City and the citizens of Southern California who will benefit into perpetuity through the largesse of the Foundation.Furthermore,this proposal will complete the plan for Lower Pt.Vicente Park that has been in existence since about 1995,and do it at no cost to the City. I believe most residents would agree that the Pt.Vicente Interpretive Center is an asset to our community and I feel that this Project,as an expansion of the Center's mission,will complete this park in a way more appropriate and more beautiful than anything we could have hoped for.THANK YOU. 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 191 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,20102:34 PM To:'Ara Mihranian';'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Annenberg Educational Center From:Terri Eisemann [mailto:tderpv@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,2010 1:42 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Educational Center I am opposed to the planned Annenberg Education Center at Lower Point Vicente.I love animals but that does not change the fact that that land was not deeded to the city of Ranch Palos Verdes for this type of project.I want our City Council Members and the Planning Commission to do what is right by rejecting this proposal. Terri Eisemann 4684 Browndeer Ln 90275 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 192 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,20102:56 PM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Annenberg Project From:coffeyrnh@aol.com [mailto:coffeyrnh@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,20102:46 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project To members of the RPV City Council. I am a 42+year resident of R.PY and live near City Hall.I oppose the 8nne.nberg Project being built on the proposed EVIQ site.I do not oppose the Annenberg project,which is probably a worthwhile endeavor.However, it should be put in a different location.I would like to see the PVIC property used for purposes more in line with what PVIC stands for...preservation of our valuable coastal land,access to it for public recreational purposes,and facilities for learning more about the coastal/sea environment.I much enjoy the wonderful walk along the coast and the native habitat.I value that this is open to the public to enjoy the natural beauty.I value the PVIC which offers opportunities for understanding our natural environment and heritage.I think a pet hospital and adoption center just does not fit with this. Robert E (Bob)Coffey 6828 Vallon Drive 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 193 Ara M From: Sent: To: Cc: SUbject: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Tuesday,November 09,20102:58 PM 'Ara M' 'Joel Rojas' FW:lower point vicente park -----Original Message----- From:Donna McLaughlin [mailto:ddmclaughlin@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,2010 11:30 AM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:lower point vicente park I wanted to express my feeling regarding the Pet Adoption Center proposed for Lower Point Vicente Park.I do not feel this is the place to have a facility like that.Not only the noise from the animals would be disrupted to the peaceful are but also a large building would take away from the beauty of the coast. I do feel that having the "Fossil dig",Indian village and farming demonstrations in that area would be wonderful.These are things that could be used to educate children on how the life in Palos Verdes used to be.These could be connected to the Interpretive Center there already ....not need to build a huge building.That is not what our coastal area is about ... We already have a Center there and do not need anymore buildings. Thank you. Donna McLaughlin Ranch Palos Verdes 1 ATTACHMENT - 194 Nov 9,2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes c/o Stepfan Wolowicz,Brian Campbell,Thomas Long,Anthony Misetich,Douglas Stem, Joel Rojas,Ara Mihranian Re:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, The deception the Annenberg Project is seeking to work at Lower Point Vicente is apparent in the convoluted way it seeks to camouflage as a "discovery park"what is really at the Project's core:a spectacularly big animal shelter and dog housing,with all their attendant impositions on the outraged residents of the surrounding area who are paying high taxes for the privilege of residing there. As a taxpaying City resident,I am also outraged that the City would consider wasting the enormous sums of money and City employee energies that will be required to push this Project in the face of clear and determined opposition by the U.S.Interior Department. Litigating this matter in federal court will entail years of attorney fees the City can ill afford. How many of our tax dollars are you willing to waste in an effort to pull this gross deception over on the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes?And for what purpose? Does the City ofRPV have a real demand for an animal shelter and housing dogs? Is such a demand supported by any data? Does the City have any justification for picking Lower Point Vicente for this animal shelter and dog housing? The City's posture in seeking to push this ill-advised project puts it in violation of: 1.The original deed,as pet adoption and bereavement counseling are not "Public Recreation" 2.The original deed as it does not allow the leasing to non-governmental agencies. 3.The Endangered Species Act as the project affects critical habitats. 4.The California Coastal Act because the pet facility a.does not facilitate public access b.affects an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) c.is not set back far enough,depending on the erosion rate 5.The City's own zoning and view ordinances 6.CEQA ATTACHMENT - 195 Our own particular opposition is based on the fact that we live adjacent to the Project site. No matter how diligently the animal shelter and dog housing staff and volunteers pick up pet excrement,we will be forced to endure constant odor. No matter how well the animal shelter is insulated,we will suffer dog noises from both the dog agility and the rooftop exercise area. We will suffer noise and headlights from extra car traffic the facility will generate. A 51,000 sq-ft building will block the view of the light house that we currently enjoy from our family room and back yard.The blockage will be total,not partial as is stated in the staff report.The structure will also block our view of the ocean and of Catalina Island. Also we are deeply concerned that cutting out almost 10%of sea level clay and rocks from the property would accelerate the erosion on this costal bluff.DEIR did not address that. How much disease will be spread into our neighborhood by dogs and cats? How will dead animals that do not survive surgery/medical treatment or non adopted be handled? How many dogs and cats will the facility house on a daily basis? Will staffers be living on site? How late the lights remain on? How late will the traffic continue? These are the concerns that lead us to conclude that the Annenberg Dog adoption center,boarding rooms,surgical rooms,bereavement counseling facility,dog agility and other animal shelter facilities should not be built next to our homes on public parkland.These are precisely the kinds of uses that belong in a Commercial zone or Institutional zone. Sincerely yours, Ham's family from Rancho Palos Verdes ATTACHMENT - 196 ATTACHMENT - 197 Page 1 of 4 Ara M From:Lenee Bilski [lenee910@intergate.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,20103:59 PM To:CC@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Cc:L.Bilski Subject:Nov.16th CC Agenda -Annenberg Proposal Nov.8,2010 Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Council members, You have the power to make history by Preserving our precious Coastline from another building project! There is so little undeveloped Coastal property that belongs to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Do you really want to allow a Huge Building to be constructed on those few acres of coastal zone across from Golden Cove that could be placed elsewhere?The City has only this small piece of a gorgeous Palos Verdes coastline,a coastline which is truly unique in all the world not just in southern California! The world is full of inland areas,but there is only limited coastline.That is why the RPV City Founders worked so hard to incorporate our area -to especially limit development in the Coastal Zone.Please don't give up on their Vision now! Why send people Indoors when they come to this gorgeous coastal spot when they could be Outdoors enjoying it's special beauty ? Actually,in this day of urban concrete and diminishing undeveloped land along our coastline, having"open"coastal space and being outdoors would be educational in itself even without exhibits! As a volunteer with the LA Maritime Institute's TopSail program for youth,I know firsthand the power of the Outdoors to educate! Please consider other sites -inland-for this generous gift from the Annenberg Foundation,instead of Lower Pt.Vicente. There is no need for this big building (with over 15,000SF fo dogs and cats)and 70,000+SF of hardscape on this city-owned coastal blufftop that is Deed Restricted to open outdoor recreational uses. no need for dog &cat adoption facilities -have San Pedro Shelter,Pet Shops adoptions,Hesse Park adoptions,plus about 35 volunteer rescue groups nearby no need for more Rental spaces (multi-purpose room)-have Hesse Park,Terranea,Trump, PVIC,Ladera Linda 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 198 Page 2 of4 no need for animal surgical!medical facility on city parkland -there's a new vet hospital across the street (the Annenberg Foundation could provide local Vets with the latest surgical technology and "video conferencing equip for professionals") no need for retail pet shop -especially in front area of a big building with oceanfront view! no need for an exercise area for dogs on artificial turf on a 2nd floor oceanview terrace of a big building not accessible to the public -we need a dog park on the Peninsula no need for animal education &dog behavior modification programs which would be controlled by the Annenberg team (dogs on furniture,on public beaches,chasing seals &dolphins)There are plenty of professional animal behaviorists and group training classes in the South Bay no need for 8 or more Offices for the animal care staff and conference rooms for Annenberg Foundation Trustees (inappropriate use for city-owned property) no need for Dog Agility area for "private class use"on Public Recreation land -depriving us of public access to our open space parkland "The Coast Vision Plan emphasizes public access,interpretive materials,recreational amenities,and other facilities to improve the experience of the coast and open space for residents of and visitors to the Peninsula."(Annenberg DEIR) What the DEIR fails to include is the fact that the Vision Plan was suggested by,and funded by the Annenberg Foundation and written by the Annenberg's recommended firm,Melendrez. "The proposed Letter ofIntent to receive grant funding for the proposed planning effort (attached)was prepared by City and PVPLC Staff,with the help ofMelani Smith ofMelendrez,a landscape architecture and urban planningfirm with which the Annenberg Foundation has worked to implement many ofits grants and projects.It is envisioned that Melendrez would take the lead with respect to integrating the existing planning documents,soliciting public input and working with the CitylPVPLC staffto create the RPV Vision Plan. (ref.http;I!W:WW,PflJQ~Y~rd~~,QQmlm-y.lpl~!.Jmi:t1g!l'-tCCP!in~t~K&fm) pg.2-11 of the DEIR does not mention POD restriction,does not mention LWCF or the Dept.of Interior. pg.2-36 fails to include the required approvals of the NPS and LWCF. The DEIR does not mention POD restriction,does not mention L WCF or the Dept.of Interior. The DEIR fails to include the required approvals of the NPS and LWCF. STAFF:are these just oversights or convenient ommission for the benefit of the Annenberg Animal Center Proposal?Please explain to all in the Staff Report for Nov.16th The messages from 3 governments agencies make it clear that this site is for public outdoor recreation to preserve open space. 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 199 Page 3 of4 As stated in the correspondence from the State agency,this proposal may be a conversion of theDeed restrictions and the POU. STAFF:Please explain in detail to the public as well as the Council what a "conversion"would involve in time and staff efforts and city expense in the Staff Report for Nov.16th. There will be very little benefit to the City and the public in general if this is allowed to move forward,with everything to gain for the Annenbergs.Stop this now.It has already gone too far without consultation with the Federal government.Since the Vision Plan did not take into consideration the Land Use Restrictions on the site,perhaps the entire Vision Plan needs to be reexamined for other errors or oversights. Oct.10,2002 Equestrian Committee mtg. "'StaffLiaison Blumenthal accurately defined active &passive recreational uses oUand to the Committee by directly referring to the code.He defined active recreational use as "outdoor recreational activities that are structured in nature and are organized such as team sports,golf tennis,etc."He defined passive recreational use as "outdoor recreation activities that are non-structured in nature such as picnicking,sightseeing,nature study areas,etc." STAFF:Please explain in the staff report for Nov.16th how this obvious deviation from the Code can be justified in this case. If is just so obvious when looking at the drawn plans that this big building and much of the outdoors will DEPRIVE the public of their parkland way out of proportion to what the outdoor improvements may provide for the public:A Bioswale,some pinenid tables,trails and "tiny" outdoor museum elements as compared to what the Docents planned for the site -and fo their proposal they were seeking a grant of only $500,000 ! If the Council approves this proposal they will Not be Selling RPV parkland,it would be GIVEN AWAY to a private foundation for a only few meager ammenties accessible to the public. The majority of the big building and the dog agility area wi!Not be for the Public. Stop the expense of staff time spent on this non-compliant use. Do Not consider amending the General Plan,Coastal Plan,POU for this private foundation.The City Council REFUSED to do just that for the YMCA,Art Center,Aquatic Team,etc.a few years ago Perhaps you need to review those CC minutes. The non-conforming aspects of this proposal should be moved to another location that is not restricted but compatible.That would be the best for the City,the Public,and the Annenberg Foundation. Gentlemen,you have the power to make history,Preserving our precious Coastline by encouraging the applicant to consider other sites -inland-for this proposed project instead of Lower Pt.Vicente.The only Change needed is a change of Location for this! Thank you for all you do for RPV. L.Bilski 1111212010 ATTACHMENT - 200 This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program. 11/12/2010 Page 4 of4 ATTACHMENT - 201 November 9,2010 Honorable Mayor Wolowicz and City Council Members, If only an altruistic benefactor would come along and,recognizing the unique beauty of the site at Lower Point Vicente,offer to make those improvements that would enable more people to benefit from our lovely parkland,without irrevocably obliterating what makes this site so attractive.The Annenberg Foundation's proposal for Lower Point Vicente Park,unfortunately,is not that type of offer. The Annenberg proposal has its temptations.It would fund a few improvements to the Park,such as a bioswale,some native plant installations,a sort ofliving-history Tongva village,and a dry farming exhibit,that seem to me to have broad appeal in our community.Such improvements alone would invite more visitors to enjoy the park.Apparently,we haven't the funds within city coffers to make those improvements.If that's the case,the answer must be to work harder to come up with the funds and to hold out until that day comes.The answer cannot be that we resort to the extreme of installing a sprawling building and plaza complex as sought by the Annenberg Foundation in the proposal currently before the City.The answer cannot be that we sacrifice the awe-inspiring scenic and nature values the open parkland offers to our community and beyond.To young and old,rich and poor,able-bodied and not (and allergy-free or allergy-prone),it's priceless. The Annenberg proposal violates deed restrictions for Lower Point Vicente that are in place specifically to repel the temptations that our City now faces.As you peel back the proposal to expose the entire project and not just those aspects emphasized in the Annenberg presentations,you see how far the Annenberg vision diverges from our own-from the property's deed restrictions, from the Local Coastal Program,from our General Plan,from our zoning ordinances,even from the controversial Vision Plan.The Annenberg Foundation should find a more appropriate location to realize its vision. What is in the Proposal in Addition to the Amenities Emphasized in Presentations? As you know,several years ago,this beautiful location caught the eye of Annenberg Foundation representatives,who proposed building on the public parkland adjacent to PVIC what Wallis Annenberg referred to in a magazine interview as "the Mayo Clinic for companion animals."That is undeniably the focus of the project.The improvements that have more broad appeal in our community are a minor part ofthe project.An example of this:There is one small room in the outpost building designated for docents.Looking at the plans,I estimate that room is about 70 square feet.Compare that to the executive suite in the 51,000 square foot building,which I estimate is about 450 square feet (not including the adjacent private restroom).And that's just the beginning. The proposed project is predominantly a PET SHELTER,ADOPTION CENTER,MEDICAL FACILITY,and related OFFICES and PARKING,with an educational exhibit space.Within the 51,000 square foot building will be: •Many rooms to house dogs and cats up for adoption •X-ray,exam,surgery,and medical treatment rooms for cats and dogs up for adoption ATTACHMENT - 202 •Reception rooms and offices for adoption proceedings and pet bereavement counseling •Canine exercise,whirlpool,grooming,and food preparation spaces for pets held for adoption •Associated laundry,storage facilities,and considerable mechanical space •Board room and executive suite with ocean view terrace •Administrative offices,lounge,copy room,and showers for facility staff •Classrooms It's not clear how much of the building will even be accessible to the public and under what conditions. The ENORMOUS BUILDING COMPLEX will obliterate the scenic open space and recreational values of the park. The main building would be 50,979 square feet;two stories;and 27'tall seen from the ocean side. This,plus a plaza,an additional building,parking,and roadways together sprawl across the park, dominating the site and leaving only a narrow buffer of "open space"and walking trails between the complex and neighbors. Is the Annenberg Proposal for Lower Point Vicente Consistent with our General Plan and Land Use Laws? If you follow the laws applicable to the Annenberg proposal for Lower Pt.Vicente,the answer is a slam dunk "No"for this proposed use and this proposed building.Six of our planning commissioners could not find that the proposal is consistent with our General Plan.It is clearly an institutional use,albeit with intentions for the public good,with the focus on domestic animals. The land use for the park at Lower Point Vicente is passive recreation.The RPV General Plan defines passive recreation as "outdoor recreation activities that are non-structured in nature." Whether you interpret that phrase to be a reference to lack of physical structures or to unstructured activities,the Annenberg proposal violates the land use in both ways. Zoning for the park is open space recreational.It's not zoned "open space and closed space."It's not zoned "recreational and educational."And it's not zoned "recreational and institutional."The General Plan describes recreational uses without any mention of education.The General Plan does, however,describe institutional uses to include "public,educational,cultural activities."The General Plan goes on to say that recreational activities are generally "compatible"with institutional uses.But there's no legal basis for finding the opposite--that an institutional use is permissible in a recreational area. Zoning for the park also states that "environmental impacts should be low."[Emphasis added.] This is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.The Staff Report for the October 12 Planning Commission meeting said that there are no setback requirements for proposed structures in the open space recreation area under the code.It's open space.There aren't supposed to be structures there. 2 ATTACHMENT - 203 That is not to say that the public parkland at Lower Point Vicente should be synonymous with preserve lands.There is an important distinction.The first use of the preserve lands is as habitat, then,within that context,public use is possible.The first use of public open space parkland is recreational.Within that context,at Lower Point Vicente,native plant habitat is necessary to support our Local Coastal Program.The proposed building and plaza complex,sprawling as it does across the parkland,would violate our Local Coastal Program,precluding the site's use as a wildlife corridor between the habitat on the bluff side of Oceanfront Estates and the habitat at nearby reserves and habitat restoration sites,including Alta Vicente Reserve and Fishing Access. The RPV Code does contemplate structures in the Open Space District,but only for privately-owned recreational areas within that district.Buildings and structures related thereto are permissible by CUP under Section 17.34 in a "privately-owned recreational area of an open nature,such as stables,parks,playground,wildlife preserves"(emphasis added),but Lower Point Vicente Park is not a privately-owned recreational area. On the other hand,here's a list of some ofthe structures permitted under institutional zoning (and even then only with a conditional use permit):educational facilities,clinics,including animal hospitals,public facilities for governmental purposes,minor professional and retail uses,such as small offices for bookkeeping,consulting,etc.It reads a lot like the description of the Annenberg project,doesn't it?There is no such list for the Open Space Recreation District. The October 12 Staff Report states that City Council already made a determination of whether the project proposed by the Annenberg Foundation is consistent with the City's zoning when it approved the Vision Plan that introduced this type of conceptual project.This simply is not correct.The Vision Plan was not adopted into or as part of the City's zoning code.There were no amendments or additions to any ofthe City's planning documents,codes or otherwise,to incorporate the Vision Plan.Any such action would have been discretionary and would have required CEQA review at that time,which was not done.Rather,the Vision Plan was approved on September 2, 2008 as a guideline for coastal parks and open space.At that Council meeting,the Foundation was given the go-ahead to apply for a permit,but was warned that approval of the project was not guaranteed.The Foundation proceeded at its own risk. Setting aside the fact that the Annenberg Foundation suggested the adoption of a vision plan, apparently with a view to incorporating into it their vision for a pet shelter and adoption facilitY,then recommended the firm to develop the plan,and then paid for that work,approval by City Council of a concept for linking marine life and terrestrial life could contemplate a much more modest project, for example a set of outdoor informational plaques.Touching on the connection that one can make between the way we treat marine life and terrestrial life,and stopping there,rather than making domestic animals the dominant focus for the project,makes more sense for this location,considering the deed restrictions,the Local Coastal Program and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,and other legal constraints on development,not to mention the inherent nature and open space values that would be sacrificed by the proposed alternative.We don't need kennels or lavish "habitat rooms"for dogs and cats,or medical facilities including x-ray, 3 ATTACHMENT - 204 exam,and operating rooms,to teach us about the connection.And we don't need a private executive suite and board room. Why Not Just Seek to Amend the Program of Utilization and Ignore the Fact that the Deed Restrictions are In Perpetuity? The property at Lower Point Vicente was deeded to the City as a PUBLIC PARK,on the condition that it would be used for OUTDOOR RECREATION IN PERPETUITY,in particular, for "PASSIVE RECREATION PURSUITS CLOSELY ORIENTED TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN."Such restrictions are there in perpetuity precisely to repel the temptations our City now faces.The Foundation's Executive Director,Leonard Aube,has said (in a Daily Breeze article),"It's pretty tricky to take marine ecology and stitch it to the animals that live in your house."What is tricky is selling the public on the notion that the project's focus is something other than it is-the animals that live in our homes. If our City yields to the temptation now before us and applies limited time,money,and resources to attempt to undo restrictions that are in place to prevent development at Lower Point Vicente,what does that suggest is likely to happen when some proposal comes along for development of the preserve lands we are so fortunate to hold?If our City allows the Annenberg proposal to move forward and supports a long,expensive conversion and land exchange request process in order to accommodate the Annenberg Foundation's desire to occupy Lower Point Vicente,then our City will be diverting resources that could be put toward improvements to Lower Point Vicente that wouldn't face those legal hurdles.There are so many things that can be done with the Park that can improve upon it without going to the extreme sought by the Annenberg Foundation in the proposal currently before the City. It's not outdoors;it's not recreational;it has nothing to do with the Pacific Ocean;and it may not even be public. I hope that the Annenberg Foundation decides to do right by this lovely open parkland and withdraws its plans to construct this massive building on Lower Point Vicente.If they don't,then it is up to you,our City Council,to do right by current and future generations,honor the deed restrictions,comply with the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act,enforce our General Plan and land use laws,and politely ask the Annenberg Foundation to find another site to realize its VISIOn. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my comments. Eva Cicoria Rancho Palos Verdes cc:David Siegenthaler,Federal Lands to Parks Program Coordinator,National Park Service Barbara Baker,Manager,Office of Grants and Local Services,Dept.of Parks and Recreation John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analyst,California Coastal Commission Kent Schwitkis,Chair,Palos Verdes-South Bay Group,Sierra Club Angeles Chapter 4 ATTACHMENT - 205 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Tuesday,November 09,20106:32 PM 'Ara Mihranian';'Joel Rojas' FW:Lower Pt.Vicente -Animal Clinic -----Original Message----- From:Sharilyn Twidwell [mailto:twidjr@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,November 09,2010 11:57 AM To:stevew@rpv.comi tom.long@rpv.comi Anthony.Misetich@rpv.comi Douglas.Stern@rpv.comi Brian.Campbell@rpv.comi cityclerk@rpv.com Cc:DeAnne Preyer;Eva Cicoria Subject:Lower Pt.Vicente -Animal Clinic Dear Mr.Wolowicz,Mr.Long,Mr.Misetich,Mr.Stern,and Mr.Campbell: I am writing today to ask you not to proceed with the proposed plans to allow the Annenberg plans to build a "Mayo Clinic for Companion Animals"on the Lower Pt.Vicente land. In discussion after discussion 4-5 years ago about both Upper and Lower Pt. Vicente,the public heard ad nauseum about what uses might be appropriate for both plots of land.A consultant came in and surveyed the community about how they would like the land to be used.A Task Force came up with a detailed plan for the land in Upper Pt. Vicente,and made recommendations about the Lower park,too. Hordes of community members came to City Council meetings repeatedly and asked for various additions or changes to these pieces of our community.Over and over they asked that the Lower portion be kept as open land for the cactus farmers and Interpretive Center,and for community members to continue having open space to use for their walks or picnics or other activities. At NO POINT during that 2-year-Iong dialogue did anyone suggest a 51,000 sq. ft. facility for companion animals on the Lower Pt.Vicente property.And they didn't for a reason:That land,according to the City Plan,needs to be for passive use,and for things having to do with the Pacific Ocean. If RPV is going to make additional changes to the Lower P.V.area,I sincerely hope you will go back to the plans the Council at that time spent thousands of public dollars and hours composing,and do something that truly serves the community you represent. Just because the Annenbergs have offered to pay for something doesn't mean we need to do it.Please don't vote to go ahead with this project. Thanks very much for your time, Shari Twidwell,MSW 32 Sweetbay Road Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 1 ATTACHMENT - 206 2 ATTACHMENT - 207 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Wednesday,November 10,201010:19 AM To:'Ara M' Subject:FW:Annenberg -Nov 16 Council Meeting From:Mark &Joan Sturgeon [mailto:mjsturgeon@verizon.net] Sent:Wednesday,November 10,2010 9:47 AM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:joelr@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg -Nov 16 Council Meeting Dear Members of the City Council, I am apposed to the Annenberg project at Lower Point Vicente and I am asking you to seek an alternative site.The project could have the same value to the community if it were located somewhere other than Lower Point Vicente. Please respect the agreement made by the City when it accepted Lower Point Vicente from Los Angeles County.Honor the terms of the quitclaim deed,the deed restrictions,and the program of utilization. Please respect the language and intent of the City's General Plan and allow Lower Point Vicente to remam open space. Sincerely, Mark Sturgeon Rancho Palos Verdes c:Joel Rojas 11112/2010 ATTACHMENT - 208 Page 1 of2 AraM From:TIMANDLORR@aol.com Sent:Wednesday,November 10,20103:10 PM To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com SUbject:Annenberg Proposal for Lower Pt.Vicente Park RE:view obstructions for those in the Enclave section of Oceanfront Estates? Greetings, I have been an occasional speaker at City meetings,in favor of the Annenberg Foundation's proposal for Lower Pt.Vicente Park. I am writing today because something has been bothering me since the October 12th Planning Commission meeting at which one of my neighbors,Rosemary Campbell,was given 20 minutes or so at the beginning of the public comment session to present a slide show indicating potential serious view impairments to her family and her neighbors in the Enclave section of Oceanfront Estates,whose yards abut Lower Pt.Vicente Park. First,I was bothered by the Commission granting her this time allotment as I and about 40 other speakers were restricted to the proscribed 3 minutes. But,even more than that inequity,I am disturbed by her presentation,Le.the photos that she had filled-in with solid red marker to indicate what she and other Enclave homeowners would see from their yards.I feel she intentionally misrepresented the view impairments that she showed in her slides. The point of this correspondence is to indicate that for those homeowners who live near the proposed building, their ocean view will not be impacted at all since the building will be landward,and that there currently exists foliage that nearly blocks any view of the proposed building from those homes'yards.If you look at the photographs that are part of Ara Mihranian's Power Point presentation right after the silhouette was built and on some of the photos that Mrs.Campbell herself used,you can see that the outline tape is barely visible in many cases.But,by adding the red marker solidly,with the marker covering over the foliage that separates the many abutting Enclave backyards from Lower Pt.Vicente Park,Mrs.Campbell gave the impression that this new lovely building would be an eyesore like a huge warehouse in their views.In fact,few homes will see much of this new building,and even if they did,it would be quite attractive and blend into the environment,especially with that "green"roof.I am also sure that the Annenberg Foundation would gladly plant whatever is necessary to create a visual barrier for these neighbors.If you missed her presentation or did not notice this discrepancy,I urge you to go to the link for Mrs.Campbell's slides on the October 12 meeting date and scroll through those before/after pictures. I am sure that long-term Peninsula residents have little to no patience with Oceanfront Estates homeowners' complaints about new construction affecting their views,as the whole population here suffered the addition of our development on a large tract of open space land.I feel very fortunate to live here,and enjoy my views very much.I moved to Oceanfront Estates in early 2002,before the current PVIC and the Enclave homes were constructed,and so,briefly,my view to the south was "unobstructed"except for the beautiful lighthouse. Those Oceanfront homes that are at a higher elevation from the Park,such as my own,are the ones whose view will include this new building in its entirety.My own home's view was one of the photos shown in Ara Mihranian's original presentation (#71 Via del Cielo)and will probably indicate that the outline is most visible, even if far away,from my yard.I attach here a photo from my yard.My home sits high above the Enclave homes;I can actually see 18 of the 20 homes built along Pacifica del Mar and Calle Viento (including Mrs. Campbell's).I can also fully see the outline of the Annenberg Project.For me and for everyone here in Oceanfront Estates,the building will NOT BLOCK OCEAN VIEWS because it is landward.Will it be in someone's view?Yes!Most certainly mine!And,I'm fine with that.I welcome the addition of the Annenberg Project at Lower Pt.Vicente. 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 209 Thank you for your attention to this matter and your continued service to our City. Lorraine O'Grady 11/12/2010 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT - 210 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Andrea Sala [asala@csudh.edu] Sent:Wednesday,November 10,20104:17 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Dear Mayor Wolowicz,Mayor Pro Tern Long,and City Council Members,Campbell,Misetich and Stern : As a 40 year resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula,I'd like to encourage your support of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.I appreciate all of your thoughtful consideration,as you have always been with the other projects on our beautiful peninsula. I remember when there was no Courtyard/Avenue/Promenade Mall.I remember the Fox Movie Theater, shopping at Buffums,and lunch at the Jolly Roger.I worked at Marineland,as many of my friends from high school and college did,and graduated from our local public schools.I moved back to the Peninsula after college to raise my family and have been very active in our community.I am proud to call the Peninsula my home and have enjoyed the ever changing growth of our area. The proposed project will be important for our community and can certainly be called passive recreation.It will provide educational opportunities for our children and children of other communities,allowing them to learn about the history of the Peninsula,as well as the native land,plants and animals.Volunteer and employment opportunities will help keep our children busy and engaged,just like Marineland did.The current site is an eyesore -overgrown and unmanaged -and makes our coastline look unattractive.The Annenberg project will be well maintained and manicured,environmentally friendly and a destination for local visitors and the entire community at large. The Annenberg Foundation is a first-class organization that has supported thousands of people and organizations around the world.Their gift is from the heart,and they will receive no gain from it except the knowledge that they are creating a wonderful learning experience for visitors to the Peninsula.The fact that this facility will be maintained in perpetuity is a key factor in this project.The city will not have to expend any funds for upkeep and maintenance.You simply do not run across an opportunity -or a gift -like this every day.Not to approve this project would be a detriment to our beautiful Peninsula and all of us who live here. I know you will all do the right thing,and in a thoughtful,careful manner.Please just say YES!Thank you all for the time you spend keeping our community the wonderful place it is. Andrea Sala 310.293.6064 g~$<:3I;:1@G$lJqh,.~qy 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 211 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: Robert King [robtking@cox.net] Wednesday,November 10,20104:48 PM cc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com Vote No on the Annenberg Project I have recently had access (via PVP watch)to Sharon Yarber's e-mail message to you regarding objections to the Annenberg Project proposed for city-owned property at lower Pt.Vicente. The above document presents a carefully reasoned argument for the denial of the use of this public property for the furtherance of the narrow vision of a private philanthropic organization. Please be advised that I am in complete agreement with Ms Yarber's position as expressed in her message. I would like to direct your attention to Ms Yarber's message and urge you to vote NO on the further development of the Annenberg Project. RPV is Still Not For Sale,even at Annenberg's price Robert E.King 30764 Via La Cresta,RPV 1 ATTACHMENT - 212 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Rich Schleicher [kenyarich@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,November 10,20108:12 PM To:aram@rpv.com Cc:cc@rpv.com Subject:The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Dear City Council As a member of this community and neighbor of point Vicente,I am against the proposed Annenberg project. Please stop trying to additionally develop this property and forever alter what ALL of us that reside on the peninsula regard as one of the most beautiful natural areas in the country.The existing whale watch facility and park is very tastefully done and has added enough of the educational value of this area that is necessary and has created a historical area dedicated to the natural whale migration that occurs every year without the added structures and unwanted disturbances of the proposed project. Sincerely Richard Schleicher 9 Barkentine Rd 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 213 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,November 11,2010 7:48 AM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:referancing Sharon Yarber's letter From:Gary Accardo [mailto:GAccardo@HDExperts.netJ sent:Wednesday,November 10,2010 8:49 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:referancing Sharon Yarber's letter Dear neighbors, I unconditionally agree with Sharon Yarber's arguments and objections to the Annenberg Project. I too oppose this mockery of purpose called Wallis Annenberg and this attempt to bulldoze her inappropriate, narcissistic agenda onto our peninsula. Thank you, Garrett Accardo 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 214 Ara M From: Sent: To: Subject: sallie reeves [salliereeves@cox.net] Thursday,November 11,20108:13 AM aram@rpv.com Annenberg As a lover of the outdoors and our wonderful Palos Verdes environment,I am horrified at the thought of the Annenberg project.I regularly walk in that area and find it an abhorrent plan.I'm disgusted by the politics of city hall who would stop at nothing to halt the Marymount project but are courting Annenberg.Really? Sallie Reeves 8 Thyme Place RPV 1 ATTACHMENT - 215 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,November 11,20109:08 AM To:'Ara M' Cc:'Joel Rojas' SUbject:FW:Annenberg Project From:Diane Gordon [mailto:dmgordon4@gmail.com] sent:Thursday,November 11,2010 8:01 AM To:CC@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project Dear Council members, Please know that there are many within the community who disagree with the Annenberg Project's use of land.While Mrs.Annenberg's goals are noble,I feel that this is an improper use of land.Our headland is irreplacable,&it is my belief that it should be used as an open space to the public.An animal care center does not seem appropriate.Thank:you for your time,&I look forward to attending the Nov.16th meeting. Sincerely, Diane Gordon 11112/2010 ATTACHMENT - 216 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Marva Burt [marvabrt@cox.net] Sent:Thursday,November 11,2010 12:10 PM To:Aram Mihranian Subject:Annenberg Proposal,Agenda Nov.16,2010 We are against the Annenberg Proposal since it is not in compliance with many major issues. 1.Does not comply with the General Plan for a Passive Recreational Park. 2.Does not comply with Use Designation. 3.Does not comply with Open Space Recreational Zoning.(OR) 4.Does not comply with Program of Utilization and Deed Restrictions.(POU) 5.There is no Need for this "Mayo Clinic"for companion animals. 6.It promotes a questionable Private Agenda. With a strong letter from the State Parks Service that I hope you would strongly adhere to,a "Mayo Clinic"for companion animals is an unnecessary bUilding that does not meet the criteria for this Open Space Land. Please do not be influenced by the Annenberg Donations that I see are no different than Marymount's Millions spent on Yes on Measure P. Rancho Palos Verdes is Not for Sale but from what I have read lately on this project it looks and feels like it is.If this project is allowed to go through,Council, PC,and Staff have sold out for Millions and have no regard for the little Open Space Land that is left along our beautiful coastline. Sincerely,Pat and Marva Burt,31 Sweetbay Rd,RPV 1111212010 ATTACHMENT - 217 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:TramJV@aol.com Sent:Thursday,November 11,20102:32 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:aram@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project at Lower Pt.Vicente Attachments:JM(11--1.DOC Please see attached letter in support of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente J.Martin Rancho Palos Verdes 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 218 Jane Martin 5917-N Armaga Spring Road Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 November 11,2010 To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: As a long-time resident of Rancho Palos Verdes I am writing to let you know of my continuing support of the Annenberg Project at lower Point Vicente. I eagerly anticipate seeing this project completed.Although I have always loved the beauty of our surroundings,the opportunity to celebrate the rich history of the Peninsula and our relationship to animals,domesticated and native will surely enhance my appreciation of the area. Sincerely, ATTACHMENT - 219 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:EMGoldin [emgoldin@ca.rr.com] Sent:Thursday,November 11,20105:05 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:pc@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com SUbject:Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente Mayor and Council, As a resident of The Gardens,San Pedro zip code some mere yards away from Rancho Palos Verdes,it has come to my attention that there is yet more to be decided regarding the fate of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente.I have long looked forward to the opening of the facility/entity and all that it portends. Our coastline is venerated and public access to it is an ongoing fight.There are some who battle in order to privatize access,others who fight it on grounds of any access making the land more vulnerable to disintegration and still other well-intentioned folks with a myriad of reasons to do so.As a former resident of Santa Monica I am quite familiar with arguments,organized or otherwise,against developing public land.I worked hard to stop the private development of the 415 PCH site that, coincidentally,many years later became the site of another exceptional Annenberg project. A studious review of the intentions of the Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente and its prodigious nod to both the environment and accessibility,education and community participation,draws my support and enthusiasm for the project.The intentions of those who question the acceptability of the project,given the benefit of any doubt,are respectable ...to a degree.Then it becomes time to move ahead.I urge you to take that action now. Respectfully, Ellen Goldin 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 220 Page 1 of 1 Ara M From:Nancy De Long [pvnancy@cox.net] Sent:Friday,November 12,2010 8:22 AM To:aram@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg Project Dear City Council Members, I urge you to vote NO on the Annenberg project for lower Pt.Vicente.If you think this charity is doing the city a favor,you are a bit naive I think.I believe this is a land grab to build another edifice to the Annenbergs which has no relevance to the current site focus Gray Whale Migration and the Sea.The jewel that is currently Pt.Vicente and the beautiful intrepretive center will be dwarfed by this huge building and it will become the Annenberg site.They will gain control. I recommend you watch "The Art of the Steal"streamable on Netflix.Check out these power brokers in action before you decide to become their pawns and give away our precious open space.It is invaluable,irreplacable and belongs to the public.Be good stewards and vote No. Nancy DeLong 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 221 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Ken Delong [ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent:Friday,November 12,2010 10:05 AM To:'Ara M' Cc:cc@rpv.com Subject:Annenberg at pVle To Whom it May Concern: We are opposed to the proposed Annenberg animal facility at lower Point Vicente.This project is a misuse of public lands for the self-gratification of a wealthy woman and her Annenberg Foundation. We wonder what the perceived benefits may be to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that RPV City Hall and the RPV Council are pursuing this project so vigorously?This is in spite of the current decision by the National Park Service that this project violates deed restrictions placed on these lands by the US Government and the County of los Angeles. Kitty &Ken Delong Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 e-mail-ken.delong@verizon.net 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 222 Page 1 of 1 AraM From:Anne Deasey [Anne.Deasey@SMGOV.NET] Sent:Friday,November 12,201012:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:'aram@rpv.com';'pc@rpv.com';'BarbaraBronson Gray';'jjaakola@annenbergfoundation.org' Subject:Letter to Council Attachments:Letter re Annenberg to Rancho Palos Verdes 11 10.pdf Good afternoon, I am forwarding this letter on behalf of Barbara Stinchfield,Director of Community &Cultural Services for the City of Santa Monica.Please let us know if you need any further information. Best regards, Anne Veasey Community &Cultural Services City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street,Room 210 Santa Monica,CA 90401 310458 8310 x5616 Share your thoughts.Shape your parks. W\Vw.sln<:.lyi<:.c,et1t(:l"p~rlcs.<:'Om 11/12/2010 ATTACHMENT - 223 Department of Community and Cultural Services 1685 Main Street,Room 210 PO Box 2200 Santa Monica,California 90407-2200 City of Santa MOllica'" November 15}2010 Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes}California Subject:Support for the Annenberg Project at lower Point Vicente Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the Annenberg Foundation's project that is before you at your November 16th Council meeting.My enthusiastic support is the result of the City of Santa Monica's experience working with the Foundation as a partner in the development ofthe Annenberg Community Beach House at santa Monica State Beach.From the beginning of the planning process through its successful opening and beyond}we have worked together to achieve a unique partnership that has flourished not only due to the generosity of the Foundation in providing funding but because of the high level of professionalism and integrity that the Foundation Trustees and staff bring to everything they do.It was a once-in-a-Iifetime chance to create a unique public facility and I understand that your city is now in the same enviable position of having such a partnership. I also understand there is some question as to the recreational nature ofthe companion animal component ofthe proposed project.As Director of Community and Cultural Services for the City of Santa Monica}I oversee the Citis open space system including the community's parks and recreational facilities.A number of years ago}we undertook a strategic planning process that defined our vision and goals for parks and recreation over the next 20 years.This planning process .highlighted the unique role that companion animals play in the recreational lives of our residents.As you walk through our parks, you see dogs on leash who are recreating with their owners as a part of our "active liVing'}initiative which encourages community members to integrate fitness activities into their everyday lives. I trust that those reviewing this aspect of the project will understand the important recreational role that animals play in the lives of local communities and will support this as a recreational component of the project. Again,it is my pleasure to enthusiastically support the Foundation's project and hope that your community will have the unique opportunity to partner with the Foundation to achieve a facility of the highest public benefit. Sincerely} ~~ BARBARA J.STINCHFIELD Director tel:310 458-8310 ..fax:310 576-1539 ATTACHMENT - 224