CC SR 20170919 01 - NCCP
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCILMEETING DATE:
10/02/2017
AGENDA REPORTAGENDA HEADING:
Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible actionto receive a status update on the City’s Natural
CommunitiesConservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Receiveand file a statusupdate on theCity’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(NCCP)and Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Amount Budgeted:
N/A
Additional Appropriation:
N/A
Account Number(s):
N/A
ORIGINATED BY:
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY:
Same
APPROVED BY:
Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.NCCP/HCP FAQs(page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The State’s Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1991 provides for the
preparation and implementation of large-scale natural conservation plans. The purpose of
these plans is to identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife diversity,
while allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth. A Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)is intended to provide comprehensive
management and conservation of multiple species, including, but not limitedto, species
listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973. The NCCP Act is intended to promote cooperation and coordination
among public agencies, landowners, and other interested organizations or individuals. The
Federal Section 10 Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) process of the ESA also provides
an opportunity for species protection and habitat conservation within the context of non-
Federal development and land use activities. The targeted primary imperiled species to be
protected are the coastal California gnatcatcherand thecactus wren.
Because of the relatively high concentration of federally protected coastal sage scrub habitat
in the City, and the growing intensity of development pressures on these areascombined
with the ability to streamline the entitlement process for City projects (i.e. storm drain, road
repairs, and landflow remediation projects), in 1996, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City
or RPV) entered into a Planning Agreement to develop an NCCP/HCP proposal that would
1
encompass the entire City with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), hereafter collectively referred to as the “Wildlife
Agencies.” An important objective of the NCCP/HCP is for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
to obtain State and Federal Permits from the Wildlife Agencies for Covered Activities which
include City and private projects.
Although the NCCP subregion includes the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula (Peninsula), the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes was the only jurisdiction in the subregion to enter into a NCCP
planning agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. The remaining Peninsula cities were
encouraged to formally participate in thePeninsula NCCP process but chose not to
participate. Thus the subregion, or Plan Area, is now functionally synonymous with the City
boundaries.
ThePlan Area, although relatively small in area as compared to other NCCP subareas in
Southern California, isunique in that it contains healthy concentrations of coastal sage
scrub habitat (approximately 1,000 acres) and a number of coastal sage scrub species
which are not found in other Southern California coastal sage scrub communities.
From 1996 through 1999, the City hosted monthly meetings of an NCCP planning group,
made up of major landowner, local government, state and federal agency, and
environmental organization representatives, to help guide the subarea NCCP. With
guidance and input from the Working Group, the City completed Phase I of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula NCCP in 1999. The primary focus of the Phase I effort was to map
existing vegetation communities, along with sensitive species distributions and their
potential habitat. The City then began Phase II of the NCCP, which involved using the
Phase I information to develop preliminary alternative preserve designs.
Three preserve design alternatives were presented to the City Council on December 5,
2000, and March 6, 2001. At that time, the Council authorized Staff to proceed with a
biological and economic analysis of the three draft alternatives in order to identify the City’s
preferred alternative preserve design. However, as a result of the City’s efforts to purchase
almost 800 acres of privately held open space in the Portuguese Bend portion of the City,
the City’s preferred preserve alternative (Alternative C) was amended to reflect the
proposed land open space acquisition deal, as well as the City Council decision to not
include the City’s Upper Pt. Vicente property as part of the Terranea project (previously
referred to as the Long Point Resort project). The revised Alternative C map was accepted
by the City Council on June 12, 2002, and was the Alternative used to complete thedraft
NCCP Plan.
On August 30, 2004, the City Council adopted the Draft NCCP, certified the related
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) analyzes the environmental impacts of implementing the Subarea Plan; and
approved the draft Implementing Agreement, which sets the legal responsibilities of all the
involved parties (City, PVPLC, State and Federal government) for implementing the
Subarea Plan.
2
Since 2004, the City has been working with the Wildlife Agencies and the PVPLC to finalize
the NCCP/HCP for final considerationby the City Council. One of the primary reasons for
the delay in finalizing the NCCP/HCP isbecause the configuration of the Preserve has
changed on more than one occasion by adding newly acquired property (Malaga Canyon)
and removing/realigning property (archery rangeand the Active Recreation Area formerly
known as Gateway Park) from the Preserve.During this time, the City has been operating
assuming the completion of the NCCP/HCP, and has spent a considerable amount of time
completing various components required by the NCCP/HCP, as described below(these
th
documents were provided to the Council on September 19and are available on the City’s
website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/490/Palos-Verdes-Nature-Preserve-NCCP-PUMP-H).
Natural Communities Conservation Plan
The NCCP provides the following:
A description of the purpose and need for the Plan
For the City to obtain State and Federal permits from the Wildlife Agencies for
o
Covered Activities, which include City and private projects
To maximize benefits to wildlife and vegetated lands while accommodating
o
appropriate economic development
An overview of the regulatory framework existing with the State and Federal
o
government (regardless of Plan adoption)
The proposed Preserve design
Describes the City’s preferred Preserve design
o
A description of the covered projects and activities
Describes the17 covered City projects and activities and five private projects
o
Describes the habitat avoidance and minimization measures for the covered
o
projects and activities
The local plan review and approval process
Describes the City implementation of the Plan
o
Describes process for amendments
o
Discusses changed and unforeseen circumstances
o
Biological objectives and methodology
The overall objective of the NCCP/HCP is to ensure that the biological values
o
of natural resources where land is preserve are maintained over time. This
section explains the wildlife species survey methodologies, plant species
monitoring methodologies, habitat restoration objectives and invasive plant
removal programs.
Funding and financing of NCCP/HCP
Discusses the anticipated costs and the funding commitments that have been
o
made
Preserve Management and Reporting
Describes the various reports required and their associated schedules
o
The following is a summary ofsome of thedocuments required by the NCCP/HCP that are
also Appendices to the document.
3
Management Agreement
This is a document thatdescribes the working relationship for roles and responsibilities
between the City and the PVPLCas related to the habitat management required by the
NCCP/HCP. The PVPLC isresponsiblewith completing specific habitat management and
monitoring tasks within the entire Preserve to the satisfaction of theCity, as well asState
and Federal wildlife agencies. The Agreementalsodescribestheresponsibilities held by
theCity. The Management Agreementwasapproved by the City Council in November 2011.
There was also an update provided to the City Council on April 14, 2014. The major
responsibilities for each entity issummarized below:
PVPLC Areas of Responsibility
Habitat restoration (5 acres every year), habitat enhancement (invasive plant
removal) and habitat monitoring (annual reports)
Maintenance of unimproved trails and trail signage on an as needed basis
Fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on PVPLC-owned lands
City of RPV Areas of Responsibility
Waste management on as-needed basis
Public safety (Ranger patrols) and City signage maintenance
Maintenance of any roads (Burma Road)
Fuel Modification for fire prevention purposes on City-owned lands
Conservation Easements
The Wildlife Agenciesrequire a conservation easement to be recorded forthe properties
that are to be placed within the NCCP Preserve. In addition, the California Coastal
Conservancy and State Wildlife Conservation Board, who provided funding for the Preserve
properties, require that conservation easements be recorded on all open space properties
purchased for conservation.
The basic purpose of a conservation easement is to permanently limit certain uses of the
landin order to protect its conservation valuefor which the landwas purchased.The
conservation easements reference the NCCP and allow for covered projects and activities to
take place during the permit term(50 years)in the NCCP Preserve. A conservation
easement obligates the grantee of the easement to monitor the property to ensure that it is
being used in accordance with the terms of the conservation easement. The grantee of the
easement is also obligated toenforce the terms of the conservation easement.
The NCCP/HCPrequires that the PVPLC be the owner of all conservation easements
recorded for Preserve properties owned by the City and that the City be the owner of the
conservation easement recorded on the sole Preserve property owned by the PVPLC. This
4
is because the PVPLC is managing the City-owned properties within the Preserve on behalf
of the City, has been contributing to the cost of acquiring some of the properties that have
been placed in the Preserve, and has been assisting the City and the Wildlife Agencies with
the development of the NCCP.
Once the NCCP is finalized and approved, the Wildlife Agencies want the same form of
conservation easement in favor of the PVPLC recorded against all of the City’s properties
that will be enrolled into the NCCP Preserve. Although, management of the Preserve
properties by the City and PVPLC has been ongoing, the Wildlife Agencies will not consider
the properties as formally enrolled in the Preserve until the standard conservation easement
has been recorded on each property.
On November 15, 2011, the City Council authorized the form and directed the Mayor to sign
the Conservation Agreement for recordation. The Conservation Easement will be recorded
against all of the City-owned properties within the Preserve and will replace conservation
easements that were recorded previously against some of the properties, such as the
Switchback property and Shoreline Park. A reciprocal Conservation Easement will also be
recorded on the sole Preserve property owned by the PVPLC (Lunada Canyon).
Public Use Master Plan (PUMP)
In order to balance the public’s passive recreational needs with the protection of natural
resources within the Preserve,the NCCP required the development ofa Public Use Master
Plan (PUMP). This document was developed and was approved by the City Council in
March 2013. The PUMP document represents the culmination of an extensive public input
process which included the involvement of a Council appointed 15-member PUMP
Committee (plus one Ex-Officio member) and public input received at numerous public
meetings, including seven City Council meetings. Between July 12, 2006 and January 30,
2008, the PUMP Committee held 32 public meetings with the bulk of the Committee’s work
focused on recommended trail routes and trail uses for the greater Preserve. The
Committee also made recommendations to the City Council on the activities permitted to
occur in the Preserve.
Next Steps
City Council Review of Final NCCP/HCP
Aside from some final wordsmith edits and clarifications, the NCCP/HCP is close to being
finalized and released for the Council’s consideration. Staff anticipates this occurring in Fall
of this year.
Joint CEQA and NEPA Documents
As the completion of the Final NCCP/HCP approaches, the City, with the assistance of an
environmental consultant (DUDEK), isdeterminingwhat level of additional environmental
review is needed to adopt the Final NCCP/HCPand to prepare the necessary environmental
document pursuantto CEQA. The City’s environmental consultant willdeterminewhether an
5
Addendum or a Supplemental to the Certified EIR is needed based on the differences in
estimated impacts and mitigation measures between the 2004 Draft NCCP and the Final
NCCP. Based onthis determination, the environmental consultant willprepare the required
environmental documentfor circulation along with the NEPA document that has been
prepared by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Public Review Process
Depending on the CEQA determination for the Final NCCP/HCP, Staff anticipates on
circulating for public review the Final NCCP/HCP document and the related environmental
documents for a period of no less than 60-days. Public comments will be received and
responded to prior to the Council’s consideration ofthe Final NCCP/HCP at a duly noticed
public hearing, which Staff anticipates occurring in Fall of this year.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
The City and the PVPLC jointly prepared the attached FAQs on the NCCP/HCP for the
Council’s and public’s benefit.
Portuguese Bend Landflow Remediation
Over the past year, the City Council subcommittee has been exploring methodsto
remediate the landflow at Portuguese Bend. As it relates to the NCCP/HCP, Section 5
identifies covered activities that are permitted to occur in the City, particularly landflow
remediation projects that occur in Portuguese Bend, as part of the City’s “take” permit for
any potential loss of habitat. Such covered activities include, but are not limited to, the
installation and maintenance of groundwater monitoring wells and GPS stations for the
purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling of fissures, the re-contouring of slide
debris, the creation and maintenance of emergency access roads, and geologic
investigations involving trenching or boring performed mechanically or by hand. Where
practicable, areas of temporary CSS disturbance will be promptly re-vegetated with CSS
habitat after completion of abatement activities. The Plan provides details for the provision
of a maximum of 17.5acres of CSS habitat and 32.5acres of non-native grassland for
activities and projects such as dewatering well,landslide abatement measures, and
drainage repair in landslide areas(Preserve and non-Preserve properties).
6
NCCP FAQ
1. What is an NCCP?
In California, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP or Plan) facilitates the area-wide
protection and management of natural wildlife diversity, while also permitting compatible and
appropriate development and growth. The NCCP is intended to provide comprehensive
management and conservation of multiple species, including but not limited to species listed
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The NCCP Act is intended to support cooperation and coordination among public
agencies, landowners, and other interested organizations or individuals.
The NCCP plan area is the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This includes the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve as well as City properties and private properties that offer habitat value for
covered species and which may have projects or operations that would require a permit from
state and federal wildlife agencies.
2. What resources does the NCCP conserve? What are Covered Species?
The Plan identifies specific, at-risk speciesand their associated habitatsfor protection. In our
area, these species include the coastal California gnatcatcher (federally threatened), cactus
wren (federally threatened), Palos Verdes blue butterfly (endangered), El Segundo blue butterfly
(endangered), and six rare plant species. The California gnatcatcher and cactus wrens rely on
coastal sage scrub, cactus scrub, and grassland vegetation communities, which are protected
under the Plan.
3. Why is native habitat like coastal sage scrub and cactus important?
and the same is essentially true for habitats.
Healthy living communities like coastal sage scrub provide natural benefits from
filtering and purifying air and water, to building soils, stabilizing landscapes, absorbing
carbon dioxide, buffering against floods and high winds, and in various other ways
contributing to human well-being. Coastal sage and cactus habitats are also necessary
for the survival of the covered species.
4.
"Take," as defined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), means "to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collectes, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct." Harm is defined as "any act that kills or injures the species, including
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering"
(50 CFR 17.3).
At the state level, take is defined under the California Fish and Game Code (more narrowly than
under ESA) as any action or attempt to "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill" a protected
species.
1
A-1
Take also applies to direct and indirect impacts to endangered species or their habitat, which
has the potential to reduce their ability to breed, nest, or forage.
5. Who participates in the NCCP agreement? Summary of roles and responsibilities.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has developed an NCCP/HCP Plan that will encompass the
entire City, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly
California Department of Fish and Game), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Conservancy is the designated Habitat Manager, who will assist the City with executing projects
in accordance with conservation goals of the NCCP and to monitor and report on the progress
The City is the permit holder, designated by the Wildlife Agencies to conduct specific projects
and activities in threatened and endangered wildlife habitat. The City and PVPLC work together
to implement projects under conservation guidelines. PVPLC helps the City streamline their
project process to ensure that impacts to covered species and native habitat are minimized.
PVPLC also helps the City fulfill its obligations to receive the take permit, including mitigation,
invasive plant removal, and monitoring.
6. What is the benefit to the City of having this NCCP in place?
The execution of the NCCP agreement triggers state and federal take authorizations for
Covered Species that permit the City and private landowners to execute approved projects and
compatible uses of the land. The NCCP offers a streamlined permitting process for planned
development, infrastructure, and maintenance activities. Applications for endangered species
permits can occur in tandem with other building permits because the Plan allows the City
to grant endangered species take permits to projects and activities under their jurisdiction. This
ts to acquire special permits, conduct separate
Environmental Impact Reviews (EIRs) for each project, and execute individual mitigation
projects to offset each project, effectively eliminating the need to structure separate HCPs for
each desired project. This provides a great cost savings for the City to implement their projects
and activities in the Preserve occupied by federally protected species.
Importantly, the Plan benefits the environment by protecting, enhancing, and restoring natural
resources of the peninsula and contributing to the recovery of threatened and endangered
species. Instead of evaluating and permitting projects and activities individually, which can result
in piecemeal and disjointed conservation efforts, the Plan enables evaluation of natural resource
impacts and mitigation requirements comprehensively. This holistic, multi-species approach is
more efficient and effective for at-risk species and their habitats. At full plan implementation, the
Preserve will protect about 1400 acres for the benefit of covered species, natural communities,
biological diversity, and ecosystem function.
Without this NCCP in place, the City would be required to seek special permits for each project
they want to conduct. This would require significant staff time, biological monitoring and
2
A-2
oversight for each individual project. There is a significantly higher estimated annual cost for
mitigating project impacts and management activities without the NCCP.
7. What would be required for the City
NCCP permit in place?
The presence of biological resources on proposed project sites has the potential to lengthen
project development timelines and increase project development and mitigation costs.
Conventional project-by-project permitting involving federal or state listed species would require
consultation with the USFWS under ESA Section 7 or development of a project-specific HCP
under ESA Section 10 and/or CESA Section 2080.1 or Section 2081 permitting processes for
state listed species. Project permitting under a regional multi-species HCP/NCCP (ESA Section
10 and CESA Section 2835) provides a means to streamline these permitting processes by
allowing local jurisdictions to extend their incidental take authority to individual development
projects and research has shown that comprehensive approaches to habitat conservation
planning through HCPs has provided economic benefits to projects through reduced
uncertainty, time delays and compliance costs (Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. 2014).
The conventional project-by-project permitting process is typically characterized by:
Numerous review cycles with multiple agencies
Potentially lengthy and uncertain approval process
Higher costs for project proponents
Project proponent required to identify and provide necessary mitigation; Results in
piecemeal, often ineffective mitigation
For projects involving impacts to federally listed species, Section 7 would require federal
nexus; without a federal nexus, a project-specific Section 10 HCP would need to be
developed
Project proponent responsible for maintenance and monitoring of mitigation lands
8. What types of projects and activities are permitted?
Projects are well-defined actions that occur once in a discrete location (e.g., Altamira Canyon
drainage improvements). By contrast, activities are actions that occur repeatedly in one or more
locations (e.g., vegetation management of brush clearance zones and trail maintenance).
Together, these activities and projects are the covered activities for which endangered species
permits from the Wildlife Agencies will be obtained. Covered activities under the Plan include all
types of private development and public projects so long as certain criteria are met.
All covered activities must comply with the relevant conditions on covered activities described in
the Plan to avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and natural communities.
9. What if the City has additional project needs beyond those conceptualized in this 50-year plan?
The NCCP provides guidance to accommodate Minor and Major Amendments to the permit
should they arise in the remaining 40 years of this 50-year plan. Minor Amendments include
Preserve boundary adjustments that offer equivalent exchange of biological land value,
correction of maps or exhibits, and minor changes to survey, monitoring or reporting protocols.
3
A-3
A new project not defined in the Plan that results in additional coverage needed under the
permit would require a major amendment. Major Amendments include, but are not limited to,
changes to the Plan that result in a higher level of take, greater or different impacts to the
Covered Species and their habitats or to the environment generally, than were analyzed in the
NEPA and CEQA documents prepared for the Plan as approved and by the Wildlife Agencies.
Examples of potential Major Amendments include an increase in habitat impacts from any
Covered Activity described in the plan, major changes to the Preserve design or reconfiguration
that results in decrease of acreage or habitat quality.
10. How are projects managed to reduce impacts? Avoidance and minimization measures will be
enforceable conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the
Covered Projects and Activities. The nineteen measures include considerations and actions
such as biological surveys, monitoring, erosion control plans, noise and light abatement,
provisions for topsoil stockpile placement locations, dust control, etc.
11. How are trails managed under the NCCP? Will the plan change anything?
The Preserve trail network was designed by community members in the form of a Public Use
Master Plan, subsequently approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. Trails are managed
by the City and the PVPLC. The Plan provides guidelines for trail use considerations and long
term management.
12. Will landslide abatement measures be accommodated under the plan?
The Wildlife Agencies have approved in the Plan with the inclusion of landslide abatement
When and where required, landslide
abatement activities within the Preserve and throughout the City are sometimes necessary by
the City or other public agencies to safeguard existing roads, trails and drainage systems. Such
activities include, but are not limited to, the installation and maintenance of groundwater
monitoring wells and GPS stations for the purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling
of fissures, the re-contouring of slide debris, the creation and maintenance of emergency
access roads, and geologic investigations involving trenching or boring performed mechanically
or by hand. Where practicable, areas of temporary CSS disturbance will be promptly re-
vegetated with CSS habitat after completion of abatement activities. The Plan provides details
for the provision of a maximum of 17.5 acres of CSS habitat and 32.5 acres of non-native
grassland for activities and projects such as dewatering well, landslide abatement measures,
and drainage repair in landslide areas.
13. What happens after the permit term is over?
The Plan permit term is 50 years, although lands conserved under the Plan will be permanently
protected through the conservation easements. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve will protect
an estimated 1400 acres for the benefit of covered species, natural communities, biological
diversity, and ecosystem function in perpetuity through regular (at least annual) monitoring of
the properties to ensure properties remain in compliance with the terms of the conservation
easements.
4
A-4
In addition, the Plan will create a non-wasting endowment during the permit term to fund basic
conservation activities after the permit term.
14. What is a Conservation Easement? How does it support the NCCP?
A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust
or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its
conservation values. The City of RPV owns most of the Preserve properties for which the Land
Conservancy hold the easements, while PVPLC owns Lunada Canyon for which the City of
RPV holds the easement. Landowners retain many of their rights, including the right to own and
use the land, sell it and pass it on to their heir.
15. Does th
The Plan does stipulate that vacant property directly adjacent to Preserve should not plant
certain specified invasive species that can escape and colonize in open spaces. Plant species
are identified by the California Invasive Plant Council as invasive are listed in Appendix D of the
Plan. Private property and homes within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that are not situated
adjacent to the Preserve do not have restrictions over what vegetation can be planted.
5
A-5