CC SR 20180329 01 - NCCP Final Draft 2018RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 03/29/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to approve the Final Draft 2018 Natural Community
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan in order to initiate the public comment
period and permit decisions by the Wildlife Agencies.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2018- approving Addendum No. 1 to the 2004 City
Council -Certified Final Environmental Impact Report;
(2) Approve the Final Draft 2018 Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan which includes the Implementing Agreement and
Conservation Easements; and,
(3) Direct Staff to submit these documents along with the permit application to the
Wildlife Agencies to initiate the process for the 60 -day public comment period
and for Wildlife Agencies' permit decisions.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Katie Lozano, Open Space Manager/Administrative Analyst II
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development Department
Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks Department
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
The 2018 NCCP/HCP, including the Appendices, Implementing Agreement,
Management Agreement, and Conservation Easement (excluding the Conservation
Easement to be recorded over the PVPLC-owned property) were provided to the City
Council and made available to the public on March 20, 2018 and are available on the
City's website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11615
The documents provided to the City Council and posted on the website include a clear
version and a track change version that identifies the changes made to the documents
since last reviewed by the Council at its October 2, 2017 workshop.
A. Resolution No. 2018-, Addendum No. 1 to the 2004 Council -Certified Final
EIR (A-1)
1
• Exhibit "A" - Addendum to Final EIR
B. Resolution No. 2004-72 certifying a Final EIR (B-1)
C. Corrections to Section 8 and Appendix C of the 2018 NCCP/HCP (C-1)
D. Conservation Easement (redlined) over the PVPLC-owned Lunada Canyon
Property (D-1)
E. Public Comments (E-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The State's Natural Community 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 Community Conservation Plan (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) 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 gnatcatcher and the
cactus wren, among others.
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 areas
combined 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 entered into a Planning Agreement 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," to develop an
NCCP/HCP that would encompass the entire City. An important objective of the
NCCP/HCP for the City is to obtain an umbrella permit from the Wildlife Agencies for
Covered Projects and Activities.
Although the NCCP/HCP includes the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula (Peninsula), the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes was the only jurisdiction to enter into a NCCP Planning
Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. The remaining Peninsula cities were encouraged
to formally participate but chose not to participate. Thus the NCCP/HCP, is now
functionally synonymous with the City boundaries.
The Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP, although relatively small in area as compared to
other NCCP/HCPs in Southern California, is unique in that it contains healthy
concentrations of coastal sage scrub habitat (approximately 1,000 acres) which support
a number of associated sensitive species which are not found in other Southern
2
California sage scrub communities.
From 1996 through 1999, the City hosted monthly meetings of a NCCP/HCP Working
Group, made up of major landowners, local government, state and federal Wildlife
Agencies, and environmental organization representatives, to help guide the
NCCP/HCP. With guidance and input from the Working Group, the City completed
Phase I of the NCCP/HCP 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/HCP, 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 open space land 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). Simultaneously, the
City, in joint effort with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC),
pursued acquisition of nearly 800 acres of privately -held open space with federal, state,
local, and community funding sources to add to the Preserve. These properties
contributed to a revision of the City's preferred alternative (Alternative C). The revised
Alternative C map was accepted by the City Council on June 12, 2002 and was the
Alternative used to complete the Draft NCCP/HCP.
On August 30, 2004, the City Council adopted the Draft NCCP/HCP, certified the
related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Attachment B), which pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analyzed the environmental impacts
related to the implementation of the NCCP/HCP; 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.
Since 2004, the City has been working with the Wildlife Agencies and the PVPLC to
finalize the NCCP/HCP for final consideration by the City Council. One of the primary
reasons for the delay in finalizing the NCCP/HCP is because the configuration of the
Preserve has changed on more than one occasion by adding newly acquired property
(Malaga Canyon) and removing/realigning property (archery range and 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.
On October 2, 2017, the City Council conducted a public workshop to receive a status
update on the NCCP/HCP. At that meeting, the City Council reviewed the latest draft of
the NCCP/HCP with a comparison of changes and updates since the 2004 adopted
9
Draft NCCP/HCP, and was informed that the document would be completed in a few
months pending some final wordsmith edits and clarifications to represent current
conditions. That evening, the Council directed Staff to finalize the document for approval
and eventual adoption by the City Council.
2018 NCCP/HCP
The 2018 NCCP/HCP provides the following:
• A description of the purpose and need for the NCCP/HCP
o For the City to obtain State and Federal permits from the Wildlife
Agencies for Covered Activities, which include City and private projects
o To provide conservation for wildlife and vegetated lands while
accommodating appropriate economic development
o An overview of the regulatory framework existing with the State and
Federal government (regardless of Plan adoption)
• The proposed Preserve design
o Describes the City's preferred Preserve design
• A description of the Covered Projects and Activities
o Describes the 17 covered City Projects and Activities and 5 Covered
Private Projects
o Describes the habitat avoidance and minimization measures for the
Covered Projects and Activities
• The local plan review and approval process
o Describes the City implementation of the Plan
o Describes process for amendments
o Discusses changed and unforeseen circumstances
• Biological objectives and methodology
o The overall objective of the NCCP/HCP is to ensure that the biological
values of natural resources where land is preserved 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
o Discusses the anticipated costs and the funding commitments that have
been made
• Preserve Management and Reporting
o Describes the various reports required and their associated schedules
Salient Differences between the 2004 and 2018 NCCP/HCP
The 2018 NCCP/HCP is the same as the original project in nearly all aspects. Like the
original project, the 2018 NCCP/HCP involves the development and implementation of a
City-wide NCCP/HCP to maximize benefits for covered species and the vegetation
community while accommodating appropriate economic development within the City
pursuant to the requirements of the NCCP Act and Section 10(a) of the ESA. The 2018
El
NCCP/HCP addresses 10 covered species for a permit duration of 40 years and
provides incidental take coverage for Covered Activities and Projects, specifically 17
Covered City Projects and Activities, 5 private projects, and other specific activities in
the Preserve.
Like the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the primary conservation strategy of the 2018 NCCP/HCP
is to dedicate selected City- and PVPLC-owned lands, acquire several key privately -
owned parcels, and have the PVPLC monitor and manage the habitat within the
Preserve system with assistance from the City and Wildlife Agencies. The Preserve
system of the updated project covers 1,402.4 acres of public and private lands that
have all been dedicated to the City-wide Preserve. The actual property acreages,
based on updated mapping as required to occur after the approval of the 2004
NCCP/HCP, have been refined and clarified, and the estimated Preserve acreage
differences between the 2004 and 2018 NCCP/HCP is summarized in the table below.
Table 1
Summary of Preserve Acreage Revisions
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Property
20041
20181
Reason for Boundary Revision
Barkentine/Three Sisters
98
98.4
Acreage clarification
Switchbacks
102
94.5
Removal of PV Drive East roadway
Shoreline Park
53
49.7
Clarification to exclude the rocky shore, and includes the 4
acres of mitigation land at Trump National to be dedicated to
the Preserve.
Forrestal
163
158
Removal of the Forrestal Drive roadway
Ocean Front Estates
69
51.6
Clarification to exclude the rocky shore, and a portion of the
riparian area in western section of property
Lower Pt Vicente
10
3.4
Clarification to exclude the rocky shore and park area around
PVIC
Fishing Access/Pelican Cove
6
7.5
Acreage clarification
Alta Vicente/Upper Point Vicente
65
50.9
Removal of the area containing underground
bunkers/overlook, and the eastern gravel parking area
Abalone Cove
100
65.2
Removal of RDA property and Shoreline Park areas
Del Cerro Buffer
17.4
17.4
-
Crestridge/Vista del Norte
16.8
16.8
Ocean Trails
66.9
66.9
Lunada Canyon
20
20.7
Acreage clarification
Portuguese Bend/Hon
410.9
409.8
The 2004 document inadvertently called out the acreage as
422.3 by including a portion of the sandbox area near PVDS
and has been corrected for the 2004 acreage based on follow-
up mapping clarifications, and further refined for the 2018
acreage.
Agua Amarga
43.8
40.3
Acreage clarification
Upper Filiorum/Middle Filiorum
218.4
189.8
Middle Filiorum not acquired
Point View/Lower Filiorum
40
40
Proposed Covered Private Project
Malaga Canyon
1 0
61.5
Canyon Parcels added
Grand View Park
9
0
Removed by City Council in 2004
��
Table 1
Summary of Preserve Acreage Revisions
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Property
20041
20181
Reason for Boundary Revision
Coast Guard Property (Upper
3.9
3_9
Pt. Vicente)
Targeted lands
Coast Guard Property (Lower
0
19.1
Targeted lands
Pt. Vicente)
Terranea Resort Bluff Face
0
10
Targeted lands
Trump Nation/Ocean Trails HCP
0
6_6
Targeted lands
Related
Identified HOAs
136.6
76.1
Targeted lands
Lands Adjacent to Agua Amarga
0
14
Targeted lands
Canyon
Portion of 3787 Coolheights
0
1
Targeted lands
Drive
Long Point Parcel (bluff face)
40
0
Removed by City Council in 2004
TOTAL CONSERVED AT
836.52
1,402.4
PLAN COMPLETION
TARGETED TOTAL
1,689.73
1,573.1
1 Bold and underlined acreages refer to properties that were/are not conserved at time of Plan completion and are identified as Covered Private
Projects or Targeted Areas to be included in the Preserve.
2 The 836.5 -acre total that is provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP in Section 3. 1.1 was based on approximations and is not consistent with the
individual acreages provided in that section. The "Total Preserve and Other Targeted Lands" total for 2004 is different from the 1,504 -acre
Preserve total provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP due to the inclusion of the Grand View Park parcel, the Identified HOA's, and the Long Point
parcel. These parcels were removed from the Plan by the City Council in 2004.
3 The targeted total is different from the 1,504 -acre Preserve total provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP due to the inclusion of the Grand View Park
parcel, the Identified HOA's, and the Long Point parcel, that were removed from the Plan by the City Council in 2004.
In terms of Preserve design acreage/configuration, the majority of the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Preserve design is unchanged from the 2004 NCCP/HCP. In the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the
major differences in the Preserve design resulted in the addition of the Malaga Canyon
property located in the northern portion of the City that was not included as part the
Preserve design in the original project, and the removal of the archery range portion of
the Abalone Cove property. Additionally, there were minor mapping corrections made
throughout the overall Preserve including corrections to the acreage calculation for the
Portuguese Bend property regarding the sandbox area. The updated project provides a
1,402.4 -acre Preserve design.
The 2018 NCCP/HCP, similar to the 2004 document, includes other publicly and
privately owned properties that have been identified as Targeted Lands for possible
future dedication to the Preserve. As shown in the table above, these properties include
the Coast Guard property at both Upper and Lower Point Vicente, Terranea Bluff Face,
Trump National HCP land, Lower Filiorum, and open space/common area owned by
various Homeowner's Associations. Adding Targeted Lands to the Preserve will
require approval from the underlying fee owner, the recordation of acceptable
conservation easements (except for properties in Federal ownership), and available
on
funding for active management by the PVPLC. These property owners are not obligated
to be a part of the City's permit or to convey their respective property to the Preserve.
However, if a development project is proposed, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), project -related impacts to biological resources will have to be
mitigated. The NCCP/HCP provides mitigation measures for Covered Private Projects
to property owners who select to be a part of the City's permit.
The table below provides a summary of the Covered Projects and Activities from the
2004 NCCP/HCP compared to the 2018 NCCP/HCP. As this table shows, there are
fewer City and Private projects and activities covered under the 2018 NCCP/HCP as
compared to the list of projects and activities in the original project. The habitat loss
under the original project was less than that of the updated project. This is because
what was conceptually planned under the 2004 NCCP/HCP in terms of anticipated
impacts and mitigation has now been aligned with potential project impact footprints and
Preserve dedication boundaries. However, this has been mitigated through substantial
increases in actual dedicated acreage in the Preserve and through the ongoing
implementation of the conservation strategy and long-term management and monitoring
of the Preserve that has occurred and will continue under the 2018 NCCP/HCP.
Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
7
CSS
Grassland
CSS
Grassland
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
2004 Project List
Loss
Loss
2018 Project List
Loss
Loss
2004 NCCP/HCP Covered City Projects and Activities
2018 NCCP/HCP Covered City Projects and Activities
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage
2.5
3.0
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage
2.5
3.0
Project
Project
2. Dewatering Wells
2.5
2.5
2. Dewatering Wells
2.5
2.5
3. Misc. Fissure Filling
3.0
3.0
3. Landslide Abatement
5.0
15.0
Measures
4. Misc. Damaged Drain Repair
5.0
15.0
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in
10.0
15.0
Landslide Areas
5. Portuguese Canyon Drainage
0.5
5. PVDE Drainage
5.0
15.0
Project
Improvement Project
6. Sacred Cove Geologic
0.1
6. Misc. Drainage
20.0
60.0
Investigation
Improvements
7. PVDS Roadway Rehabilitation
0.2
7. Abalone Cove Beach Project
1.0
2.0
8. PCDS Emergency Washout
0.4
8. RPV Trails Plan
4.0
10.0
Project
Implementation
9. PVDE Drainage Improvement
4.0
12.0
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon
0.3
0.0
Project
Repair
10. Misc. Drainage Improvements
10.0
24.0
10. Lower Point Vicente
1.5
11.2
11. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase
0.4
11. Palos Verdes Drive South
5.0
15.0
2)
Road Repair
12. Abalone Cove Beach Project
0.2
1.0
12. Upper Pt. Vicente
2.0
22.0
7
Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Another salient change between the 2004 and 2018 NCCP/HCP documents is that the
PVPLC is now a co -permittee. An important objective of this NCCP/HCP is to obtain
CSS
Grassland
CSS
Grassland
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
2004 Project List
Loss
Loss
2018 Project List
Loss
Loss
13. Tarapaca Sewer Line
0.5
13. Preserve Fuel Modification
12.0
18
Relocation
14. Forrestal Property Trail
0.1
14. Utility Maintenance and
10.0
20.0
Clearing
Repair
15. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase
0.1
-
15. Unimproved City Park
10.0
20.0
1)
Projects
16. San Ramon Canyon Repair
1.0
16. Malaga Canyon Drainage
5.0
15.0
Improvements
17. McCarrell Canyon Outlet
0.2
17. Other Miscellaneous City
20.0
60.0
Improvement
projects
18. *RPV Trails Plan
5.0
15.0
Subtotal of Covered City
115.8
303.7
Implementation
Projects /Activities
19. Lower San Ramon Canyon
2.0
6.0
Repair
20. Active Recreation Area
1.0
13.6
21. Lower Point Vicente
1.5
11.2
Subtotal of Covered City Projects /
40.2
106.3
Activities
2004 NCCP/HCP Covered Private Projects and Activities
2018 NCCP/HCP Covered Private Projects and
Activities
1. Brush Clearance at Windport
0.5
1. Lower Filiorum Development
11.9
70.0
Canyon
2. Brush Clearance at 3303 Palo
0.3
-
2. Portuguese Bend Club
3.0
10.0
Vista
Remedial Grading
3. Portuguese Bend Club Slope
0.5
-
3. Fuel Modification for Private
10.0
20.0
Repair
Projects
4. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial
3.0
10.0
4. Miscellaneous Private
71.8
143.1
Grading
Projects throughout the City
5. Hon Geologic Investigation
0.6
--
5. Plumtree Development
2.8
19.7
6. Crestridge Development
2.0
12.0
Subtotal of Covered Private
99.5
262.8
Projects /Activities
7. Brush Clearance at Lower
0.5
--
Filiorum
8. Lower Filiorum Development
7.3
59.0
9. Coolheights Residential Lot
0.5
--
Development
Subtotal of Covered Private
15.2
81.0
Projects /Activities
2004 NCCP/HCP TOTAL'
55.4
187.3
2018 NCCP/HCP TOTALz 215.3 566.5
Another salient change between the 2004 and 2018 NCCP/HCP documents is that the
PVPLC is now a co -permittee. An important objective of this NCCP/HCP is to obtain
State and Federal permits from the Wildlife Agencies for Covered Projects and
Activities, which include City and private projects, as well as habitat management and
monitoring. The City and PVPLC are the Permittees for the 2018 NCCP/HCP. The City
will be issued Take Authorizations for Covered Projects and Activities under the Plan
that require local land use authority, whereas PVPLC will be issued Take Permits
related to implementation of specified biological management and monitoring activities
as agreed to by the City and PVPLC under the Management Agreement (see Section
8.1 of the Plan).
An additional notable change is that the 2018 NCCP/HCP includes a methodology to
measure and track the widths of trails. This new provision is to ensure that trails do not
become overly wide resulting from use. Once these widths are determined, the City,
with the monitoring assistance of the PVPLC, will be accountable for maintaining the
determined widths. This is a change from the 2004 Draft NCCP, the Public Use Master
Plan, and the City-PVPLC Management Agreement where responsibility to maintain
improved trails (i.e. DG, concrete surface, etc.) lies with the City and where the
maintenance of trails and to close spur trails is a permissive activity (but no obligation)
held by the PVPLC. The 2018 NCCP/HCP assigns the task of closing spur trails to the
City. For context, there are approximately 33 miles of trails within the Preserve, and as
many spur trails as there are designated trails.
NCCP/HCP Supporting Documents
The following is a summary of some of the supporting documents required by the
NCCP/HCP which can be found in the Appendices of the document.
Implementing Agreement
The Implementing Agreement (IA) is the executed agreement which details the roles,
responsibilities, and processes for the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies to implement
components of the Plan in accordance with the Permits and applicable law. The IA closely
mirrors the NCCP/HCP document and includes:
• The findings that the Wildlife Agencies must make to issue the permits
• Description of the Plan
• Reserve Design and Conservation Strategy
• Covered Projects and Activities (as described in Section 5 of the NCCP/HCP)
• Information on the Take Authorizations
• Obligations of the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies
• Preserve Management
• Habitat Monitoring, Management, and Reporting
• Plan Funding Requirements
• Regulatory Assurances
• Permit Term
01
• Process for Plan Amendments
• Process for Plan Environmental Review
• Information on Suspension or Revocation of the Permits
• Process for Termination of the Permits
• Process for Dispute Resolution
Conservation Easements
The Wildlife Agencies require a conservation easement to be recorded for the
properties that are to be placed within the NCCP/HCP Preserve. In addition, the
California Coastal Conservancy and California Wildlife Conservation Board, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service who provided funding for the Preserve properties, also require
that conservation easements be recorded on all open space properties purchased for
conservation.
The purpose of the conservation easement is to permanently limit certain uses of the
land in order to protect its conservation value for which the land was purchased. The
conservation easements reference the NCCP/HCP and allow for Covered Projects and
Activities, subject to minimization measures, to take place during the permit term (40
years) in the 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 to enforce
the terms of the conservation easement.
The NCCP/HCP designates the PVPLC as the holder of all conservation easements
recorded for Preserve properties owned by the City and that the City be the holder of
the conservation easement recorded on the portion of Agua Amarga Reserve owned by
the PVPLC. The Wildlife Agencies will not consider the properties as formally enrolled in
the Preserve until a conservation easement has been recorded on each property.
Conservation easements currently exist as a contingency for lands acquired with public
funds on some of the Preserve properties.
On November 15, 2011, the City Council authorized the form and directed the Mayor to
sign the Conservation Easement 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, Portuguese Bend, Filiorum, Agua Amarga, and
Shoreline Park. A reciprocal Conservation Easement will also be recorded on the sole
Preserve property owned by the PVPLC (Lunada Canyon). The reciprocal Conservation
Easement was not completed at the time the document was released, and is attached
to this Staff Report (Attachment D).
The Conservation Easements include enforcement provisions for the holder of the
easement, which include any remedy at law or equity, including damages to the holder
of the easement and for any injury to the conservation values of the property; injunctive
relief without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of
10
otherwise available legal remedies; and the restoration of the Property to the condition
in which it existed prior to the violation or injury. A prevailing party grantee is entitled to
costs and fee, including attorneys' fees, and damages to cover the restoration of the
property.
To date, the 2011 Council -authorized Conservation Easement has not been recorded.
Based on further review of this document, the current City Attorney identified the
following modification (in addition to wordsmith edits) which was reviewed and accepted
by the Wildlife Agencies' legal counsel, and is under review by the PVPLC's governing
body (attached as redline document to the Implementing Agreement as Exhibit E):
Adding language to clarify that, pursuant to Civil Code Section 815.7(d), the court
may award to the prevailing party costs of litigation including reasonable
attorneys' fees. This language was added to clarify that the fees and costs
provisions in the easement are not intended as a waiver of a prevailing party's
right to request attorney fees.
Management Agreement
This document describes the working relationship for roles and responsibilities between
the City and the PVPLC as related to the habitat and general Preserve management
required by the NCCP/HCP (attached to the Implementing Agreement as Exhibit D).
The PVPLC is responsible for completing specific habitat management and monitoring
tasks within the entire Preserve to the satisfaction of the City, as well as State and
Federal Wildlife Agencies. The Management Agreement also describes the
responsibilities held by the City. The Management Agreement was approved by the City
Council in November 2011 and an amendment was approved by the City Council on
April 14, 2014. The major responsibilities for each entity is summarized below (there are
no modifications proposed):
City:
• Public safety and rules enforcement
• Approval and Implementation of the Preserve Trails Plan
• Access control
• Sanitation services (porta-potty and garbage service)
• Trail and road maintenance
• Spur Trail Closures
• Fuel Modification
• Graffiti/Vandalism repair
• Entry and regulatory signage
PVPLC:
Biological monitoring and reporting
Habitat restoration (5 acres every year), habitat enhancement (invasive plant
removal) and habitat monitoring (annual reports)
Prepares and Implements Habitat Restoration plan
11
• Fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on PVPLC owned lands
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 requires the development of a 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 7 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.
It is important to note that public access is not a requirement of the NCCP, but is rather
a feature that the City chose. In 1996, the City, with widespread public support, chose to
create a Preserve that is open to the public for passive recreational purposes. Public
access is an activity that is conditionally compatible with the NCCP/HCP, and is subject
to modification if it adversely impacts the primary biological objectives of the
NCCP/HCP. Many of the City's responsibilities in the Preserve stem from land
ownership (fuel modification, landslide abatement, liability) and the decision to allow
public access and passive recreation (public safety, access control, maintenance). In
order for the City to meet the NCCP/HCP's biological objectives while continuing to
allow public access, the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies will collaborate to ensure a
balance between conservation priorities and passive recreation is achieved.
Financial Obliaations
The City and PVPLC have financial obligations to the NCCP/HCP. Annual financial
obligations are broken into two categories, as shown in Appendix C: (1) funding
required to conduct the conservation requirements of the Plan, and (2) costs associated
directly with land ownership and public access/passive recreation. Annual funding
obligations have also been identified during the 40 -year Permit term, and post -Permit
term. The charts below summarize City and PVPLC annual funding obligations during
the permit term and post -permit term. It should be noted that since the 2018 NCCP/HCP
document was made available on March 20th, calculation errors were identified in
Section 8 and Appendix C of the NCCP/HCP, which have been corrected and attached
to this Staff Report (Attachment C).
Annual Preserve Management Costs During Permit Term
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (City) $249,210
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (PVPLC) $230,559
12
Costs related to land ownership and public access (City)
Costs related to land ownership and public access (PVPLC)
Total Annual Preserve Management Costs
Annual Preserve Management Costs Post Permit Term
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (City)
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (PVPLC)
Costs related to land ownership and public access (City)
Costs related to land ownership and public access (PVPLC)
Total Annual Post -Permit Preserve Management Costs
$1,286,209
$19,460
$1,785,438
$94,910
$22,030
$1,286,209
$5,000
$1,408,149
A significant portion of the management and maintenance costs are in response to the
popularity of the Preserve by the general public. Social media is largely responsible for
increased awareness and use of the Preserve, and the impacts on some Preserve
neighbors. In response, the City has increased costs related to management, including
rules, enforcement, public safety, maintenance, signage, parking solutions, and public
education.
In addition to annual management costs, as a post -permit requirement to ensure the
continued conservation management, the Plan requires the City pay the PVPLC
$10,000 annually that is to be adjusted annually by the CPI -U (based on the rate in
February), thereby removing any financial obligations related to conservation
management by the City post -permit (aside from $94,910 of estimated Staff costs). The
PVPLC's investment strategy of the fund is anticipated to generate at least $863,000
(adjusted for CPI -U) by the end of the 40 year -Permit Term which will assure sufficient
funding for the perpetual management of the conservation easements of the Preserve.
The Plan also necessitates that the City maintain a dedicated Habitat Restoration Fund
of at least $50,000 (adjusted annually by the CPI -U) that may be used to fund a variety
of habitat restoration purposes including as payment to the PVPLC for their habitat
management defined in the City-PVPLC Management Agreement, as a contribution
toward the non -wasting endowment fund discussed above, or as a contribution to the
PVPLC to perform habitat conservation activities beyond the requirements of the Plan.
A detailed discussion on the financial obligations can be found in Section 8 of the
NCCP/HCP (Attachment C).
Adoption of an Addendum to the 2004 -Council Certified EIR
On August 31, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-72 certifying a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
13
Act (CEQA) (Attachment B). The City, with the assistance of an environmental
consultant (DUDEK), has determined that the appropriate environmental review for the
2018 NCCP/HCP is an Addendum to the Council -Certified EIR given that none of the
conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 151621
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Supplemental to the certified Final
EIR have occurred (Attachment A).
The Addendum concludes that there are no new significant impacts resulting from the
proposed updated project and there would not be a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified environmental impacts identified in the 2004 FEIR. Based on a
review of the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the habitat conservation (Section 4.1 through Section
4.4 and Appendix B of the NCCP/HCP), habitat restoration (Section 7.5 and 7.6 of the
NCCP/HCP), habitat management and monitoring activities of the City-wide Preserve
system (Section 7, Section 9, and Appendix H and I of the NCCP/HCP), and the other
resource protection mechanisms of the NCCP/HCP (Section 6 and Appendix F of the
NCCP/HCP) would offset the significant effects of the Covered Projects and Activities
on biological resources, as was concluded for the original project. Additionally, since the
original project was analyzed, the City, the PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies have been
implementing the conservation strategy of the NCCP/HCP resulting in build out of the
City-wide Preserve system, which is the core element of the conservation strategy for
the Plan. Therefore, the 2018 NCCP/HCP, like the 2004 document, mitigates impacts to
sensitive species below a level of significance, which is consistent with the
determination from the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary. In addition, no
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be
undertaken would result in new or more severe environmental impacts. Therefore, no
additional environmental review is deemed necessary pursuant to CEQA.
The Council is being asked to adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) approving
the Addendum to the 2004 Council -certified Final EIR.
Wildlife Agencies 60 -Day Public Comment Period
According to NEPA, the required Environmental Assessment (EA) must circulate for a
period of at least 30 -days. The City, in collaboration with the Wildlife Agencies agreed to
extend the public comment period to 60 days. The public comment period will begin the
federal register process approximately 2 to 3 months after the City Council approves
these documents. This is also the time when the Wildlife Agencies begin the analysis of
the permit decision document.
Next Processing Steps
If City Council approves the NCCP/HCP this evening, the following are the next steps:
The USFWS will submit the documents for federal review. The length of this
process varies, but can be anticipated to be approximately a 2 to 3 months.
14
2. A 60 -day public comment period commences when the documents have been
accepted for federal review.
3. If the Wildlife Agencies grant the permits, the NCCP/HCP will be brought back to
City Council for final adoption. Within 90 days of City Council adoption, the City
must:
a. Initiate recording the required Conservation Easement over the Preserve
properties.
b. Initiate amendments to the General Plan, Municipal Code, CEQA guidelines,
and Zoning Map to reflect the NCCP/HCP (some of these amendments have
already occurred or are in the process of being considered, such as General
Plan amendments).
c. Submit a Preserve Access Protocol to the Wildlife Agencies for approval.
4. Within 90 days initiation of amendments, submit the amendments to the Wildlife
Agencies for approval.
5. Within 60 days of Wildlife Agency approval of amendments
a. Submit amendments to Planning Commission for review, and eventual
adoption by the City Council.
To reiterate, after the federal review public comment period concludes, the final
NCCP/HCP will be brouaht back to the Citv Council for final adoption.
In addition to the above, Staff will bring to the City Council, at a later date, any
amendments that may be warranted to the City-PVPLC Management Agreement and
the Public Use Master Plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC)
The PVPLC is a 501(c)3 non-profit land trust founded in 1988 with the mission to
preserve land and restore habitat for the education and enjoyment of all. The PVPLC
executes this mission by working cooperatively with the four cities in which the
preserved lands are located: Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates,
and San Pedro (City of Los Angeles). In collaboration with these cities, the PVPLC
holds voluntary conservation easements, owns land in fee title, and manages the
habitat for public natural lands.
In 1989, the PVPLC began efforts to preserve lands in and around the Portuguese Bend
area. The PVPLC acquired and preserved Lunada Canyon in 1992. In 2001, the City
asked the PVPLC to manage the then Forrestal Nature Preserve. In 2002, the City and
the PVPLC joined in efforts to advocate for federal funding for the NCCP via a trip to
Washington D.C. and consecutive lobbying actions. Subsequent to this, the PVPLC
joined the City's planning efforts for the NCCP Plan and agreed to assist the City in
helping to meet conservation related objectives via helping to fund and carry out habitat
restoration and biological services. The City and the PVPLC signed the purchase and
sale agreement with Barry Hon in 2004 and the approximately 450 acres of Portuguese
15
Bend were acquired by the City in 2005. This was made possible by significant public
funds and a $4 million gift from the PVPLC to the City from private donations. In 2009,
the City and the PVPLC again partnered for the acquisition of 191 acres known as
Upper Filiorum, purchased from Mr. York. The funding for this acquisition was provided
by the Coastal Conservancy, the City (via LA County grants) and the PVPLC. In 2011,
the City Council approved a 50 -year Management Agreement with the PVPLC for the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. This was to formalize the service commitments and
related annual payments to the PVPLC which cover a portion of the habitat restoration
and biological monitoring expenses as required by the NCCP/HCP.
Public Notice
On March 15, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News
and issued to list -serve subscribers (Breaking News and Portuguese Bend) announcing
tonight's special City Council meeting. Public comments submitted as a result of the
public notice are attached (Attachment E). Public comments submitted after the
transmittal of this Staff Report will be provided to the Council as late correspondence
the night of the meeting.
Notice of Availability of the 2018 Final Draft NCCP/HCP
On March 20, 2018, a list -serve message was issued to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
list -serve notification group announcing the availability of the document posted on the
City's website. The documents posted include a clean version and a track changes
version. The track changes version identifies the changes made to the document since
the October 2, 2017 City Council public workshop.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council's consideration:
1. Identify issues and/or concerns and provide staff with direction on how to
proceed with the NCCP/HCP process.
16
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE CERTIFIED
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NATURAL
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN / HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY'S NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Act of 1991, Cal.
Fish & Game Code § 2800 et seq., provides for the preparation and implementation of
large-scale natural resource conservation plans that identify and provide for the protection
and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing for compatible and appropriate
development and growth, and while providing comprehensive management and
conservation of multiple species; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Section 10 Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) process of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., also provides an opportunity
for species protection and habitat conservation within the context of non -Federal
development and land use activities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved a
NCCP/HCP Subarea Plan for the City (2004 NCCP/HCP); and
WHEREAS, the City analyzed the 2004 NCCP/HCP's potential impacts on the
environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code
Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment (EIR/EA) for the 2004 NCCP/HCP, and the Final EIR (2004 FEIR) was
certified by the City Council on August 31, 2004. The 2004 NCCP/HCP was developed as a
regional conservation plan to maximize benefits for covered species and vegetation
communities while accommodating appropriate economic development within the City
pursuant to the requirements of the NCCP Act and Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered
Species Act. As analyzed in the 2004 FEIR, the primary conservation strategy of the 2004
NCCP/HCP was to dedicate and manage habitat lands within a 1,504.1 -acre Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve (Preserve) for the benefit of 13 covered species; and
WHEREAS, although the City Council certified the FEIR in 2004, incidental take
permits pursuant to the state and federal Endangered Species Acts were not issued by the
Wildlife Agencies (i.e., collectively the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) for the 2004 NCCP/HCP. However, an interim
incidental take permit was issued to the City allowing take until the NCCP/HCP is adopted.
The City has been implementing the NCCP/HCP since 2004, and it continues to coordinate
01203.0005/459319.4
A-1
with the Wildlife Agencies on issues related to the NCCP/HCP. As part of NCCP/HCP
implementation, the City continues to build the Preserve through acquisitions and
dedications. In 2006, the City entered into an interim contract with the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC; the Preserve Manager) to monitor and manage the
NCCP/HCP Preserve system, and in 2011, the City and the PVPLC entered into a
comprehensive Preserve Management Agreement to monitor and manage the NCCP/HCP
Preserve during the permit term. Additionally, as required by the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the City
prepared and adopted a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) in 2013 intended to balance the
public's passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources with the City's
Preserve; and
WHEREAS, since 2004, the City has been working with Wildlife Agencies and the
PVPLC to finalize the NCCP/HCP. In March 2018, the City completed the NCCP/HCP
(2018 NCCP/HCP). Like the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the primary conservation strategy of the
2018 NCCP/HCP is to dedicate and manage habitat lands within a Preserve system. The
configuration of the 2018 NCCP/HCP Preserve design has been revised to reflect land
acquisitions/dedications and private landowner negotiations that have occurred during
implementation of the 2004 NCCP/HCP, as well as refining the breadth and scope of the
covered activities and projects. The 2018 NCCP/HCP Preserve design covers a total of
1,402.4 acres, all of which are existing public land and/or private lands already dedicated to
the Preserve that will be monitored and managed over the long term for the benefit of 10
covered species; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, it was determined that the Covered Activities and Projects (21
originally Covered Projects/Activities) would result in unavoidable loss of 40.2 acres of CSS
and 106.3 acres of non-native grassland. These impacts would have been mitigated by the
dedication of 322.2 acres of City -owned land and 5.6 acres of revegetation with the
Preserve. Mitigation for private projects would be provided by dedication of private land or
donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 NCCP/HCP assumes incidental take coverage for 17 Covered
City Projects and Activities, 5 private projects, and other specific activities in the Preserve.
The Covered City Projects/Activities are proposed to occur inside and outside of the
Preserve and are anticipated to impact a maximum of 120.5 acres of CSS and 318.7 acres
of non-native grassland. Of these total impacts, it is estimated that 62.5 acres of the
impacted CSS (52%) and 155.8 acres of the impacted non-native grassland (49%) will
occur within the Preserve. The Covered Private Projects are proposed to occur outside of
the Preserve and are anticipated to impact a maximum of 99.5 acres of CSS and 262.8
acres of grassland. Similar to the 2004 NCCP/HCP, these impacts will be mitigated by each
project proponent by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the habitat
restoration fund by the private entities; and
WHEREAS, the City's dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123 acres,
including the 499.9 acres of City Mitigation Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of
Previous Mitigation Lands, and dedication and management of 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands,
is intended to provide the necessary mitigation for CSS and grassland for Covered City and
Miscellaneous Private Projects and Activities (both outside and inside the Preserve). The
01203.0005/459319.4
A-2
City will mitigate these impacts by dedicating City lands to the Preserve and providing
restoration and management funding for the Preserve. Of the 737 acres of CSS and
associated vegetation communities within the Preserve, a maximum of 62.5 acres (<9%)
could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 674.5 acres
(92%) of CSS in the Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of grassland
within the Preserve, a maximum of 155.8 acres (33%) could be impacted by Covered City
Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 315.1 acres. Through Plan implementation, non-
native grassland within the Preserve may be restored to native habitat. A minimum of 250
acres of habitat over the Permit Term (50 years) within the Preserve (a minimum of 5 acres
of habitat shall be restored each year); and
WHEREAS, the Addendum, attached as Exhibit "A", to the 2004 EIR/EA has been
prepared to address the proposed project modifications in the 2018 NCCP/HCP.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated as
though fully set forth herein.
Section 2. The City Council determines that, pursuant to Sections 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent environmental impact review to the 2004 City Council -
certified Environmental Impact Review (2004 FEIR) is not required for the following
reasons:
No substantial changes are proposed in the 2018 NCCP/HCP (the Project)
which will require major revisions of the FEIR as no involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects is anticipated. Based on a review of
the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the habitat conservation (Section 4.1 through Section
4.4 and Appendix B of the NCCP/HCP), habitat restoration (Section 7.5 and
7.6 of the NCCP/HCP), habitat management and monitoring activities of the
City-wide Preserve system (Section 7, Section 9, and Appendix H and I of
the NCCP/HCP), and the other resource protection mechanisms of the
NCCP/HCP (Section 6 and Appendix F of the NCCP/HCP) would offset the
significant effects of the Covered Projects and Activities on biological
resources, as was concluded for the original project. Additionally since the
original project was analyzed, the City, the PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies
have been implementing the conservation strategy of the NCCP/HCP
resulting in build out of the City-wide Preserve system, which is the core
element of the conservation strategy for the plan. Therefore, the updated
project, like the original project, would mitigate impacts on sensitive species
below a level of significance, which is consistent with the determination from
the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary.
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the Project is undertaken which require major revisions of the
01203.0005/459319.4
A-3
FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the FEIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the FEIR;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the FEIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the FEIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Section 3. The City Council therefore finds that an Addendum to the 2004 FEIR is
the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed changes of the 2018 NCCP/HCP
given that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The environmental analysis
in the Addendum properly relies on the analyses completed in the 2004 FEIR and directly
references the 2004 FEIR where appropriate.
Section 4: City Staff shall file a Notice of Determination pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21152.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 29th day of March 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
01203.0005/459319.4
A-4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2018 -XX was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 29, 2018.
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
01203.0005/459319.4
A-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
for the
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
and
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
State Clearinghouse Number 2003071008
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Contact: Ara W ranian
Prepared by:
DUDFK
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
MARCH 2018
Wo
Printed on 30% post -consumer recycled material.
A-7
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................III
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................1
2 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3
2.1 Project Overview....................................................................................................
3
3 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS.................................11
4 ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................13
4.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.........................................................
13
4.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..................................................................
13
4.3 Impact Analysis....................................................................................................
14
4.3.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................
14
4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..........................................................
15
4.3.3 Air Quality................................................................................................
16
4.3.4 Biological Resources................................................................................
17
4.3.5 Cultural Resources....................................................................................
34
4.3.6 Geology and Soils.....................................................................................
35
4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................
36
4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................
38
4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................
39
4.3.10 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................
40
4.3.11 Mineral Resources....................................................................................
49
4.3.12 Noise.........................................................................................................
49
4.3.13 Population and Housing............................................................................
50
4.3.14 Public Services..........................................................................................
51
4.3.15 Recreation.................................................................................................
52
4.3.16 Transportation/Traffic...............................................................................55
4.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................
56
5 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................59
6 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................61
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
DUDEK
ProjectLocation.....................................................................................................63
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP Preserve Design..............................................65
10634
March 2018
A-8
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Page No.
Table 1 Summary of Preserve Acreage Revisions from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the
2018 NCCP/HCP.................................................................................................................7
Table 2 Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities from the 2004
NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP...................................................................................9
Table 3 Summary of Habitat Loss and Preserve Acreage and Status for the 2004
NCCP/HCP and the 2018 NCCP/HCP..............................................................................22
Table 4 Summary of the Habitat Loss by Vegetation Type for the 2004 NCCP/HCP
and the 2018 NCCP/HCP..................................................................................................26
Table 5 Covered Species Locations in the Preserve and Neutral Lands for the 2018
NCCP/HCP........................................................................................................................28
Table 6 Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies..............................................43
U
10634
DUD
E V
V G I` ii March 201818
A-9
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation
Definition
CDFW
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
EA
Environmental Assessment
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FEIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
NCCP
Natural Community Conservation Plan
ND
Negative Declaration
PUMP
Public Use Master Plan
PVPLC
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
USFWS
Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service
10634
March 2018
A-10
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10634
March 2018
A-11
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) prepared an Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the 2004 Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Subarea Plan (2004 NCCP/HCP), and the Final EIR (2004 FEIR) was certified
by the City Council on August 31, 2004. The 2004 NCCP/HCP was developed as a regional
conservation plan to maximize benefits for covered species and vegetation communities while
accommodating appropriate economic development within the City pursuant to the requirements of
the NCCP Act and Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act. As analyzed in the 2004 FEIR,
the primary conservation strategy of the 2004 NCCP/HCP was to dedicate and manage habitat lands
within a 1,504.1 -acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) for the benefit of 13 covered species.
Although the City Council certified the FEIR in 2004, incidental take permits pursuant to the state
and federal Endangered Species Acts were not issued by the Wildlife Agencies (i.e., collectively
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS]) for the 2004 NCCP/HCP. However, an interim incidental take permit was issued to the
City allowing take until the NCCP/HCP is adopted. The City has been implementing the
NCCP/HCP since 2004, and it continues to coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on issues related
to the NCCP/HCP. As part of NCCP/HCP implementation, the City continues to build the Preserve
through acquisitions and dedications. In 2006, the City entered into an interim contract with the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC; the Preserve Manager) to monitor and
manage the NCCP/HCP Preserve system, and in 2011, the City and the PVPLC entered into a
comprehensive Preserve Management Agreement to monitor and manage the NCCP/HCP
Preserve during the permit term. Additionally, as required by the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the City
prepared and adopted a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) in 2013 intended to balance the public's
passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within the City's Preserve.
Since 2004, the City has been working with Wildlife Agencies and the PVPLC to finalize the
NCCP/HCP. In March 2018, the City completed the NCCP/HCP (2018 NCCP/HCP). Like the
2004 NCCP/HCP, the primary conservation strategy of the 2018 NCCP/HCP is to dedicate and
manage habitat lands within a Preserve system. The configuration of the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Preserve design has been revised to reflect land acquisitions/dedications and private landowner
negotiations that have occurred during implementation of the 2004 NCCP/HCP, as well as refining
the breadth and scope of the covered activities and projects. The 2018 NCCP/HCP Preserve design
covers a total of 1,402.4 acres, all of which are existing public land and/or private lands already
dedicated to the Preserve that will be monitored and managed over the long term for the benefit of
10 covered species. In terms of covered activities, in 2004, it was determined that the covered
activities (21 originally covered projects/activities) would result in unavoidable loss of 40.2 acres
of CSS and 106.3 acres of non-native grassland. These impacts would have been mitigated by the
DUDEK 1 March 0634 2018
A-12
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
dedication of 322.2 acres of City -owned land and 5.6 acres of revegetation with the Preserve.
Mitigation for private projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of
monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
The 2018 NCCP/HCP assumes incidental take coverage for 17 Covered City Projects and
Activities, 5 Private Projects, and other specific activities in the Preserve. The Covered City
Projects/Activities are proposed to occur inside and outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to
impact a maximum of 120.5 acres of CSS and 318.7 acres of non-native grassland. Of these total
impacts, it is estimated that 62.5 acres of the impacted CSS (52%) and 155.8 acres of the impacted
non-native grassland (49%) will occur within the Preserve. The Covered Private Projects are
proposed to occur outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to impact a maximum of 99.5 acres
of CSS and 262.8 acres of grassland. Similar to the 2004 NCCP/HCP, these impacts will be
mitigated by each project proponent by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the
habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
The City's dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123 acres, including the 499.9 acres
of City Mitigation Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of Previous Mitigation Lands, and
dedication and management of 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands, is intended to provide the necessary
mitigation for CSS and grassland for Covered City and Miscellaneous Private Projects and
Activities (both outside and inside the Preserve). The City will mitigate these impacts by
dedicating City lands to the Preserve and providing restoration and management funding for the
Preserve. Of the 737 acres of CSS and associated vegetation communities within the Preserve, a
maximum of 62.5 acres (<9%) could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a
minimum of 674.5 acres (92%) of CSS in the Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9
acres of grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of 155.8 acres (33%) could be impacted by
Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 315.1 acres. Through Plan
implementation, non-native grassland within the Preserve will also be restored to native habitat.
Restoration is the process of re-establishing or enhancing historical biological functions and values
to degraded habitats. A minimum of 250 acres of habitat within the Preserve will be restored over
the Permit Term (50 years). A minimum of 5 acres of habitat shall be restored each year.
In order to evaluate the refinements and implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP, the City
is analyzing the updated project (i.e., the 2018 NCCP/HCP) compared to the 2004 NCCP/HCP
under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
This Final EIR Addendum to the 2004 EIR/EA has been prepared to address the proposed project
modifications in the 2018 NCCP/HCP.
DUDEK 2 March 0634 2018
A-13
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Overview
Project Title
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Contact Person and Phone Number
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Phone: 310.544.5227
E-mail: aram@rpvca.gov
Project Location
The project location includes the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles
County, California.
Environmental Setting
The 13.6 -square -mile City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the southwest side of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula in Los Angeles County, California. The City is bounded on the north by Rolling Hills,
Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates communities and to the east by the community of San
Pedro in the City of Los Angeles and to the west by the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1).
Brief Description of Original Project (2004 NCCP/HCP)
The original project involved the development and implementation of a City-wide NCCP/HCP to
maximize benefits for covered species and vegetation communities while accommodating
appropriate economic development within the City pursuant to the requirements of the NCCP Act
and Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 2004 NCCP/HCP identified
habitat to be conserved in the City's Preserve system, the conservation mechanisms, and the
interim protection measures for habitat not expected to be ultimately conserved. The 2004
NCCP/HCP established actions the City would take to obtain state and federal take authorization
DUDEK 3 March 0634 2018
A-14
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
from the Wildlife Agencies for 13 covered species for a permit duration of 50 years, including
current and future management, maintenance, and compatible uses (e.g., passive recreation) of
conserved lands, as well as funding for habitat management. The original project also identified
the process for mitigating development on habitat not conserved, and how permits and take
authorizations for covered species would be obtained. Through the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the authority
for infrastructure development and land use decisions was to be retained by the City and enhanced
the ability to independently approve impacts to endangered species that were consistent with the
plan.
The 2004 NCCP/HCP addressed 21 covered City projects/activities that were estimated to result
in unavoidable loss of 40.2 acres of coastal sage scrub and 106.3 acres of non-native grassland and
9 covered private projects/activities estimated to result in the loss of 15.2 acres of coastal sage
scrub and 81.0 acres of non-native grassland. These impacts would have been mitigated by the
dedication of 322.2 acres of City -owned land and 5.6 acres of revegetation with the Preserve.
Mitigation for private projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of
monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
The primary conservation strategy of the 2004 NCCP/HCP was to dedicate selected City -owned
lands, land owned by the PVPLC, acquire several key privately -owned parcels, and have the
PVPLC monitor and manage the Preserve system with assistance from the City and Wildlife
Agencies. The Preserve system was designed to be consistent with NCCP conservation and
management standards and guidelines and the issuance criteria for ESA Section 10(a) take
authorizations for species covered by the incidental take permit. The Preserve system of the
original project was designed to conserve regionally important habitat areas and provide adequate
habitat linkages between patches of conserved habitat. The Preserve system of the original project
covered an estimated 1,504.1 -acres and included the following components (refined mapping of
the property's acreage was required after the approval of the NCCP):
• Existing Public Lands
o City -owned lands already dedicated as biological open space, including: Switchbacks
Parcel, Shoreline Park Parcel, Forrestal Parcel, and portion of Oceanfront Estates
Project City -owned open space.
o City Redevelopment Agency -owned lands to be dedicated, including: Barkentine
Parcel, portion of the Upper Point Vicente Property, portion of the Lower Point Vicente
Property, portion of the Fishing Access Property, portion of the Abalone Cove
Property, Del Cerro Buffer Property, and a portion of the Crestridge Property.
D U D E K 4 March 0634 2018
A-15
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
o Other Public/Conserved lands, including Ocean Trail Project open space to be
transferred to the City, the Lunada Canyon Preserve owned by PVPLC, and the Coast
Guard Property.
• Private development projects under the original project were anticipated to contribute
biological open space including a portion of the Point View (Lower Filiorum) Parcel.
• Private lands were anticipated to be purchased under the original project to complete the
Preserve system, including a portion of the Portuguese Bend Parcel, the Agua Amarga
Canyon Parcel, and the Upper and Middle Filiorum Parcels.
Brief Description of the Updated Project (2018 NCCP/HCP)
The updated project is the same as the original project in nearly all aspects. Like the original
project, the 2018 NCCP/HCP involves the development and implementation of a City-wide
NCCP/HCP to maximize benefits for covered species and vegetation communities while
accommodating appropriate economic development within the City pursuant to the requirements
of the NCCP Act and Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Like the 2004
plan, the updated project identifies habitat to be conserved in the Preserve system, the mechanisms
for conservation, and the interim protection measures associated with covered activities, and it
establishes the actions the City would take to implement and fund monitoring and management of
the Preserve. The 2018 NCCP/HCP addresses 10 covered species for a permit duration of 40 years.
The 2018 NCCP/HCP would provide incidental take coverage for covered activities, including 17
Covered City Projects and Activities, 5 private projects, and other specific activities in the
Preserve. The Covered City Projects/Activities are proposed to occur inside and outside of the
Preserve and are anticipated to impact a maximum of 120.5 acres of CSS and 318.7 acres of non-
native grassland. Of these total impacts, it is estimated that 62.5 acres of the impacted CSS (52%)
and 155.8 acres of the impacted non-native grassland (49%) will occur within the Preserve. The
Covered Private Projects are proposed to occur outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to
impact a maximum of 99.5 acres of CSS and 262.8 acres of grassland. Similar to the 2004
NCCP/HCP, these impacts will be mitigated by each project proponent by dedication of private
land or donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
Like the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the primary conservation strategy of the 2018 NCCP/HCP is to
dedicate selected City -owned lands, acquire several key privately -owned parcels, and have the
PVPLC monitor and manage the habitat within the Preserve system with assistance from the
City and Wildlife Agencies. The Preserve system of the updated project covers 1,402.4 acres of
public and private lands that have all been conserved at the time of Plan completion and includes
the following components:
DUDEK 5 March 0634 2018
A-16
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
• Existing public lands dedicated to the Preserve
o City -owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve:, including the Forrestal Parcels, a portion of
the Portuguese Bend Parcel, Agua Amarga Canyon, Upper Filiorum, a portion of the
Abalone Cove Property, a portion of the Lower Point Vicente Property, a portion of the
Pelican Cover Property (formally Fisherman's Access), Barkentine Property, Malaga
Canyon Property, Del Cerro Buffer Property, a portion of the Upper Point Vicente
Property, Crestridge Property, and a portion of the Shoreline Park.
o PVPLC-owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve include Lunada Canyon.
• Lands dedicated as previous mitigation, including Switchbacks Property, a portion of the
Shoreline Park Property, a portion of the open space at Ocean Front Estates, and the Trump
National/Ocean Trails open space properties.
Other Private and Public Lands are being targeted for future dedication to the Preserve under the
updated project, including the Coast Guard Upper Point Vicente Property, Coast Guard Lighthouse
Property, a portion of the Terranea Reserve Bluff Face, Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP
property, certain HOA properties, a portion of the Point View property (Lower Filiorum), a portion
of the 3787 Coolheights Drive conservation easement property, and land adjacent to Agua Amarga
Canyon.
The Preserve design of the 2018 NCCP41CP differs from the 2004 NCCP/HCP in three major ways:
1. The acquisition/dedication status of Preserve lands has changed as parcels have been
acquired/dedicated since the original project,
2. The refinement of the actual property acreages based on updated mapping as required to
occur after the approval of the 2004 NCCP/HCP, and
3. The configuration and overall acreage of the Preserve design has been revised slightly since
the original project based on negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies, the City, and
property owners.
Based on the 2018 NCCP/HCP, all 1,402.4 acres of the Preserve system are currently in City or
PVPLC ownership or have otherwise been dedicated to the Preserve. At the time of the 2004
NCCP/HCP, only 836.5 acres of public land had been conserved as part of the Preserve at Plan
completion. Table 1 summarizes the estimated Preserve acreage differences between the 2004 and
2018 NCCP/HCP.
D U D E K 6 March 0634 2018
A-17
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 1
Summary of Preserve Acreage Revisions
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Property
20041
20181
Reason for Boundary Revision
Barkentine/Three Sisters
98
98.4
Acreage clarification
Switchbacks
102
94.5
Removal of PV Drive East roadway
Shoreline Park
53
49.7
Clarification to exclude the rocky shore, and includes the 4
acres of mitigation land at Trump National to be dedicated to
the Preserve.
Forrestal
163
158
Removal of the Forrestal Drive roadway
Ocean Front Estates
69
51.6
Clarification to exclude the rocky shore, and a portion of the
riparian area in western section of property
Lower Pt Vicente
10
3.4
Clarification to exclude the rocky shore and park area around
PVIC
Fishing Access/Pelican Cove
6
7.5
Acreage clarification
Alta Vicente/Upper Point Vicente
65
50.9
Removal of the area containing underground
bunkers/overlook, and the eastern gravel parking area
Abalone Cove
100
65.2
Removal of RDA property and Shoreline Park areas
Del Cerro Buffer
17.4
17.4
Crestridge/Vista del Norte
16.8
16.8
Ocean Trails
66.9
66.9
Lunada Canyon
20
20.7
Acreage clarification
Portuguese Bend/Hon
410.9
409.8
The 2004 document inadvertently called out the acreage as
422.3 by including a portion of the sandbox area near PVDS
and has been corrected for the 2004 acreage based on follow-
up mapping clarifications, and further refined for the 2018
acreage.
Agua Amarga
43.8
40.3
Acreage clarification
Upper Filiorum/Middle Filiorum
218.4
189.8
Middle Filiorum not acquired
Point View/Lower Filiorum
40
40
Proposed Covered Private Project
Malaga Canyon
0
61.5
Canyon Parcels added
Grand View Park
9
0
Removed by City Council in 2004
Coast Guard Property (Upper
3.9
3_9
Pt. Vicente)
Targeted lands
Coast Guard Property (Lower
0
19.1
Targeted lands
Pt. Vicente)
Terranea Resort Bluff Face
0
10
Targeted lands
Trump Nation/Ocean Trails HCP
0
6_6
Targeted lands
Related
Identified HOAs
136.6
76.1
Targeted lands
Lands Adjacent to Agua Amarga
0
14
Targeted lands
Canyon
Portion of 3787 Coolheights
0
1
Targeted lands
Drive
D U D E K 7 March 20018
A-18
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 1
Summary of Preserve Acreage Revisions
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Property
20041
20181
Reason for Boundary Revision
Long Point Parcel (bluff face)
40
0
Removed by City Council in 2004
TOTAL CONSERVED AT
PLAN COMPLETION
836.52
1,402.4
TARGETED TOTAL
1,689.73
1,573.1
Bold and underlined acreages refer to properties that were/are not conserved at time of Plan completion and are identified as Covered Private
Projects or Targeted Areas to be included in the Preserve.
2 The 836.5 -acre total that is provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP in Section 3.1.1 was based on approximations and is not consistent with the
individual acreages provided in that section. The "Total Preserve and Other Targeted Lands" total for 2004 is different from the 1,504 -acre
Preserve total provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP due to the inclusion of the Grand View Park parcel, the Identified HOA's, and the Long Point
parcel. These parcels were removed from the Plan by the City Council in 2004.
3 The targeted total is different from the 1,504 -acre Preserve total provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP due to the inclusion of the Grand View Park
parcel, the Identified HOA's, and the Long Point parcel, that were removed from the Plan by the City Council in 2004.
In terms of Preserve design acreage/configuration, the majority of the 2018 NCCP/HCP Preserve
design is unchanged from the 2004 NCCP/HCP. In the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the major differences in
the Preserve design resulted in the addition of the Malaga Canyon property located in the northern
portion of the City that was not included as part the Preserve design in the original project and the
removal of the archery range portion of the Abalone Cove property. Additionally, there were minor
mapping corrections made throughout the overall Preserve including corrections to the acreage
calculation for the Portuguese Bend property regarding the sandbox area. Overall, the updated
project includes a 1,402.4 acres conserved in the Preserve at the time of Plan completion as
compared to a 836.5 acres conserved in the Preserve at the time of completion of the 2004
NCCP/HCP.
Table 2 provides a summary of the Covered Projects and Activities from the 2004 NCCP/HCP
compared to the 2018 NCCP/HCP. As this table shows, there are fewer City and Private projects
and activities covered under the 2018 NCCP/HCP as compared to the list of projects and activities
in the original project. The habitat loss under the original project was less than that of the updated
project; however, this has been mitigated through substantial increases in dedicated acreage in the
Preserve and through the ongoing implementation of the conservation strategy and long-term
management and monitoring of the Preserve that has occurred and will continue under the 2018
NCCP/HCP.
1634
D U D E K 8 March 0018
A-19
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 2
Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
10634
D U Q E K 9 March 2018
A-20
CSS
Grassland
CSS
Grassland
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
2004 Project List
Loss
Loss
2018 Project List
Loss
Loss
2004 NCCP/HCP Covered City Projects and Activities
2018 NCCP/HCP Covered City Projects and Activities
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage
2.5
3.0
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage
2.5
3.0
Project
Project
2. Dewatering Wells
2.5
2.5
2. Dewatering Wells
2.5
2.5
3. Misc. Fissure Filling
3.0
3.0
3. Landslide Abatement
5.0
15.0
Measures
4. Misc. Damaged Drain Repair
5.0
15.0
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in
10.0
15.0
Landslide Areas
5. Portuguese Canyon Drainage
0.5
--
5. PVDE Drainage
5.0
15.0
Project
Improvement Project
6. Sacred Cove Geologic
0.1
6. Misc. Drainage
20.0
60.0
Investigation
Improvements
7. PVDS Roadway Rehabilitation
0.2
7. Abalone Cove Beach Project
1.0
2.0
8. PCDS Emergency Washout
0.4
-
8. RPV Trails Plan
4.0
10.0
Project
Implementation
9. PVDE Drainage Improvement
4.0
12.0
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon
0.3
0.0
Project
Repair
10. Misc. Drainage Improvements
10.0
24.0
10. Lower Point Vicente
1.5
11.2
11. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase
0.4
--
11. Palos Verdes Drive South
5.0
15.0
2)
Road Repair
12. Abalone Cove Beach Project
0.2
1.0
1 12. Upper Pt. Vicente
2.0
22.0
13. Tarapaca Sewer Line
0.5
--
13. Preserve Fuel Modification
12.0
18
Relocation
14. Forrestal Property Trail
0.1
14. Utility Maintenance and
10.0
20.0
Clearing
Repair
15. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase
0.1
15. Unimproved City Park
10.0
20.0
1)
Projects
16. San Ramon Canyon Repair
1.0
-
16. Malaga Canyon Drainage
5.0
15.0
Improvements
17. McCarrell Canyon Outlet
0.2
-
17. Other Miscellaneous City
20.0
60.0
Improvement
projects
18. *RPV Trails Plan
5.0
15.0
Subtotal of Covered City
115.8
303.7
Implementation
Projects /Activities
19. Lower San Ramon Canyon
2.0
6.0
Repair
20. Active Recreation Area
1.0
13.6
21. Lower Point Vicente
1.5
11.2
Subtotal of Covered City Projects /
40.2
106.3
Activities
10634
D U Q E K 9 March 2018
A-20
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 2
Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Under the 2004 NCCP/HCP, this habitat loss was proposed to be offset by the dedication of 322.2 acres of City -owned land and 5.6 acres of
revegetation with the Preserve. Mitigation for Covered Private Projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of monies
to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
Under the 2018 NCCP/HCP, The City's dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123 acres, including the 499.9 acres of City Mitigation
Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of Previous Mitigation Lands, and 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands, is intended to provide the necessary
mitigation for the habitat loss for Covered City and Miscellaneous Covered Private Projects and Activities. Mitigation for Covered Private
Projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
Additionally since the original project was analyzed in the 2004 FEIR, the City has implemented
two key requirements of the 2004 NCCP/HCP: Development and adoption of a Public Use Master
Plan (PUMP) for the City's open space, and the execution and implementation of the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC. The original project
referred to the PUMP and the management agreement as requirements of 2004 NCCP/HCP
implementation, whereas the 2018 NCCP/HCP now incorporates these documents by reference
since they have now been adopted and executed.
D U Q E K 10 March 20018
A-21
CSS
Grassland
CSS
Grassland
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
2004 Project List
Loss
Loss
2018 Project List
Loss
Loss
2004 NCCP/HCP Covered Private Projects and Activities
2018 NCCP/HCP Covered Private Projects and
Activities
1. Brush Clearance at Windport
0.5
1. Lower Filiorum Development
11.9
70.0
Canyon
2. Brush Clearance at 3303 Palo
0.3
2. Portuguese Bend Club
3.0
10.0
Vista
Remedial Grading
3. Portuguese Bend Club Slope
0.5
3. Fuel Modification for Private
10.0
20.0
Repair
Projects
4. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial
3.0
10.0
4. Miscellaneous Private
71.8
143.1
Grading
Projects throughout the City
5. Hon Geologic Investigation
0.6
5. Plumtree Development
2.8
19.7
6. Crestridge Development
2.0
12.0
Subtotal of Covered Private
99.5
262.8
Projects /Activities
7. Brush Clearance at Lower
0.5
Filiorum
8. Lower Filiorum Development
7.3
59.0
9. Coolheights Residential Lot
0.5
Development
Subtotal of Covered Private
15.2
81.0
Projects I Activities
2004 NCCPIHCP TOTAL'
55.4
1 187.3
1 2018 NCCPIHCP TOTALz 215.3 566.5
Under the 2004 NCCP/HCP, this habitat loss was proposed to be offset by the dedication of 322.2 acres of City -owned land and 5.6 acres of
revegetation with the Preserve. Mitigation for Covered Private Projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of monies
to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
Under the 2018 NCCP/HCP, The City's dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123 acres, including the 499.9 acres of City Mitigation
Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of Previous Mitigation Lands, and 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands, is intended to provide the necessary
mitigation for the habitat loss for Covered City and Miscellaneous Covered Private Projects and Activities. Mitigation for Covered Private
Projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
Additionally since the original project was analyzed in the 2004 FEIR, the City has implemented
two key requirements of the 2004 NCCP/HCP: Development and adoption of a Public Use Master
Plan (PUMP) for the City's open space, and the execution and implementation of the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC. The original project
referred to the PUMP and the management agreement as requirements of 2004 NCCP/HCP
implementation, whereas the 2018 NCCP/HCP now incorporates these documents by reference
since they have now been adopted and executed.
D U Q E K 10 March 20018
A-21
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
3 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The City has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate subsequent California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) document to address the revisions included in the updated project pursuant to
Title 14, California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs. [CEQA Guidelines], tit. 14, §15164).
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15164(c)], this Addendum will be
attached to the 2004 FEIR. Subsequently, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the State of
California Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse.
The purpose of this Addendum to the 2004 FEIR is to address the environmental effects of the
proposed updated Project, in order to determine whether significant environmental impacts not
identified in the original 2004 FEIR would result or, whether previously identified significant impacts
would be substantially more severe. This document has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines, [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162 and § 15164].
The CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162(a)] provides that, for a project covered
by a certified EIR or adopted Negative Declaration (ND), preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND
rather than an Addendum is required only if one or more of the following conditions occur:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified
as complete or the ND was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
or ND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
1634
D U D E K 11 March 0018
A-22
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative.
Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, § 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "The lead agency or
responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes
or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 [see above]
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred."
Based on the analysis presented herein, it has been determined that an Addendum to the 2004
FEIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed changes of the 2018
NCCP/HCP given that none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15162] calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred.
The environmental analysis relies on the analyses completed in the 2004 FEIR and directly
references the 2004 FEIR where appropriate.
This Addendum concludes that there are no new significant impacts resulting from the proposed
updated project and there would not be a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
environmental impacts in the 2004 FEIR. Based on a review of the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the habitat
conservation (Section 4.1 through Section 4.4 and Appendix B of the NCCP/HCP), habitat
restoration (Section 7.5 and 7.6 of the NCCP/HCP), habitat management and monitoring activities
of the City-wide Preserve system (Section 7, Section 9, and Appendix H and I of the NCCP/HCP),
and the other resource protection mechanisms of the NCCP/HCP (Section 6 and Appendix F of
the NCCP/HCP) would offset the significant effects of the Covered Projects and Activities on
biological resources, as was concluded for the original project. Additionally, since the original
project was analyzed, the City and Wildlife Agencies have been implementing the conservation
strategy of the NCCP/HCP resulting in build out of the City-wide Preserve system, which is the
core element of the conservation strategy for the plan. Therefore, the updated project, like the
original project, would mitigate impacts to sensitive species below a level of significance, which
is consistent with the determination from the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary. In
addition, no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be
undertaken would result in new or more severe environmental impacts. Therefore, no additional
environmental review is deemed necessary pursuant to CEQA.
D U D E K 12 March 0634 2018
A-23
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
4 ANALYSIS
The following analysis provides a comparison of the impacts identified in the 2004 FOR with those
potential impacts that could result from the updated project. The organization of this section is
consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which identifies 17 resource areas that may
be impacted by implementation of a project. The 2004 FEIR prepared for the original project covers
each of these resource areas, and identifies that all impacts would be reduced to less than significant
with the implementation of mitigation measures. This section addresses the proposed updated project
in light of the previous analyses, addresses any changes in circumstances that could affect previous
significance conclusions, and provides a significance conclusion related to the updated project.
Mitigation measures that were previously identified in the 2004 FEIR would also be applied to the
updated project, if applicable.
4.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Based on the preliminary environmental evaluation, the City has determined that the
environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the updated project.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture and
❑
Air Quality
Forestry Resources
®
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology and Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas
❑
Hazards and
❑
Hydrology and
Emissions
Hazardous
Water Quality
Materials
Land Use and Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population and Housing
❑
Public Services
®
Recreation
❑
Transportation and Traffic
❑
Utilities/Service
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Systems
Significance
4.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The following provides an overview of the approach to the evaluation of environmental impacts.
1. A brief explanation is provided for all impact conclusions except where the project would
have no impacts and those conclusions are adequately supported by the information
provided. No impact conclusions are considered adequately supported if the information
provided clearly show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
D U D E K 13 March 0634 2018
A-24
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2. All answers take the whole action involved into account, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct impacts.
3. Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the descriptions
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less
than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, additional CEQA may be required.
4. The earlier analysis in the 2004 FEIR may be used where an effect was adequately analyzed
in the 2004 FEIR. In this case, the discussion following the identification of the impact will
identify the following:
a. Earlier analysis used.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
5. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate information sources for potential impacts
(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
7. A source list should be included and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,
used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the
impact to less than significant.
4.3 Impact Analysis
4.3.1 Aesthetics
The updated project would have the potential to result in impacts to aesthetics if it would:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
D U D E K 14 March 0634 2018
A-25
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FOR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 EIR concluded that the original project would not result in aesthetics impacts, because
no ground disturbance or structures were proposed. There was considered to be no change between
the baseline condition/existing setting and the original project; therefore, it was determined to be
a less -than -significant effect, and further analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project is a natural community conservation plan and habitat
conservation plan that would not result in aesthetic impacts because no ground disturbance,
structures, or other physical or visual changes to the baseline condition/existing setting would result
from the updated project. The updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design,
covered species and activities list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's
NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FEIR
regarding aesthetics; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The updated project would have the potential to result in impacts to agriculture and forestry
resources if it would:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g)).
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use.
D U D E K 15 March 0634 2018
A-26
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not affect existing or zoned agricultural
resources. There was considered to be no change between the baseline condition/existing setting
and the original project; therefore, it was determined to be a less than significant effect, and further
analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry
resources. The updated project would not result in the conversion or loss of any agriculture or
forestry resources and would not conflict with any farmland or timber designations. The updated
project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design, covered species and activities list,
permit duration, and implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would not
require modifying the determination from the 2004 FEIR regarding agriculture and forestry
resources. Based on the 2018 NCCP/HCP, there are approximately 12.5 acres of remaining
agricultural lands in the City, including approximately 2.9 acres that occurs within the Preserve.
This agricultural land occurs in the western portion at Upper Point Vincente. These agricultural
uses were also part of Preserve design of the 2004 NCCP/HCP. The 2018 NCCP/HCP considered
the existing operation of agricultural uses in the Preserve at Upper Point Vicente as an allowable
use provided the appropriate City approval is maintained and all agricultural practices and
improvements remain consistent with the 2018 NCCP/HCP and that no habitat restoration is
proposed for the site. No other agricultural activities occur in the Preserve. Therefore, no further
analysis is necessary and no modification is necessary to the determination from the 2004 FEIR
regarding agriculture and forestry resources.
4.3.3 Air Quality
The updated project would have the potential to result in impacts to air quality if it would:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
D U D E K 16 March 0634 2018
A-27
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors).
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not affect air quality because there would
be no change between the baseline condition/existing setting and the original project; therefore, it
was determined to be a less -than -significant effect, and further analysis was considered
unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact on air quality because there
would be no change to the baseline condition/existing setting from the updated project. The
updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design, covered species and activities
list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would
not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FOR regarding air quality; therefore, no
further analysis is necessary.
4.3.4 Biological Resources
The updated project would have the potential to result in impacts to biological resources if it would:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
D U D E K 17 March 0634 2018
A-28
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
As described in the 2004 FEIR, the biological objective of the original project was to maintain the
range of natural biological communities and species native to the region and to conserve viable
populations of endangered, threatened, and key sensitive species (covered species) and their
habitats, thereby preventing local extirpation. The NCCP/HCP does not override the necessity for
further environmental review for individual actions at the project level; rather, each discretionary
action would be subject to further environmental review to determine whether the specific action
is consistent with the plan and permit.
The 2004 FEIR analyzed the effects of the original project on biological resources according to CEQA
and according to the criteria for coverage outlined in Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and Section 2800 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The 2004 FEIR biological resources
analysis addressed direct effects to regionally important habitat areas and linkages, vegetation, sensitive
species; indirect impacts including edge effects; and cumulative impacts.
Regionally Important Habitat Areas and Linkages
Regionally important habitat areas (RIHAs) and linkage were identified during the development
of the original project by overlaying vegetation and target species information; they include areas
where there was relatively extensive native vegetation supporting concentrations of target species.
Linkages were also identified that provide a habitat connection between larger habitat areas. As
analyzed in the 2004 FEIR, approximately 78 percent of the RIHAs were included in the Preserve
design of the original project, as were all primary habitat linkages between relatively large patches
DUDEK 18 March 0634 2018
A-29
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
of habitat. Existing linkages to habitat areas elsewhere on the Peninsula would also be conserved
by the 2004 NCCP/HCP. Planned linkages were consistent with Preserve design guidelines in
terms of dimensions and habitat characteristics. Impacts to RIHAs and habitat linkages were
considered to be significant, but were considered mitigated by the extent and location of proposed
habitat conservation, proposed habitat restoration, and active habitat management within the
Preserve.
Vegetation
The Preserve design of the original project was dominated by native or naturalized vegetation.
Additionally, land categorized as Neutral Lands were considered to contribute to Preserve functions as
natural open space and cannot be developed, because of extreme slopes, open -space hazard zoning, or
official designation as HOA open space. Neutral Lands are not accessible for active habitat management
and were not included in the Preserve.
Under the 2004 NCCP/HCP, City and Private Projects identified as covered activities were
anticipated to result in the unavoidable impacts to vegetation inside and outside the Preserve,
including coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland. These impacts were considered significant
if not mitigated. Mitigation for these habitat impacts would be at a 3:1 ratio (conserved acreage to
affected acreage) for CSS and a 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grasslands. Under the original project,
mitigation for City projects would be provided by the dedication of City -owned land and
revegetation within the Preserve, and mitigation for impacts of private projects would be provided
by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private
entities.
A small amount of riparian scrub habitat was excluded from the Preserve, and other unmapped
riparian habitats, other waters, or native grassland may also occur outside the Preserve. Wetland
habitats and streambeds within the 2004 NCCP/HCP area would be subject to CWA Sections 401
and 404 and Fish and Game Code 1600 permit requirements if they are included within areas
proposed for development. Under the original project, impacts to wetlands would be considered
mitigated below a level of significance by implementing mitigation through habitat creation or
restoration at a 3:1 ratio.
Under the original project, no fuel modification areas for new development would be allowed
within the Preserve. Fuel modification impacts to sensitive habitats from new development would
be assessed as part of the development impact area and mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for CSS and 0.5:1
ratio for non-native grassland. Impacts to upland scrub, native grassland, and riparian habitats were
considered significant but mitigated by the habitat acquisition and restoration programs described
in the 2004 NCCP/HCP.
V V D E K 19 March 0634 2018
A-30
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Exotic woodland and disturbed vegetation were excluded from the Preserve and would be available
for potential development. Impacts to these habitats was considered less than significant by the
2004 FEIR because of the dominance of non-native plant species within these habitat associations
and their lower biodiversity value compared to native habitats that support sensitive species. Any
incremental biological value that these non -sensitive habitats may have was considered offset by
the proposed Preserve design, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs included in
the 2004 NCCP/HCP.
Sensitive Species
The objective of the original project was to conserve sensitive species; however, the Preserve
design of the 2004 NCCP/HCP did not include all point locations where covered species have been
recorded and several sensitive species point locations are excluded from the Preserve and Neutral
Lands. If these locations are still occupied by the covered species, take of that species was
assumed. In addition to habitat conservation in the Preserve, the restoration activities provided for
in the original project would increase the inventory of potential habitat for covered species by
about 16 percent above the current inventory within the City. Direct take of sensitive species was
considered significant in the 2004 FEIR. Impacts to sensitive species from the original project was
considered mitigated below the level of significance by implementation of the 2004 NCCP/HCP
and the commitments therein, including the habitat conservation and restoration obligations of the
City-wide Preserve system.
Under the original project, 94 percent or more of the covered species point locations and 96 percent
of their potential habitats would be conserved and the long-term habitat restoration program would
likely substantially increase the availability of suitable habitat for covered species during the permit
period. The habitat management program would provide the opportunity for establishment of new
populations of covered species where they are currently absent. Other sensitive species not known
to be within the 2004 NCCP/HCP area were also considered to benefit from implementation of the
2004 NCCP/HCP. The opportunity to reintroduce locally extirpated species, such as the Palos
Verdes blue butterfly and rare plant species, was considered to be provided for in the 2004
NCCP/HCP. Direct impacts to sensitive species were considered significant; however, impacts were
considered to be reduced to below the level of significance because of the extent and location of
conserved habitat, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs within the Preserve
included in the 2004 NCCP/HCP.
Under the original project, exotic woodlands were excluded from the Preserve; however, these
woodlands have the potential to support nest sites of birds of prey (raptors). Take of active bird nest
sites is prohibited by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and California Fish and Game
Code 3503 (birds, generally) and 3503.5 (birds of prey). Best management practices for development
D U D E K 20 March 0634 2018
A-31
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
activity adjacent to the Preserve were addressed by the 2004 NCCP/HCP. Implementation of the
2004 NCCP/HCP was considered to result in potential incremental losses of raptor foraging habitat.
Potential impacts to breeding raptors and their foraging habitats was considered significant; however,
these impacts were considered reduced to below the level of significance because of the habitat
conservation and restoration provided by the 2004 NCCP/HCP and the extensive amount of foraging
habitat available elsewhere in the region.
Under the original project, general habitat loss and loss of associated species of flora and fauna
could potentially result from development of habitats outside the Preserve. Removing or altering
native and non-native habitats may result in the loss of common plant and wildlife species from
the areas not designated as Preserve or Neutral Lands. This incremental habitat loss was considered
significant; however, impacts were considered to be reduced to below the level of significance
because of the amount of proposed habitat conservation and restoration included in the 2004
NCCP/HCP. Such potential impacts would not be expected to substantially diminish any species
distribution, range, or populations in the region to below self-sustaining numbers.
Impacts Associated with Development Edge Effects
In the 2004 FEIR, indirect impacts including "edge effects" were evaluated as a potential result of
covered development activities adjacent to habitat in the Preserve. These effects could include
landscape irrigation, pesticide/fertilizer drift, fuel management, vegetation trampling, habitat
maintenance impact, non-native species, noise, dust, and lighting. Edge effects in habitat for
sensitive species was considered significant for the original project; however, these impacts were
expected to be reduced to below the level of significance by active habitat management and
restoration of the Preserve and by the best management practices for adjacent properties proposed
in the 2004 NCCP/HCP.
Cumulative Impacts
The primary goal of the original project is to provide for a City-wide Preserve that would mitigate
ongoing and future biological impacts cumulatively. The 2004 NCCP/HCP Preserve design and habitat
restoration and management program are sufficient to mitigate biological impacts to below a level of
significance because it achieves the key NCCP planning criteria set out in the NCCP Planning
Guidelines. Guidelines for an effective NCCP conservation program include: conserve target species
throughout the planning area, larger Preserves are better, keep Preserve areas close together, keep
habitat contiguous, link Preserve areas with corridors, Preserves should be biologically diverse, and
protect Preserves from encroachment. Based on the evaluation in the 2004 FEIR, the original project
achieves these NCCP objectives and therefore the cumulative impacts on the region's biological
resources were considered mitigated below a level of significance.
D U D E K 21 March 0634 2018
A-32
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Mitigation Measures
In the 2004 FEIR, mitigation measures to offset the impacts to biological resources from the
original project included implementation of 2004 NCCP/HCP and all the obligations contained
therein, including establishment and long-term management/monitoring/restoration of the City-
wide Preserve system and implementation of appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Local
Coastal Plan, ordinances, and existing planning documents.
2018 Addendum Analysis
The updated project is the 2018 NCCP/HCP that has been revised to reflect modifications to the
overall Preserve design, covered species and activities list, permit duration, and implementation
status. The overall purpose and need of the NCCP/HCP, the biological setting of the project,
conservation strategy, and implementation approaches remain largely unchanged from the original
project. Under the updated project, habitat loss from Covered Projects and Activities and the
corresponding mitigation and dedication status of the Preserve have been revised. Table 3 provides
a summary of the changes in total habitat loss and status of building out the City-wide Preserve.
As this demonstrates, all lands of the 1402.4 -acre Preserve have been enrolled and dedicated into
the City-wide Preserve and an addition 170.7 acres of land have been targeted for future additions
to the Preserve, whereas, only 836.5 acres of the Preserve had been conserved at the time of the
2004 NCCP/HCP.
Table 3
Summary of Habitat Loss and Preserve Acreage and Status for the
2004 NCCP/HCP and the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Components 1 2004 NCCPIHCP 2018 NCCPIHCP
Habitat Loss from Covered Projects and Activities
City Projects and Activities
146.5 acres 419.5
Private Projects and Activities
86.2 acres 362.3
Preserve (Conserved at time of Plan Completion)
Public and Private Properties 1 836.5 acres 1,402.4 acres
Other Lands Targeted for the Preserve
Other Private and Public Targeted Lands for Dedication
853.2 acres
170.7 acres
Total Preserve and Other Targeted Lands
1,689.7 acres
1,573.1 acres
Notes: The 836.5 -acre total that is provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP in Section 3. 1.1 was based on approximations and is not consistent with the
individual acreages provided in that section. The "Total Preserve and Other Targeted Lands" total for 2004 is different from the 1,504 -acre
Preserve total provided in the 2004 NCCP/HCP due to the inclusion of the Grand View Park parcel, the Identified HOA's, and the Long Point
parcel. These parcels were removed from the Plan by the City Council in 2004.
10634
D U Q E K 22 March 2018
A-33
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Other aspects of the plan that were proposed or required under the 2004 NCCP/HCP have now
been completed and/or are being implemented. For example, the original project required the
development of a long-term management agreement with the PVPLC for the management and
monitoring of the City-wide Preserve system, and under the updated project, the comprehensive
management agreement between the City and PVPLC is in place and has been since 2011.
However, active management formally began in 2007. Similarly, the original project required the
development of a PUMP to balance passive recreational uses with the protection of natural
resources in the Preserve, and under the updated project, the PUMP has been developed and
adopted as of 2013.
Table 3 provides a comparison of the Preserve and dedication status between the original project and
the updated project. As this table demonstrates, approximately half (56%) of the Preserve design of
the original project (1,504.1 acres) had been dedicated at that time, and the design relied upon the
future purchase of private lands with public funds and other private lands expected to be contributed
as mitigation. Under the updated project, the total City-wide Preserve of 1,402.4 acres has been
dedicated, and an additional 170.7 acres have been targeted for dedication.
The following evaluates the potential impacts of the updated project on biological resources in
terms of direct effects to regionally important habitat areas (RIHAs) and linkages, vegetation,
sensitive species; indirect impacts including edge effects; and cumulative impacts.
Regionally Important Habitat Areas and Linkages
As described in the 2004 EIR, impacts to RIHAs and linkages would be considered significant,
but were previously determined to be mitigated below a level of significance by the extent and
location of proposed habitat conservation, proposed habitat restoration, and active habitat
management within the Preserve.
Like the original project, the loss of R1HAs and linkages from the updated project would be
considered significant unless mitigated. Like the original project, the updated project includes
habitat conservation, habitat restoration, and long-term habitat monitoring and management within
a City-wide Preserve system that has been designed to offset impacts from the loss of important
habitat and habitat linkages. The Preserve design configuration of the updated project differs from
that of the original project in three locations: (1) Malaga Canyon parcels were added to the
Preserve, (2) a portion of the Upper Filiorum property was removed from the Preserve design, (3)
the archery range portion of the Abalone Cove property was removed from the Preserve design.
The addition of the Malaga Canyon parcels adds coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat to the
Preserve system in a canyon that likely provides for wildlife movement in the northern edge of the
City; however, this addition to the Preserve has not been identified as a RIHA or linkage. The
D V D E K 23 March 0634 2018
A-34
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
portion of the Upper Filiorum property removed from the Preserve was comprised primarily of
grassland habitat with some coastal sage scrub; only a small portion of this removed area was
identified as a RIHA. In exchange for removing this portion of Upper Filiorum from the Preserve
design, the property owner donated 30 acres to the Preserve that is identified as RIHA. The archery
range portion of the Abalone Cove has been identified as a habitat linkage but was removed from
the Preserve of the updated project due to landslide and fragmented conditions of the site.
However, this portion of the Preserve is anticipated to continue to provide wildlife movement and
habitat linkage function because this City -owned property will remain as open space. If any future
development is proposed at the Lower Filiorum parcel, as a condition of approval on the property,
a minimum of 40 acres including a 300' wide wildlife corridor be dedicated to the City-wide
Preserve system. This is consistent with the assumed conservation for this property under the
original project.
Based on a review of the 2018 NCCP/HCP as summarized above, the habitat conservation (Section
4.1 through Section 4.4 and Appendix B of the NCCP/HCP), habitat restoration (Section 7.5 and
7.6 of the NCCP/HCP), and habitat management and monitoring activities of the City-wide
Preserve system (Section 7, Section 9, and Appendix H and I of the NCCP/HCP) for the updated
project would mitigate impacts to RIHAs and linkages below a level of significance, which is
consistent with the determination from the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary.
Vegetation
The Preserve design of the updated project includes 1,402.4 acres of existing publically owned
lands and privately owned lands that have been dedicated to the City-wide Preserve. Within the
Preserve, approximately 1,309.5 acres are dominated by naturalized vegetation. Additionally, the
updated project identifies 1,694.3 acres of Neutral Lands outside of the Preserve where impacts to
vegetation communities and other biological resources would be avoided due to development
constraints including extreme slopes, hazard zoning, and HOA open space designations.
Table 4 provides a comparison of habitat loss by vegetation type for the Covered Projects and
Activities between the original project and the updated project. Although the total habitat loss is
greater under the updated project compared to the original project, this change is not considered
to be a substantial increase in the effects of the project for several reasons.
First and foremost, the total 1,402.4 -acre City-wide Preserve has been fully dedicated and has been
and will continue to be managed in accordance with the conservation strategy of this Plan. The
establishment and long-term management and monitoring of the Preserve is the primary mitigation
measure to offset the effects of the habitat loss from the Covered Projects and Activities, and this
D U D E K 24 March 0634 2018
A-35
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
mitigation has been satisfied consistent with the NCCP/HCP in coordination with Wildlife
Agencies.
Second, between the 2004 NCCP/HCP and the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the City and the Wildlife Agencies
have obtained much greater clarity and certainty regarding both (a) the boundaries of the Covered
Projects/Activities and (b) the boundary of the Preserve on various properties. See Table 1 and Table
2 in Section 2.1 for detailed information on the differences in Covered Projects/Activities and
Preserve Properties. As such, what was conceptually planned for under the 2004 NCCP/HCP in
terms of anticipated impacts and mitigation has now been aligned with potential project impact
footprints and Preserve dedication boundaries. Therefore, the 2004 NCCP/HCP relied upon
estimates of future acquisitions, mitigation from future prospective projects, and Plan requirements
to ensure that the Preserve would be built out, whereas, the updated project is based on actual
implemented projects and mitigation/conservation that the City and Wildlife Agencies have
determined are consistent with the conservation strategy of the Plan.
Finally, the differences in acreage of habitat loss between the original project and the updated
project is a reflection of how Covered Projects and the Preserve have been accounted for and
described. The 2004 NCCP/HCP used interchangeable terminology including "preserve",
"preserve design", and "reserve" to refer to areas already dedicated to the Preserve and for areas
planned to be added to the Preserve. Also, the 2004 NCCP/HCP described properties for Covered
Projects/Activities where portions of those properties were used as on-site mitigation for the
project and thus could be added to the Preserve. The 2018 NCCP/HCP clarifies and uses more
specific terminology for the Preserve and more specific spatial information for the location of
impacts of Covered Activities/Projects relative to the Preserve.
D U D E K 25 March 0634 2018
A-36
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 4
Summary of the Habitat Loss by Vegetation Type
for the 2004 NCCP/HCP and the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Vegetation Type
2004 NCCPI HCP1
2018 NCCPIHCP2
Total Habitat Loss
(acres)
Total Habitat Loss
(acres)
Portion of the Habitat Loss in the
Preserve (acres)
Covered City Projects and Activities
Coastal sage scrub
40.2
115.8
60.0
Non-native grassland
106.3
303.7
148.3
Covered Private Projects and Activities
Coastal sage scrub
1 15.2 1 99.5 --
Non-native grassland
1 81.0 1 262.8 --
Under the 2004 NCCP/HCP, this habitat loss was proposed to be offset by the dedication of 322.2 acres of City -owned land and 5.6 acres
of revegetation with the Preserve. Mitigation for Covered Private Projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of
monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities. .
Under the 2018 NCCP/HCP, The City's dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123 acres, including the 499.9 acres of City
Mitigation Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of Previous Mitigation Lands, and 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands, is intended to provide the
necessary mitigation for the habitat loss for Covered City and Miscellaneous Private Projects and Activities. Mitigation for covered Private
Projects would be provided by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
Like the original project, unavoidable impacts to vegetation communities that are anticipated from City
projects and private development projects, including primarily impacts to coastal sage scrub and non-
native grassland, would be considered significant without mitigation. Like the original project, the
updated project includes a comprehensive conservation program designed to mitigate the effects of
these activities on vegetation communities through the dedication, management, and monitoring of the
City-wide Preserve system. The updated project also specifies mitigation ratios for impacts from future
projects and includes best management practices for activities adjacent to the Preserve. Like the
original project, future projects would continue to be subject to project -specific environmental review
under CEQA and subject to federal and state regulations pertaining to wetlands and water resources.
Under the updated project, the entire Preserve system has been dedicated, is under active habitat
management and monitoring by the PVPLC, and is subject to the recreational use prescriptions of the
adopted PUMP.
Of the 1,267 acres of coastal sage scrub communities in the City, 1,167.1 acres (92%) occurs in
the Preserve (737 acres; all types) or in Neutral Lands (430.1 acres; all types). Of the 950.2 acres
of grassland in the City, 687.4 acres (72%) occurs in the Preserve (470.9 acres) or in Neutral Lands
(216.5 acres).
Based on a review of the 2018 NCCP/HCP as summarized above, the habitat conservation (Section
4.1 through Section 4.4 and Appendix B of the NCCP/HCP), habitat restoration (Section 7.5 and 7.6
of the NCCP/HCP), habitat management and monitoring activities of the City-wide Preserve system
D U D E K 26 March 0634 2018
A-37
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
(Section 7, Section 9, and Appendix H and I of the NCCP/HCP), and the other resource protection
mechanisms of the NCCP/HCP (Section 6 and Appendix F of the NCCP/HCP) would mitigate
impacts to vegetation communities below a level of significance, which is consistent with the
determination from the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary.
Sensitive Species
Like the original project, the 2018 NCCP/HCP was developed to maximize benefits to wildlife and
vegetation communities while accommodating appropriate economic development. Like the original
project, the updated project is intended to provide comprehensive management and conservation of
multiple species, including primarily those species identified as covered species by the plan.
The original project identified 13 species as proposed covered species, including 9 plants, 2
invertebrates, and 2 birds. Under the updated project, 10 species are identified as proposed covered
species, which includes all of the same species as the original project except 3 plant species (i.e.,
southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii),
and Pierson's morning-glory (Calystegia peirsonii) were removed from the proposed list. All three
of plant species removed from the proposed covered species list have not been reported to occur
in the City and were therefore removed from the proposed covered species list. Like the original
project, the 2018 NCCP/HCP conservation program will provide benefits to covered species that
are not covered by the plan. Since these species are no longer covered by the updated project, the
take permit issued for the NCCP/HCP will not cover impacts to these species. However, sensitive
species not covered by the NCCP/HCP would continue to be subject to project -specific
environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, the removal of these species from the proposed
covered species list of the updated project is not considered an impact to sensitive species.
The original project in 2004 proposed a take permit duration of 50 years; the 2018 updated project
proposes a take permit duration of 40 years. Given the time that has passed between the original
project and updated project, the take permit timeframe between the two plans is nearly the same.
Furthermore, the City has been implementing many aspects of the original project, including
acquiring land to configure the Preserve system, entering into the Preserve management agreement
and funding management and monitoring of the Preserve, and adopting the PUMP. Therefore, the
revised permit duration under the updated project is not considered to be a change that results in a
significant impact to sensitive species.
Like the original project, impacts to sensitive species under the updated project, including those
sensitive species identified as proposed covered species, would be considered significant without
mitigation. Appendix B of the 2018 NCCP/HCP provides the species-specific conservation analysis
and conditions of coverage for the proposed covered species. Under the updated project, all 10 species
D U D E K 27 March 0634 2018
A-38
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
on the proposed covered species list were determined to be adequately conserved by the conservation
program to justify issuance of federal and state take permits under the NCCP/HCP.
As analyzed in Appendix B, a majority of the habitat and occurrence locations (see Table 5) for the
proposed covered species occurs within the City-wide Preserve system or in Neutral Lands where
impacts to these species would be avoided due to development constraints. Very little of the habitat or
occurrences for the proposed covered species would be subject to potential impact from covered
activities. Additionally since the original project was proposed, the City has been implementing the
NCCP/HCP conservation program by building out the Preserve system, entering into the Preserve
management agreement and funding management and monitoring of the Preserve, and adopting the
PUMP. Therefore unlike in the original project that proposed to acquire the Preserve through
acquisitions and through mitigation from development, the 1,402.4 -acre Preserve system of updated
project has been completely dedicated for the conservation of sensitive species.
Table 5
Covered Species Locations in the Preserve and Neutral Lands for the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Covered Species Common Name
Scientific Name
Preserve
Neutral Lands
Total
Aphanisma
Aphanisma blitoides
24
3
27
South coast saltscale
Atriplex pacifica
9
0
9
Catalina crossosoma
Crossosoma californicum
3
0
3
Island green dudleya
Dudleya virens ssp. insularis
21
13
34
Santa Catalina Island desert -thorn
Lycium brevipes var. hassei
3
0
3
Woolly seablite
Suaeda taxifolia
NA
NA
NA
Palos Verdes blue
Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis
13
2
15
EI Segundo blue
Euphilotes battoides allyni
0
1
1
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
148
39
187
Coastal cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
189
71
260
Based on the 2018 Final NCCP/HCP Appendix B, which uses survey data prior to and up to 1997 and used for both the original project and the
updated project. More recent species data is available for certain species and properties but is not comprehensive for the entire City.
Based on a review of the 2018 NCCP/HCP as summarized above, the habitat conservation (Section
4.1 through Section 4.4 and Appendix B of the NCCP/HCP), habitat restoration (Section 7.5 and
7.6 of the NCCP/HCP), habitat management and monitoring activities of the City-wide Preserve
system (Section 7, Section 9, and Appendix H and I of the NCCP/HCP), and the other resource
protection mechanisms of the NCCP/HCP (Section 6 and Appendix F of the NCCP/HCP) would
mitigate impacts sensitive species below a level of significance, which is consistent with the
determination from the 2004 FOR and no further analysis is necessary.
D U D E K 28 March 0634 2018
A-39
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Impacts Associated with Development Edge Effects
Like the original project, indirect effects on biological resources from edge effects originating from
adjacent development and activity areas, such as landscape irrigation, pesticide/fertilizer drift, fuel
management, vegetation trampling, habitat maintenance impact, non-native species, noise, dust,
and lighting, could result in significant impacts if not avoided, minimized and/or mitigated. Under
the updated project, these impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance by active
habitat management and restoration of the Preserve and by the best management practices and
other resource protection mechanisms of the NCCP/HCP, which is consistent with the
determination from the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary. The City will ensure
implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures as enforceable conditions
in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects and Activities
listed in the Plan:
1. The City will review proposed plans for Covered Project and Activities within and abutting
the Preserve (e.g., access routes, staging areas) to ensure proposed Covered Projects and
Activities are consistent with this NCCP/HCP.
2. The City and its Preserve Habitat Manager (i.e., PVPLC) will ensure that access to the
Preserve to carry out Covered Activities is consistent with the approved Preserve Access
Protocol (PAP) that is required to be created pursuant to Section 6.5.2 of this Plan. When
accessing the Preserve, utility agencies and the City's Public Works Department must take
measures to avoid and minimize, to the maximum extent possible, environmental damage,
including damage to habitat and Covered Species. Existing trails that accommodate
authorized vehicles in the Preserve should be used wherever practical. Any unavoidable
access routes outside existing trails that can accommodate authorized vehicles or
construction areas should be clearly marked. Any new recreational trails, trails that can
accommodate authorized vehicles, and utility corridors will be located in areas that
avoid/minimize impacts to Covered Species, habitat fragmentation and edge effects. The
width of construction corridors and easements will be minimized.
3. The City and/or responsible private project applicants will be responsible for ensuring that
an Erosion Control Plan is developed and implemented for any Covered Projects and
Activities in the Preserve or abutting the Preserve that might result in erosion as determined
by the City. Potential erosion control measures include siltation fencing, straw bales, sand
bags, etc.
D U D E K 29 March 0634 2018
A-40
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
4. When stockpiling topsoil in the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, it will be
placed only in areas that minimize the damage to habitat. If fill or topsoil is imported into
the Preserve, the fill will be clean and free of foreign debris and non-native plant material.
5. For any new development on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, construction staging areas
will be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) away from the Preserve boundary and natural
drainages. No -fueling zones will extend a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from
all drainages and away from the Preserve boundary.
6. Construction footprints for Covered Projects and Activities in the Preserve or abutting the
Preserve will be clearly defined with flagging and/or fencing and will be removed upon
completion of the Covered Activities.
7. Temporary impacts associated with Covered Projects or Activities will be restored with
native vegetation appropriate to the physical conditions of the site. For example, if a
temporary impact area was dominated by disturbed CSS before initiation of the Covered
Project or Activity, the goal of habitat restoration will be to install undisturbed CSS.
Project -specific restoration plans will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and
comment associated with each Covered Project or Activity that temporarily impacts in
native vegetation.
8. Cut/fill slopes outside of fuel modification zones within the Preserve will be re -vegetated
with native species, or in the case of fuel modification zones, native plants recommended
by Los Angeles County for fuel modification zones. Impacts to cacti and other succulents
within any required fuel clearing areas shall be avoided/minimized to conserve habitat for
the coastal cactus wren and other Covered Species. Sidecasting of materials during trails,
road, and utility construction and maintenance within the Preserve will be avoided.
9. Where feasible and appropriate, dust generated by the construction for Covered Projects
and Activities within the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be controlled
via watering of earthmoving areas and non -paved trails that accommodate authorized
vehicles and an off-highway speed limit restriction to 20 miles per hour (mph).
10. Any temporary safety or security night lighting for Covered Projects and Activities in the
Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be selectively placed, shielded, and
directed away from all native vegetative communities.
11. Prior to implementation of Covered Projects or Activities within the Preserve or on vacant
lots abutting the Preserve (see Section 5.6) that may impact Covered Species or their
habitat, the City will provide an education program to all personnel associated with
Covered Projects or Activities. The education program will describe (1) the potential
D U D E K 30 March 0634 2018
A-41
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
presence of Covered Species and their habitats, (2) the requirements and boundaries of the
project (e.g., areas delineated on maps and by flags or fencing), (3) the importance of
complying with avoidance and minimization measures, (4) environmentally responsible
construction practices, (5) identification of sensitive resource areas in the field, and (6)
problem reporting and resolution methods.
12. Any biologist used for the implementation of this NCCP/HCP, including implementing
these measures, will be subject to the Wildlife Agencies' review and approval. The City
will submit the biologist's name, address, telephone number, resume, and three references
(i.e., the names and contact information of people familiar with the relevant qualifications
of the proposed biologist) at least 10 working days prior to initiating work. If the Wildlife
Agencies do not respond within this 10 -day period, the City will assume that the biologists
are approved.
13. For bird species that are not federally listed or a Covered Species identified in the
NCCP/HCP, if vegetation clearing must occur in the Preserve during the bird breeding
season under the circumstances described in Sections 5.6.9 and 5.6. 10 below (defined here
as February 15 -August 31), a pre -construction nest survey will be conducted and a 100 -
feet avoidance/exclusion zone or a buffer/barrier zone to attenuate noise (consistent with
Section 5.6.9 and 5.6.10 below) will be placed around all active nests (i.e., active nests
with eggs or chicks) until the nestlings fledge or the nest fails. Further, no take of Fully
Protected Species is allowed under this Plan (see Section 1.2.2 of the Plan).
14. Covered (Plant) Species and cacti may be removed from impact areas and relocated to an
adjacent or suitable location within the Preserve, in coordination with the Wildlife
Agencies. The City and its Preserve Habitat Manager shall be notified at least ten (10)
working days prior to impacts for potential salvaging and relocation opportunities.
15. No new lighting shall be allowed in the Preserve except where essential for roadway,
facility use, and safety and security purposes. New light sources abutting the Preserve will
be oriented downward and away from habitat areas, and shielded, if necessary, so that the
lighting does not impact wildlife and native vegetation.
16. Construction surveys for herpetofauna shall be conducted prior to and during the first days
of initial grading in areas within the Preserve where significant populations are known to
exist. The City, its Preserve Habitat Manager, and the Wildlife Agencies shall be notified
of all findings and relocation efforts at least ten (10) working days after grading has
occurred. Any relocation efforts shall also be reported in the City's Annual Report.
D U D E K 31 March 0634 2018
A-42
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
17. Pre -construction surveys for raptor during the breeding season (January 31 -September 30),
where evidence of suitable nesting habitat is present, shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no later than four days prior to any project vegetation removal or grading
activities within or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve. If nesting raptors are present, a
500 -foot avoidance/exclusion zone or a buffer/barrier zone to prevent disturbance and
attenuate noise will be placed around all active nests (i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks)
and monitored until the nestlings fledge or the nest fails. If requested by the City or other
entity, the qualified biologist may evaluate site conditions and determine that nest -specific
buffers which vary from the avoidance/exclusion zone above are warranted based on
topography, vegetation, type and duration of activity, and other factors. The Wildlife
Agencies, in coordination with the City and qualified biologist, will be notified of the status
of all raptor surveying and monitoring, including if less than 500 -foot avoidance/exclusion
zone or buffer/barrier zone is proposed for the raptor species and what additional
measures/monitoring are necessary. No take of Fully Protected Species is allowed under
this Plan (see Section 1.2.2).
18. All project landscaping, erosion control and revegetation efforts within the Preserve shall
use locally collected native vegetation/landscaping to the extent practicable and avoid those
species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council's (Cal -IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory
(see Section 5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan). All project landscaping, erosion control
and revegetation efforts on vacant land abutting the Preserve are permitted to use non-
native plants but shall be prohibited from using those species listed on the California
Invasive Plant Council's (Cal -IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section 5.6.4 and
Appendix D of the Plan). This requirement shall be incorporated as enforceable conditions
in all City permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with work.
19. Any proposed new or re -located trail within or abutting the Preserve shall comply with the
requirements of the approved PUMP and this Plan. The guidelines in Section 9.2.2.1 of
this Plan shall be used by the City and its Preserve Habitat Manager in implementing the
PUMP, including the Preserve Trail Plan component. These guidelines place an emphasis
on avoiding or minimizing impacts to CSS habitat and Covered Species, including: (1)
providing a 25 -foot setback to coastal bluffs; (2) using existing trails that accommodate
authorized vehicles wherever practical; (3) any new trails, shall be located in areas that
minimize habitat fragmentation and edge effects (e.g., maximum of 4 foot -wide in core
areas); (4) seasonally rotating or limiting use to minimize degradation; and (5) providing a
30 -foot upland buffer along major drainages.
D U D E K 32 March 0634 2018
A-43
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
20. For Covered Projects/Activities within the Preserve, the impact area shall be located on the
least sensitive portions of the site as determined by existing site-specific biological and
supporting information, and guided by the following (in order of increasing sensitivity):
a. Areas devoid of vegetation, including developed areas, previously graded areas,
disturbed and ruderal areas, and active agricultural fields;
b. Areas of non-native vegetation, disturbed habitats, manufactured slopes, landscaped
areas and eucalyptus/exotic woodlands (provided impacts to nesting birds are avoided);
c. Areas of grasslands (excluding native grassland);
d. Areas containing coastal scrub and saltbush scrub communities and all wetlands,
including riparian scrub;
e. Areas containing southern cactus scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, cliff face, rock
shore and native grassland communities;
f. Occupied habitat for Covered Species and hostplants for the Covered butterfly Species;
current surveys will be conducted throughout potential Covered Species habitat prior
to any Covered Projects or Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and
minimization measures; and
g. Areas necessary to maintain the viability of wildlife corridors.
Cumulative Impacts
Like the original project, the primary goal of the updated project is to establish and provide the long-
term management and monitoring of the City-wide Preserve that is designed to mitigate cumulative
biological impacts in the City. Like the original project, the 2018 NCCP/HCP conservation program,
including the City-wide Preserve system and associated commitments, are sufficient to mitigate
cumulative biological impacts to below a level of significance because it achieves the key NCCP
planning criteria set out in the NCCP Planning Guidelines, including: conserve target species
throughout the planning area, a larger Preserve is better, keep the Preserve area close together, keep
habitat contiguous, link the Preserve area with corridors, the Preserve should be biologically diverse,
and protect the Preserve from encroachments. As demonstrated by the conservation analyses in the
2018 NCCP/HCP, including the species-specific conservation analysis and conditions of coverage
for the proposed covered species provided in Appendix B, the updated project achieves these NCCP
objectives. Therefore the cumulative impacts on the City's biological resources are considered
mitigated below a level of significance provided that the impacts are implemented and mitigated
consistent with the requirements of the 2018 NCCP/HCP. This determination is consistent with that
of the 2004 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary.
D U D E K 33 March 0634 2018
A-44
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Mitigation Measures
As with the original project, mitigation measures to offset the impacts to biological resources from
the updated project include implementation of 2018 NCCP/HCP and all the obligations and
commitments contained therein, including establishment of the City-wide Preserve system and
long-term management, monitoring, restoration of the Preserve (NCCP/HCP Section 4, Section 7,
Section8, and Section 9), and implementation of appropriate amendments to the General Plan,
Local Coastal Plan, ordinances, and existing planning documents (NCCP/HCP Section 6 and
Appendix F). Implementation of 2018 NCCP/HCP will sufficiently mitigate impacts to biological
resources below a level of significance.
4.3.5 Cultural Resources
The updated project would have the potential to result in impacts to cultural resources if it would:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not affect cultural resources because
there would be no change between the baseline condition/existing setting and the original project;
therefore, it was determined that further analysis was unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project is a natural community conservation plan and habitat
conservation plan that would not result in impacts to cultural resources, including but not limited
to paleontological, archaeological, historical resources such as fossils, prehistoric and historic
artifacts, burials, sites of religious or cultural significance to Native American Groups and historic
structures, because no ground disturbance, structures, or other physical changes to the baseline
D U D E K 34 March 0634 2018
A-45
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
condition/existing setting would result from the updated project. The updated project includes
minor modifications to the Preserve design, covered species and projects list, permit duration, and
implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying
the determination from the 2004 FEIR regarding cultural resources; therefore, no further analysis
is necessary.
4.3.6 Geology and Soils
The updated project would have the potential to result in impacts to geology and soils if it would:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42).
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv. Landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FOR concluded that the original project would not affect geology and soils because it
would not include construction of buildings or structures that expose people to geologic hazards;
therefore, it was determined that further analysis was unwarranted.
D U D E K 35 March 0634 2018
A-46
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project is a natural community conservation plan and habitat
conservation plan that would not result in geology and soils impacts because no ground
disturbance, structures, or other physical changes to the baseline condition/existing setting would
result from the updated project. The updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve
design, covered species and projects list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's
NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FEIR
regarding geology and soils; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The updated project would have the potential to result in greenhouse gas emissions impacts if it would:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2017 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR did not analyze the effects of the original project on greenhouse gas emissions.
2018 Addendum Analysis
A requirement that the potential environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions be analyzed
was recently added to the CEQA guidelines. Thus, the Guidelines did not require analysis of
greenhouse gas emissions at the time the 2004 EIR was certified (Citizens Against Airport
Pollution v. City of San Jose (201 S) Cal.App.4th 327). Although the CEQA checklist did not
include the above -listed greenhouse gas threshold questions at the time the City approved the
EIR in August 2004, global climate change is not considered a changed circumstance and there
is no "new information of substantial importance" available now that was not known and could
not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence in August 2004 when the City
certified the EIR.
Various entities had extensively studied and regulated GHG emissions before August 2004.
These actions included enactment of the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601 (1978) and
D U D E K 36 March 0634 2018
A-47
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
the Global Climate Protection Act, 101 Stat. 1407 (1987), as well as President Carter's request
to the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council to investigate the subject. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a 1988 creation of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
issued three assessment reports in 1989, 1995, and 2001 evaluating the state of global research
on climate change and its effects. The IPCC Third Assessment Report issued in 2001 concluded
that it was "likely" (expressed as a 66-90% chance) that "[m]ost of the observed warming over
[the] last 50 years [was] likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activities." The IPCC led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in
1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In addition, a group of 19 private organizations filed a
rule-making petition in 1999 asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate GHG
emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
Thus, information about the potential environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions was
known or could have been known at the time the 2004 EIR was certified. As stated in Citizens
for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197
Cal.AppAth 327, under section 21166, subdivision (c), "an agency may not require an SEIR unless
'[n]ew information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the [EIR]
was certified as complete, becomes available.'" (CREED, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 532.) Since
the potential environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions does not constitute new
information within the meaning of section 21166, subdivision (c), the City would not violate
section 15064.4 of the Guidelines by failing to analyze greenhouse gas emissions in the addendum.
(See CREED, supra, at p. 532 [use of addendum upheld; SEIR was not required because
information on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions was known before approval of the 1994
FEIR]; see also Concerned Citizens, supra, 214 Cal.AppAth at p. 1320 [new Guidelines on
greenhouse gas emissions did not require a SEIR where potential effects of greenhouse gases could
have been addressed when EIR certified in 2002].)"
Since, based on previous discussions regarding the project as a whole, the project has not
substantially changed, and there have not been substantial changes in circumstances such that new
or more severe environmental impacts require major revisions to the EIR, the issue is simply
whether GHG emissions constitute "new information" under the Subsequent EIR Regulations.
GHG emissions and global climate change is not necessarily "new information" since these effects
have been generally known for quite some time. Therefore, for this project, this would not be
considered new information under Public Resources Code Section 2116 for which an analysis of
climate change is required because the project was previously approved and would not allow for
any new development or uses beyond that previously authorized.
D U D E K 37 March 0634 2018
A-48
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
The magnitude and scope of emissions from the development of the NCCP/HCP were analyzed in
the Air Quality section of the 2004 EIR (see Section 8.3 of 2004 EIR and Section 4.3.3 of this
document). No new emissions would result from the updated project. Additionally, GHG emission
impacts are of a higher magnitude than Air Quality impacts. Since no impacts to air quality were
associated with the 2004 NCCP/HCP, and no additional emissions would result from
implementation of the updated project, no impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would occur.
Therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated project would have the potential to result in hazards and hazardous materials impacts
if it would:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or environment.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
D U D E K 38 March 0634 2018
A-49
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not result in any hazards or hazardous
materials impacts because it would not create hazards, generate hazardous materials, or expose people
to hazardous materials. The same potential for hazards to human health and public safety would occur
under the original project as under the baseline condition/existing setting; therefore, it was determined
to be a less -than -significant effect, and further analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 NCCP Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact associated with hazards and
hazardous materials because there would be no change to the baseline condition/existing setting
from the updated project. The updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design,
covered species and projects list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's
NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FEIR
regarding hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated project would have the potential to result in hydrology and water quality impacts
if it would:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site.
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
V V D E K 39 March 0634 2018
A-50
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not affect hydrology or water quality.
The amount and rate of planned development were considered unaltered under the original project;
therefore, the hydrology and water quality effects under the original project were expected to be
similar to those expected under the baseline condition/existing setting. Under the original project,
planned development would be focused outside the Preserve lands potentially resulting in differing
discharge locations; however, the cumulative discharges and ultimate effects on overall water
quality within city watersheds were considered the same as those under baseline condition/existing
setting. Therefore, further analysis of hydrology and water quality was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would not affect hydrology or water quality because the
hydrology and water quality effects of planned development in the City under the updated project are
expected to be similar to those under the baseline condition/existing setting. As with the original
project, the updated project is a natural community conservation plan and habitat conservation plan
that would not result in ground disturbance, structures, or other physical changes to the baseline
condition/existing setting. The updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design,
covered species and projects list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP
and these changes would not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FEIR regarding
hydrology and water quality; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.10 Land Use and Planning
The updated project would have the potential to result in land use and planning impacts if it would:
a. Physically divide an established community.
D U D E K 40 March 0634 2018
A-51
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation
plan.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not result in effects that physically divide
an established community because the 2004 NCCP/HCP did not propose any development.
Although development projects were considered in the original project as covered under the
NCCP/HCP, each individual development project would be required to undergo separate CEQA
review by the City. Furthermore, implementation of the original project was expected to contribute
toward preserving the physical setting and character of the communities. Therefore, no significant
impacts to dividing a community were expected to occur.
The original project was deemed consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the City's
General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), and the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.
Further, as part of the original project, the City was expected to amend all relevant sections of the
General Plan to identify all Preserve lands and their attendant land use restrictions and incorporate
the 2004 NCCP/HCP as part of the General Plan.
A majority the Preserve design from the original project was zoned for open space and residential
uses, with a very small amount of commercial and institutional uses. Preservation and maintenance
of open space under the 2004 NCCP/HCP is consistent with open -space zoning. Areas within the
2004 NCCP/HCP Preserve not zoned as open space at the time of the 2004 EIR were expected to
be converted to designated open space. Most of these lands were within the Natural Overlay
Control District. Land use designation conversions were deemed consistent with the Municipal
Code regulations established to avoid or mitigate environmental effects (i.e., the overlay control
districts). Further, designating land uses within the Preserve as open space would be compatible
with surrounding land uses, which are primarily low-density residential. The original project was
deemed to be consistent with Natural Overlay District performance criteria except for the criteria
that does not allow use of herbicide. However, integrated pest -management approaches outlined
in the 2004 NCCP/HCP were expected to minimize impacts and result in an overall beneficial
effect to biological resources.
D U D E K 41 March 0634 2018
A-52
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
It was expected that other components of the City's Municipal Code that may require amendments
to conform to 2004 NCCP/HCP include the Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code, Section
15.04.010), Fire Code (Municipal Code, Section 8.08), Site Plan Review process (Municipal Code,
Section 17.70.020), and Zoning Map (Municipal Code Section 17.88). The City also amended its
Subdivision Ordinance to ensure subdivisions conformed to 2004 NCCP/HCP provisions.
The original project was considered to contribute to a regional conservation approach to protect
sensitive species and their habitats. Without the original Project, impacts of future development to
open space would be evaluated case-by-case without a regional baseline from which to analyze the
impacts. As such, cumulative impacts from the Project, in combination with other past, current, and
future projects, were deemed less than significant. Therefore, the 2004 FEIR determined that impacts
to land use were less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.
2018 Addendum Analysis
The updated project is a natural community conservation plan and habitat conservation plan that
would not result in the division of a physically established community because it does not propose
any development. Like the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the updated project would contribute to preserving
the physical setting and character of the community.
The Preserve design of the 2018 NCCP/HCP is currently zoned Open Space — Hazard (OH), Open
Space — Recreational (OR), and Residential Single (RS -A-5, RS -1, RS -2) with a limited amount of
commercial and institutional (1) uses (City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2012). As with the original project,
the City's Zoning Map will be amended to incorporate the boundaries of the Preserve.
The Preserve design of the 2018 NCCP/HCP is designated Open Space Preserve, Open Space
Hazard, Open Space Hillside, and Residential ( < 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) in the City's current
General Plan Land Use Map (City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2015). As with the original project, the
City is currently processing an update to the General Plan, which will be completed in 2018 and will
identify all Preserve lands, incorporate the goals and objectives of the NCCP/HCP, and incorporate
the mitigation responsibilities identified in the NCCP/HCP. A review of the updated project's
consistency with applicable policies of the General Plan is provided in in Table 2 below.
Portions of the Preserve that are considered to be within the Coastal Zone are required to comply with
the California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code, Section 30000 et seq.). Under
the Coastal Act, the City has adopted the CSP on December 19, 1978 in order to protect the natural
features in the Coastal Zone along the coastline within the City's jurisdiction. Table 7 provides a land
use consistency analysis for the updated project with the Coastal Specific Plan.
D U D E K 42 March 0634 2018
A-53
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for six southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) prepared
by SCAG addresses growth, conservation, and development goals applicable to the updated
project. As described in Table 6, the updated project would be consistent with the applicable goals
and policies of the RCPG.
Table 6
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Element Overarching Goal/Objective I Updated Project Consistency Discussion
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
Natural
Conserve, protect, and enhance the City's
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Environment
natural resources, beauty, and open
project would provide comprehensive management and
Element
space. Applicable policies under this
conservation of multiple species and natural habitat
element include allowing only low -intensity
within designated Preserves. The updated project
activities within Resource Management
identifies habitat to be conserved in the Preserve
Districts of extreme slopes, allow no
system, the mechanisms for conservation, and interim
further development within active landslide
protection measures. It also establishes the actions the
areas, maintain natural vegetation, and
City would take to implement and fund monitoring and
encouraging study of and funding of flora
management of the Preserve.
and fauna.
Socio -Cultural
Preserve and protect the City's cultural
Consistent. Like the original project, the preservation of
Element
resources and promote programs to meet
land resulting from the updated project would protect
the social needs of its citizens.
potential cultural resources within the Preserve
boundaries. This would allow the City more opportunities
to promote programs, such as passive recreational
activities, to meet the social needs of the community.
Cultural Resources
Protect and preserve all significant
Consistent. Like the original project, the preservation of
archaeological, paleontological and
lands resulting from the updated project would protect
historical resources within the City.
potential cultural resources within the updated Preserve
boundaries.
Current Social,
Policies include providing leadership to
Consistent. A PUMP and Preserve Trails Plan (PTP)
Service and
solving the need for community meetings,
were developed as part of the NCCPIHCP to address
Cultural
cultural events, and recreational activities,
recreational issues such as public trail access and trail
Organizations
and encourage the building of playing
use in the Preserve.
fields for recreational groups.
Social Services
Develop recreational programs and place
Consistent. See discussion under Current Social,
special emphasis on cultural, educational,
Service and Cultural Organizations, above.
and recreational needs of individuals and
encourage the expansion of existing
programs in these areas.
Urban Environment
Control and direct future growth towards
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Element
making a positive contribution to all
project directs future growth by providing regional
elements of the community.
comprehensive management and conservation to
multiple species and habitats, while allowing for
compatible and appropriate development and growth.
10634
a U p E K 43 March 2018
A-54
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 6
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Element
Overarching Goal/Objective
Updated Project Consistency Discussion
Activity Areas
Discourage industrial and major
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
commercial activities due to terrain and
project identifies covered activities, compatible land
environmental characteristics of the City;
uses, and a City-wide Preserve system consistent with
provide, develop, and maintain
these objectives regarding activity areas in the City.
recreational facilities and programs;
encourage agricultural uses; control
alteration of natural terrain; enforce height
control to lessen possibility of view
obstructions; preserve the rural and open
character of the City; and allow no further
development within active landslide areas.
Recreational
Provide access to all public recreational
Consistent. The City's PUMP has been developed as
Activity
land; establish ordinances that require
part of the NCCP/HCP to balance the public's passive
builders and developers to provide lands
recreational needs with the protection of natural
and/or funds for recreational use; seek
resources within the Preserve and address public
County, State, and Federal funds or
access issues. Like the original project, the updated
sharing funds to acquire lands; encourage
project would allow for compatible recreational uses in
landholders to contribute lands to the City
the Preserve system consistent with the PUMP, while
for recreational use; encourage public use
maintaining biological values essential for issuance of
of institutional recreational facilities, where
state (NCCP) and federal (HCP) permits.
possible.
Agricultural Activity
Encourage implementation techniques for
Consistent. Like under the original project, the updated
preservation of agricultural activities and
project would continue to allow the limited existing
assist in protection or conservation of
agricultural uses in the Preserve consistent with this
agricultural sites
objective.
Disposal/Recovery
Encourage the retention of all remaining
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
System
natural watercourses in their natural state.
project would continue to protect and enhance natural
watercourses within the Preserve.
Transportation
Design path and trail networks to reflect
Consistent. The City's PUMP has been developed as
Systems
both a local and regional demand, while
part of the NCCP/HCP in order to address issues of
maintaining the unique character of the
public access in the Preserve. Consistent with this
Peninsula; require, wherever practical; all
objective and the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the PUMP would
path and trail networks to be in a separate
facilitate and improve public access to the shoreline and
rights-of-way; further investigate possible
scenic resources while ensuring this access is
funding sources for acquisition,
consistent with the conservation objectives of the
development and maintenance of paths
NCCP/HCP. The PUMP would include measures, such
and trails; encourage the establishment of
as educational signage and brochures, to educate trail
a program designed to educate users and
users. As outlined in the PUMP, trails would be located
non-users of path and trail networks in
on historically used trails and the Preserve Trails Plan
terms of safety and courtesy; ensure
(PTP) places an emphasis on avoiding or minimizing
public access to the City's shoreline;
impacts to habitat and covered species. Like the original
reflect the elements of the City's
project, the updated project would be consistent with
Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) in
these objectives regarding transportation systems.
appropriate City processes and
procedures depending on trails categories
and status as defined in the CTP; design
D U ®E K 44 March 20018
A-55
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 6
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Element
Overarching Goal/Objective
Updated Project Consistency Discussion
and construct trails in accordance with
U.S. Forest Service standards wherever
possible; construct trails to have a minimal
impact on the environment; align trails to
provide maximum access to scenic
resources.
Safety
Ensure protection of compatible levels of
Consistent. Like the original project, long-term
wild animal populations
protection of species population levels continues to be a
primary goal of the updated project. See Section 4.3.4,
Biological Resources, of this Addendum for further
discussion on sensitive species.
Sensory
To provide a quiet and serene residential
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Environment
community with minimal restriction on
project would preserve natural habitat adjacent to
citizen activity, through proper land use
residential neighborhoods, thereby providing for a quiet
planning and regulations; to preserve the
and serene residential community. Further, the updated
City's views and vistas for the public
project would maintain views and vistas by ensuring
benefit and, where appropriate, the City
preservation and protection of habitats consistent with
should strive to enhance and restore these
the objectives regarding the sensory environment.
resources, the visual character of the City,
and provide and maintain access for the
benefit and enjoyment of the public.
Noise
Regulate land use so that there is minimal
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
degree of noise impact on adjacent land
project would not introduce new noise sources to
uses.
adjacent land uses.
Visual Aspects
Preserve existing significant visual
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
aspects; preserve and enhance existing
Preserve would continue to maintain scenic views and
positive visual elements while restoring
vistas. Further, the PUMP and the PTP have been
those, which are lacking in their present
developed since the original project was evaluated,
visual quality; develop and maintain, in
which would improve the existing trail system and thus
conjunction with appropriate agencies,
public access, consistent with these objectives
public access to paths and trail networks
regarding visual aspects.
for the enjoyment of related views.
Land Use Plan
Provide land uses which will be sensitive
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
to and enhance the natural environment
project would continue to enhance the City's natural
and character of the community, supply
environment and community character through the
appropriate facilities to serve residents and
establishment of the City-wide Preserve system.
visitors, promote a range of housing types,
Further, like the original project, the updated project
promote fiscal balance, and protect the
covers development projects and public infrastructure
general health, safety and welfare of the
improvements that are consistent with the 2018
community.
NCCP/HCP, which is consistent with objectives
regarding the land use plan.
Fiscal Element
Take maximum advantage of regulatory
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
legislation to obtain contributions,
project relies on dedicated funding sources to fulfill its
dedications and reservations (i.e.,
requirements for the permit duration and associated
easements).
perpetual management of the Preserve. To supplement
this funding, however, the City and PVPLC will actively
10634
a U p E K 45 March 2018
A-56
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 6
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Element
Overarching Goal/Objective
Updated Project Consistency Discussion
pursue public and private funding sources for the
NCCP/HCP, consistent with objectives regarding the
fiscal element.
Coastal Specific Plan
Natural
Sets development requirements within the
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Environment
Coastal Resource Management Districts
project is a natural community conservation plan and
Element
such as low intensity activities in areas of
habitat conservation plan that does not include
extreme or high slopes (CRM 1 and CRM
development activities. Individual future projects
2), areas of extreme and high hazards
identified as part of the NCCP/HCP would be required to
(CRM 3A and CRM 313), areas or
undergo separate CEQA review by the City. The
flood/inundation hazards (CRM 7). The
updated project would not create any silt or pollutant
CSP prohibits activities which would cause
runoff or increase canyon -wall erosion or the potential
excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase
for landslide. Therefore, the updated project is
canyon -wall erosion, or potential for
considered consistent with the CSP objectives regarding
landslide, within or affecting CRM 8. The
the natural environment element.
CSP calls for considering the acquisition of
rights over the offshore tidelands area
along the City's coastline if future
conditions warrant.
Socio/Cultural
Work with other governmental agencies to
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Element
facilitate common objectives in a manner
project would establish a City-wide Preserve system that
which is harmonious with the local
among other things would contribute to conserving the
community; consider implementation of
local community and cultural resources in the City,
appropriate measures to protect the
consistent with this CSP objective.
identified cultural resources; consider
implementation of measures to protect
cultural resources.
Urban Environment
Provide access to all public recreational
Consistent. The City's PUMP developed as part of the
Element
land. Encourage recreation and cultural
NCCP/HCP addresses public access in the Preserve
activities, and provide outlets for citizens
and allows for passive recreational uses to the public.
on a non-discriminatory basis. Encourage
As such, the updated project would allow recreation and
landholders to contribute lands to the City
contribute City lands for recreational use consistent with
for recreational use.
these CSP objectives related to the urban environment
element.
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Growth
Encourage planned development in
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Management
locations least likely to cause
project is a natural community conservation plan and
environmental impacts; support the
habitat conservation plan that identifies a City-wide
protection of vital resources; encourage
Preserve system to be developed for covered species
implementation of measures aimed at
and their habitat while authorizing certain development
preservation and protection of cultural and
and other covered activities. Like the original project, the
archaeological resources; discourage
updated project was developed to be consistent with the
development, or encourage the use of
RCPG objectives regarding growth management.
special design requirements, in areas with
steep slopes, high fire, flood, seismic
hazards; encourage mitigation that
1634
D U ®E K 46 March 0018
A-57
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Table 6
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Element
Overarching Goal/Objective
Updated Project Consistency Discussion
reduces noise, preserves biological and
ecological resources, reduce exposure to
seismic hazards, minimize earthquake
damage, and develop emergency
response and recovery plans.
Open Space
Provide adequate land resources to meet
Consistent. The City's PUMP was developed as part of
Ancillary
the outdoor recreation needs of present
the NCCP/HCP to provide public access to the Preserve
and future residents and promote tourism.
and balance passive recreational opportunities with
Increase accessibility to open space and
minimal impacts to natural resources. Like the original
outdoor recreation; promote self-sustaining
project, the updated project would maintain natural
regional recreational resources and
habitat in the City-wide Preserve system and thus would
facilities; maintain open space for
not subject lives and properties to natural and man -
adequate protection of lives and properties
made hazards. The updated project would not include
against natural and man-made hazards;
development and thus development in potentially
minimize potentially hazardous
hazardous areas would not occur. Existing agricultural
developments in hillsides, canyons, areas
uses within the Preserve would be maintained under the
susceptible to flooding, earthquakes,
updated project. Like the original project, the updated
wildfire and other known hazards, and
project would continue to preserve viable ecosystems
areas with limited access for emergency
and known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered
equipment;
species, which is consistent with the RCPG objectives
regarding Open Space.
Water Quality
Encourage water reclamation through the
Consistent. The updated project would be consistent
region where it is cost-effective, feasible,
with Title 15.34 of the City's Municipal Code, which
and appropriate to reduce reliance on
establishes standards and procedures for design,
imported water and wastewater
installation, and management of water -conserving
discharges. Address current administrative
landscapes; therefore, it is considered consistent with
impediments to increase use of
RCPG objectives regarding water quality.
wastewater.
As with the original project, the updated project would require the following amendments to the
City's Municipal Code:
• Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.40.040) to ensure that any grading
associated with covered projects and activities within the NCCP/HCP Preserve, on a vacant
lot abutting the Preserve, or on a vacant lot outside the Preserve that supports CSS or
covered species conforms to the provisions of this NCCP/HCP.
• Fire Code. The City's Fire Code will be amended to reflect the fuel modification practices
and zones within the Preserve, as well as to make any parties found responsible for fires
which burn in the Preserve financially responsible for the cost of any necessary planned
responses, thus providing direct protection of the Preserve.
10634
D U D E K 47 March 2018
A-58
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
• Site Plan Review Process. The City shall amend the Site Plan Review Process (Municipal
Code Section 17.70.020 et seq.) to ensure that the provisions of this NCCP/HCP are
incorporated into the Site Plan Review evaluation process for any covered activity within the
NCCP/HCP Preserve, on a vacant lot abutting the Preserve, or on a vacant lot outside the
Preserve that supports coastal sage scrub. The modified Site Plan review process will provide
direct protection of the Preserve by requiring any proposed construction on vacant lots abutting
the Preserve to be consistent with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. If not consistent, the
proposed covered activity will have to be modified or denied by the City. If mitigation is
required, it shall be provided in accordance with Section 5.3.4 of the NCCP/HCP. Lots with
coastal sage scrub that are not within or adjacent to the Preserve will mitigate impacts
consistent with the NCCP/HCP.
• Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance. The City shall amend its
existing Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance (Municipal Code
Chapter 17.41 et seq.) to ensure that the provisions of this NCCP/HCP are incorporated into
said ordinance. More specifically, the ordinance will be amended to allow CSS loss associated
with the projects and activities covered by the NCCP/HCP and to incorporate the mitigation
requirements discussed in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of the NCCP/HCP.
• Subdivision Ordinance. The City will amend its Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) to
ensure any future proposed subdivisions involving vacant lots abutting the Preserve
conform to the NCCP/HCP.
• Coastal Permits. The City shall amend the Coastal Permit Process (Municipal Code Section
17.70.020 et seq.) to ensure that all Coastal Permits for covered activities within the
NCCP/HCP Preserve, on a vacant lot abutting the Preserve, or on a vacant lot outside the
Preserve that supports coastal sage scrub will comply with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP.
The updated project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan. Rather, the City will amend its local CEQA Guidelines to ensure
that development projects that are subject to CEQA review, are analyzed and provide mitigation
to ensure that they are consistent with the applicable provisions of the NCCP/HCP.
Lastly, the updated project would continue to preserve open space and contribute to a regional
approach to protect sensitive species and their habitats. The updated project ensures that the
impacts resulting from future proposals to open space would be assessed using a regional baseline
to analyze the impacts. The updated project, in combination with other past, current, and future
projects, would therefore not result in a significant cumulative impact.
D U D E K 48 March 0634 2018
A-59
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
As such, with the adoption of the above mentioned amendments to the City's Zoning Map, General
Plan, and Municipal Code, the updated project's impacts to land use and planning would be less
than significant.
4.3.11 Mineral Resources
The updated project would have the potential to result in mineral resources impacts if it would:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not result in the loss of availability of a
known or locally important mineral resources; therefore, it was determined that further analysis
was unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would not affect mineral resources because it is a
natural community conservation plan and habitat conservation plan that would not result in ground
disturbance, structures, or other physical changes to the baseline condition/existing setting. The
updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design, covered species and project
list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would
not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FOR regarding mineral resources;
therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.12 Noise
The updated project would have the potential to result in noise impacts if it would:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
D U D E K 49 March 0634 2018
A-60
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not result in noise impacts because it
would not result in an increase in noise or expose people to increased noise or vibration. Under the
original project, local noise ordinances would continue to apply to development activities to ensure
avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors associated
with development; therefore, it was determined to be a less -than -significant effect, and further
analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no noise impact because there would be
no change to the baseline condition/existing setting from the updated project. As with the original
project, local noise ordinances would continue to apply to development activities to ensure
avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors associated
with development. The updated project includes minor modifications to the Preserve design,
covered species and projects list, permit duration, and implementation status of the City's
NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying the determination from the 2004 FEIR
regarding noise; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.13 Population and Housing
The updated project would have the potential to result in population and housing impacts if it would:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
D U D E K 50 March 0634 2018
A-61
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not result in increased population or the
need for additional housing and that the original project would not displace people or existing
housing. As described for the original project, the City is approximately 90 percent built out, and
it was expected that in -fill development would be sufficient to meet the city's regional housing
requirements from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Additionally,
implementation of the original project was expected to reduce the costs of environmental
mitigation and compliance with federal and state environmental laws and thus lower the cost of
future development relative to the practice of project -by -project permit review. The original
project was also determined to be consistent with "smart growth" strategies recommended by
SCAG. Therefore, no impact to population and housing were expected to occur and further
analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact to population and housing
because it would not result in increased population or need for housing, and the updated project
would not displace people or existing housing. The updated project includes minor modifications
to the Preserve design, covered species and projects list, permit duration, and implementation
status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying the determination
from the 2004 FOR regarding housing and population; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.14 Public Services
The updated project would have the potential to result in public services impacts if it would result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
D U D E K 51 March 0634 2018
A-62
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
a. Fire Protection
b. Police Protection
c. Schools
d. Parks
e. Other public facilities
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not result in increased need for additional
public services, such as fire and police protection, schools, and parks. Therefore, no impact to public
services were expected to occur and further analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact to public services because it
would not result in increased need for additional public services including fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. The updated project includes minor
modifications to the Preserve design, covered species and projects list, permit duration, and
implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying
the determination from the 2004 FEIR regarding public services; therefore, no further analysis
is necessary.
4.3.15 Recreation
The updated project would have the potential to result in recreation impacts if it would:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
D U D E K 52 March 0634 2018
A-63
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 EIR concluded that the boundaries of the original project were developed to be consistent
with existing uses of public recreation facilities. Additionally, as stated in the 2004 EIR,
establishment of the original project would increase the amount of public land available for passive
recreation. Because of these factors, and because the original project did not include growth -
inducing development, no significant adverse impacts to existing recreational facilities were
expected to occur.
The original project identified existing and future recreational uses compatible with the Preserve,
but it did not propose development of specific recreational activities or facilities. Therefore, the
original project did not include any recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect
on the environment and result in significant impacts.
Compatible land uses within the Preserve would include the creation and maintenance of a
recreational Preserve trail system developed consistent with the policies of the Conceptual Trails
Plan; therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with plans and policies regarding the
paths and trails network were considered to occur from implementation of the original project.
Before any formalized recreational activities or improvements could occur in the Preserve, the
original project required that a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) be prepared jointly by the City
and PVPLC to address issues such as public access, trail use, trailhead locations, and overlooks.
Existing historically used trails that were determined to be unnecessary or redundant were expected
to be closed and restored to CSS habitat. As such, no significant impacts related to conflicts with
applicable plans and policies were expected to occur from implementation of the original project.
Additionally, the original project was found to be consistent with recommendations presented in
the Parks Master Plan.
Further, the original project was not expected to preclude any road improvements that would be
necessary to provide bikeway segments; therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with
the Conceptual Bikeway Plan were expected to occur. The original project expected to increase
the acreage of parklands available for passive recreation and therefore was not expected to result
in any significant recreation impacts related to conflicts with the Municipal Code.
The original project was considered to increase the amount of open space available for passive
recreation. Further, recreational facilities identified as compatible uses within the Preserve would
be developed consistent with 2004 NCCP/HCP conservation goals. Project consistency with
recreation plans and policies would be evaluated for future developments on a project -by -project
basis. Based on the above, no significant cumulative impacts to existing park facilities were
anticipated from the original project.
1634
D U D E K 53 March 0018
A-64
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2018 Addendum Analysis
The original project proposed the development of a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) as a way of
specifying the appropriate recreational uses of the Preserve consistent with the NCCP/HCP. Since
the 2004 FEIR, the City Council adopted the PUMP which was developed jointly by the City, the
public, and PVPLC to balance the public's passive recreational needs with the protection of natural
resources within the Preserve and address public access issues. The 2004 EIR discussed the
development of a Reserve Trail Plan (RTP), to be developed as part of the PUMP. The newly
developed PUMP includes development of a Preserve Trails Plan (PTP)1.
As described in the 2018 NCCP/HCP, public uses and activities are considered conditionally covered
activities in the Preserve if they conform to the PUMP. This includes passive recreational activities
such as horse riding, hiking, bicycling, and wildlife viewing. Further, the creation and maintenance of
passive overlook or vista areas with seating benches, trail markers, and associated amenities to be
located at key vista points near existing trails in the Preserve is allowable under the PUMP. Under the
updated project and the PUMP, the existing archery range within the Preserve would continue to
operate and be maintained, provided the appropriate City Permits are maintained and the facility is not
expanded. As such, the updated project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational
facilities, but rather would improve and maintain existing facilities. As such, no impact would occur
to physical deterioration of recreational facilities.
Under the updated project and the PUMP, passive recreational uses would continue to be allowed,
such as trail implementation, maintenance and repair; however, these trails/paths are mostly
existing trails/paths that have existed throughout the Preserve since before the original project. The
2018 NCCP/HCP determined that such passive recreational uses would be compatible with the
Preserve provided that such actions are implemented consistent with the PUMP. If the installation
of new trail segments or infrastructure has the potential for environmental impacts, additional
environmental review, permitting, and avoidance and mitigation measures may be required, as
described in the PUMP.
Like the original project, the updated project would increase the amount of open space available for
passive recreation identified as compatible uses within the Preserve and would be developed consistent
with 2018 NCCP/HCP conservation goals and the PUMP. Therefore, the updated project would have
a less than significant impact on recreation uses, and no further analysis is necessary.
1 Note: The 2004 NCCP/HCP described the development of a Reserve Trail Plan (RTP). In the 2018 NCCP/HCP,
this is referred to as the Preserve Trails Plan (PTP).
D V D E K 54 March 0634 2018
A-65
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
4.3.16 Transportation/Traffic
The updated project would have the potential to result in transportation/traffic impacts if it would:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes
of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components
of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
e. Result in inadequate emergency access.
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FEIR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FEIR concluded that the original project would not cause an increase in traffic
congestion, affect levels of service, increase safety risks, increase the need for additional parking,
preclude development of planned roadways, affect emergency access, or conflict with adopted
plans, because there would be no change between the baseline condition/existing setting and the
original project. Therefore, it was determined that there would be a less -than -significant effect on
transportation/traffic, and further analysis was considered unwarranted.
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact to transportation/traffic
because it would not result in an increase in traffic congestion, affect levels of service, increase
safety risks, preclude development of planned roadways, affect emergency access, or conflict with
adopted plans. Transportation/traffic conditions under the updated project would not change from
D U D E K 55 March 0634 2018
A-66
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
the baseline condition/existing setting. The updated project includes minor modifications to the
Preserve design, covered species and projects list, permit duration, and implementation status of
the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying the determination from the
2004 FOR regarding transportation/traffic; therefore, no further analysis is necessary.
4.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
The updated project would have the potential to result in utilities and service systems impacts
if it would:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control
board.
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs.
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
The following provides a summary of the findings from the 2004 FOR and the analysis of the
updated project for the 2018 Addendum.
2004 FEIR Summary
The 2004 FOR concluded that the original project would not result in the use or treatment of
wastewater, expansion of stormwater drainage or water lines, or creation of solid waste.
Additionally, existing utility easements were considered compatible land uses within the Preserve
system. Under the original project, there were considered no effects to utilities and service systems
beyond that which would occur under the baseline condition/existing setting; therefore, it was
determined to be a less -than -significant effect, and further analysis was considered unwarranted.
D U D E K 56 March 0634 2018
A-67
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
2018 Addendum Analysis
Like the original project, the updated project would have no impact to utilities and service systems
because it would not result in the use or treatment of wastewater, expansion of stormwater drainage
or water lines, or creation of solid waste and because the existing utility easements are compatible
land uses within the existing and proposed Preserve lands. The updated project includes minor
modifications to the Preserve design, covered species and projects list, permit duration, and
implementation status of the City's NCCP/HCP and these changes would not require modifying
the determination from the 2004 FEIR regarding utilities and service systems; therefore, no further
analysis is necessary.
10634
D U D E K 57 March 2018
A-68
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v U D E K 58 March 20018
A-69
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
5 CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, the City finds that the updated project would not alter the impact
findings presented in the 2004 EIR. With implementation of the updated project, there would be
no new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding these
issues compared to the issues originally identified in the 2004 EIR. There are no new mitigation
measures necessary to offset the effects of the updated project. As with the original project,
mitigation measures to offset the impacts to biological resources from the updated project include
implementation of 2018 NCCP/HCP and all the obligations and commitments contained therein,
including establishment of the City-wide Preserve system and long-term management, monitoring,
restoration of the Preserve, and implementation of appropriate amendments to the General Plan,
Local Coastal Plan, ordinances, and existing planning documents. Implementation of 2018
NCCP/HCP will sufficiently mitigate impacts to biological resources below a level of significance.
Therefore, the impacts and mitigation measures for the updated project are within the scope of
impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2004 EIR, and the 2004 EIR adequately
addressed all impacts of the project as updated.
Based on the above, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the updated project
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15164(b)] because none of the
conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162] calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred. This Addendum has appropriately disclosed
the potential impacts from the proposed updated project and will be included as part of the CEQA
record for the Project. The proposed updated project does not significantly alter the findings or
conclusions reached in the previously adopted 2004 EIR.
D U D E K 59 March 0634 2018
A-70
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEI 60 March 20018
A-71
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
6 REFERENCES
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Palos Verdes
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Subarea Plan (SCH# 2003071008). July 30.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2012. City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Official Zoning Map.
Adopted February 21, 2012. Accessed November 20, 2017. http://www.rpvca.gov/
DocumentCenter/Home/View/5912.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2013. Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Public Use Master Plan
(PUMP). Adopted April 2, 2013. Accessed November 17, 2017. http://www.rpvca.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/ 1083 8.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2015. City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map
(2015). Accessed November 20, 2017. Accessed http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-
Plan-Update.
URS Corporation. 2004. Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Subarea Plan. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. July 29.
URS Corporation. 2018. Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
1634
DUDEK 61 March 0018
A-72
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10634
62 March 2018
A-73
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Figure 1 Project Location
10634
63 March 2018
A-74
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEI 64 March 20018
A-75
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Figure 2 Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP Preserve Design
D U a E K 65 March 20018
A-76
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEI 66 March 20018
A-77
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NATURAL
COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLAN PROGRAM, ADOPTING MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND CERTAIN FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA"), IN
CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CITY SUBAREA PLAN
AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) Act of 1991 provides
for the preparation and implementation of large-scale natural resource conservation plans that
identify and provide for the protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing
for compatible and appropriate development and growth, and while providing comprehensive
management and conservation of multiple species; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into an NCCP agreement with the California
Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an
NCCP subarea plan that would encompass the entire City; and,
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project includes adoption of the City Subarea Plan and
implementation of an NCCP Reserve, and adoption of an Implementing Agreement that sets
forth the responsibilities of all the parties involved with the City's NCCP; and,
WHEREAS, a description and summary of the draft NCCP Plan was presented to the City
Council on February 4, 2003, at which time the City Council directed staff to complete the Draft
NCCP Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Draft NCCP Subarea Plan was completed and made available to the public
in June 2003; and,
WHEREAS, the City analyzed the Proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000
et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.)
promulgated with respect thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (Initial Study) for the Project
pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines, which concluded that there was evidence that the
Project may have a significant environmental impact on specifically identified resources, including
biological resources, land use/planning, and recreation; and,
WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project in accordance with the
provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081; and,
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated from June 25, 2003
to July 25, 2003, in order to receive public comments on what should be included in the analysis of
the EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City sent the NOP to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and
Research for the State of California (State Clearinghouse) and to other interested agencies and
groups in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a); and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 60
days from February 20, 2004 to April 20, 2004, in order to receive written comments on the
adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and,
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment process the City received more than 575
comments regarding the Proposed Project, including written comments; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments on the DEIR and made
revisions and additions to the DEIR, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and
the public in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed the Final EIR documentation
completed for the Proposed Project,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Final EIR (FEIR) for the Proposed Project is comprised of one volume: the
FEIR (July 30, 2004), which includes the Draft EIR as modified in response to comments, all
comments, and the responses to those comments. The findings made in this Resolution are based
upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence that
has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, technical
studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file and available for public examination
during normal business hours with the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, who
serves as the custodian of these records.
Section 2: The City Council finds that pursuant to Guideline Sections 15087(e) and 15105,
agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to
comment on the FEIR by providing a 60 -day public review period, as well as holding a public
meeting on March 16, 2004, to provide a venue for the public to comment on the DEIR.
Section 3: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the
FEIR pursuant to Guidelines Section 15084(e). The City Council hereby finds that the FEIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City and the City Council. The City Council further finds that the
additional information provided in staff reports, and in responses to comments received after
circulation of the DEIR, does not constitute new information requiring a recirculation of the FEIR
under CEQA. The public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial environmental impact of the Proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or
alternative that the City has declined to implement. All feasible mitigation measures suggested in
the FEIR have been considered. Those measures, as applicable, shall be incorporated as
conditions of project approval for any approval under this EIR and shall be fully enforceable through
the Implementing Agreement. No additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been
identified.
Section 4: The City Council finds that the comments on the DEIR received during the public
comment period, and the responses to those comments, have been received by the City. The City
Council hereby certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, pursuant to
Guidelines Section 15090.
Section 5: Based upon the Initial Study and the record before the City Council, the City
Council finds that the Proposed Project would not cause significant environmental impacts in the
Resolution No. 2004-72
Page 2 of 4
B-2
areas of Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise,
Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service
Systems. Explanations for why the City Council determined that the Proposed Project will have no
impact or will cause a less than significant impact to the foregoing resources are contained in the
Initial Study (included as Appendix A to the FEIR) and in Section 8.0 of the FEIR in accordance with
the provisions of Guidelines Section 15128.
Section 6: Based upon the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council
finds that the Proposed Project, as mitigated, would not cause significant environmental impacts in
the areas of Biological Resources, Land Use/Planning, and Recreation. Explanations for why the
foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are fully discussed Section 5.0 of the FEIR, and a
chart of the mitigation measures appears as Table 2-1 in Section 2.0 of the FEIR, and is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A." The identified mitigation measures avoid or substantially reduce the potential
impacts in these areas.
Section 7: Based upon the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City
Council finds that the Proposed Project's cumulative impacts are not significant. Further
explanation for this determination may be found in Sections 4.0, 5.1.3, 5.2.3, and 5.3.3 of the
FEIR.
Section 8: Section 7.0 of the FEIR describes, and the City Council has fully considered,
a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project that might fulfill the basic objectives
of the Proposed Project. These alternatives include "Alternative 7.2 — No Project/No Action
Alternative," "Alternative 7.3 — Alternative A, Environmentally Preferred Alternative," and
"Alternative 7.4 — Alternative B, Landowner Alternative." The City Council further finds that the
alternatives identified in the FEIR would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the
Proposed Project to provide for the protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity, while
allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth, and while providing
comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species, as discussed below:
No Project/No Action Alternative: Under this alternative, the existing land use and
environmental regulations process would continue and be required for all public and
private projects proposed in the City. Existing regulatory practices require mitigation for
impacts to sensitive species and habitats, resulting in lands being set aside for open -
space preservation. The configuration of preserved lands under this alternative would,
however, be implemented project -by -project and be characterized, as it is currently, by
fragmentation, potentially poor Reserve design or constrained habitat linkages, and
isolated island preserves, resulting in increasing the risk of species decline and local
extirpation. This project -by -project pattern of planning would likely occur on both public
and private lands within the Subarea Plan under the No Project/No Action Alternative.
Alternative 1 — Environmentally Preferred Alternative: This alternative would minimize
the amount of future development, resulting in 91.0 percent of the existing naturalized
vegetation being conserved. This alternative includes 13.9 fewer acres of coastal sage
scrub habitat but 36.3 more acres in total compared to the Proposed Project. This
alternative is larger than the Proposed Project in terms of proportion of conserved
naturalized habitats (91.0 percent versus 87.4 percent), and the locations of potential
future development are different. This alternative conserves all key habitat linkages in
the city and linkages to adjacent jurisdictions. Relatively isolated habitat areas of public
lands are excluded in this Alternative. The City Council does not find this alternative to
be feasible, because it does not meet NCCP's objective of balancing development and
Resolution No. 2004-72
Page 3 of 4
B-3
preservation. Further, without any development, the financial feasibility of the project
becomes questionable, which would undermine its implementation.
Alternative 2 — Landowner Alternative: This alternative would conserve 78.3 percent of
existing naturalized vegetation. It would greatly fragment the most contiguous habitat
areas and constrain habitat linkages between the larger blocks of coastal sage scrub and
the linkage to habitats in Palos Verdes Estates. More privately owned lands would be
used as mitigation for development impacts, and less private land would need to be
acquired. The City Council does not find this alternative to be feasible, because a
smaller amount of land is preserved, and the long term viability of the sensitive species
could be undermined.
Section 8: The mitigation measures in the FEIR that correspond to the environmental impacts
which may result from the Proposed Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval
of, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation
Monitoring Plan" attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to
monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a
condition of Proposed Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings contained
in the staff reports, minutes, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the FEIR as the environmental document for the
Proposed Project approving and adopting the City Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement.
Section 10: City staff shall file a Notice of Determination pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21152.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 31St day of August 2004.
/s/ Peter C. Gardiner
Mayor
Attest:
/s/ Jo Purcell
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above
Resolution No. 2004-72 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a
regular meeting held on August 31, 2004.
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2004-72
Page 4 of 4
B-4
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
8.0 FUNDING AND FINANCING OF NCCP/HCP
8.1 Estimated Implementation Cost
Implementation of the NCCP/HCP will require funding to provide services and management and conduct
habitat restoration, invasive species control, monitoring, Adaptive Management, and post -permit perpetual
management of the Preserve. Within the Preserve, the City will be responsible for services such as storm
drain maintenance and control, public security, trash disposal, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes
on lands owned by the City, utility services, and maintenance of some signs, fences, and trails in perpetuity.
PVPLC, as the Preserve Habitat Manager, will be responsible for carrying out the biological objectives and
methodology described in Section 7.0 of the Plan for monitoring of the Preserve. Surveys for Covered
Species, control of invasive species, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on lands owned by the
PVPLC (Lunada Canyon), and some basic trail maintenance (see Section 9.0 of the Plan for Preserve
Management) will be the responsibility of PVPLC in perpetuity. These management related activities will
be provided in the form of in-kind services, or funded by cash, as appropriate for each item, as described
below.
8.1.1 Management Budget Analysis
The City and the PVPLC developed a Management Budget Analysis for the proposed Preserve (see
Appendix Q. Since that time, levels of services necessary have changed, and each Permittee's annual the
euffeat eelleeti.ve „nr,,, l rAcost to manage the Preserve wereas calculated. Based on the updated Preserve
Management budget, the City and PVPLC's tie—total cost of managing the Preserve is estimated at
$1,75-7651,4345,231,7 55,438. The methodology combines actual costs with the methodology of the Center
for Natural Lands Management's Property Analysis Record in which the characteristics and needs of the
properties are analyzed to derive the management requirements on a yearly basis. Management tasks were
specified and their costs provided or estimated, as were the administrative costs to provide for the cost of
yearly management. The cost of habitat management and biological monitoring varies according to habitat
type, condition, and specific tasks needed to maintain biological value. The budget (Appendix C) is
presented by line item costs for services such as biological surveys, habitat restoration (site
construction/maintenance, habitat restoration, and habitat maintenance), invasive plant control,
reporting, fuel modification, sanitation, signage, patrolling, etc. Even though some tasks, such as
gnatcatcher surveys, are required every three years, the budget annualizes these costs.
Some of the factors that affect the Management Budget Analysis include:
1. The costs will increase if acres beyond the 1,402.4 identified under the Plan are added to the
Preserve.
2. Levels of service may be increased or decreased depending on management needs of the Preserve.
3. The City's in and contributions Bests include the cost of providing perpetual public
safety to the Preserve. Based on the costs to the City in fiscal year 2016-17 to provide public safety
enforcement services in the Preserve, this cost has been estimated at $^''2567,000 per
C-1
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
year. This ,est : eludes $14 4,3 00 ,. f fund r the City will 3 ide t ALP G -and wasis used for
the Management Budget Analysis.
4. Habitat Restoration Plan: The Habitat Restoration Plan defined in Section 7.5 of the Plan will be
implemented. There will be no additional costs for habitat installation; these costs are included in
the management cost estimates of the Management Budget Analysis.
5. Targeted Exotic Removal Program for Plants (TERPP): In addition to the Restoration Program,
each year the TERPP will remove invasive plant species from 20 small sites or 5 acres within the
Preserve. The TERPP does not include seeding or planting.
6. Covered Species Monitoring: The costs of Preserve monitoring were charged in full when the initial
surveys were completed in 2006. Subsequent surveys are required every third year.
7. Fuel Modification: Based on the costs to the City in fiscal year 2016-2017 to provide the mandated
fuel modification work in the Preserve, this cost has been estimated at $108,000 per year and is
used for the Management Budget Analysis.
8. The City's annual services and in k4nd contributions include public services (staff, enforcement,
etc.); general maintenance (fuel modification, restroom facilities, road and trail maintenance,
signage, etc.); and vehicles and equipment. The City has committed to performing these in kin
services and contributions in perpetuity, and the cost of the services will be adjusted as necessary.
8.2 Funding Sources
The following funding sources will be used to implement this NCCP/HCP:
8.2.1 Summary of Habitat Management Funding
The NCCP/HCP relies on dedicated funding sources to fulfill its requirements for the permit duration and
associated perpetual management of the Preserve. The requirements for funding have been detailed in the
Budget Management Analysis (Appendix Q. The annual service commitments for Preserve management
during the 40 -year Permit Term are identified in Table 8-1 of the Plan. The funding amounts shown in
Table 8-1 are based on costs expended during the fiscal year 20168-201747 and are adjusted annually for
inflation or as needed to cover the cost of the activities. No additional funding from the City or the PVPLC
other than what is described here is anticipated to be required to implement the NCCP/HCP. To supplement
this funding, the City and PVPLC will actively pursue public and private funding sources on an annual
basis. This may enable both parties to undertake projects above those required by the Plan, such as
implementing more habitat restoration. The Permittees may also use or establish other local funding
measures, including, but not limited to, utility surcharges, special taxes or assessments, or bonds, to the
extent allowed by law.
C-2
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
Table 8-1. Annual Funding for Preserve Management During the
Permit
SOURCE
*AMOUNT
FROM
City
$ 1440,3500
**Annual payment for the Management Agreement with
PVPLCCash ffem City to the nNror C
City
$
1,-13914,11949
4
**Services/financial cla k4ad sen4e .- ontributions (so
Seetion 8.244)
PVPLC
$
2503j176,§611
x,019
Volunteer time -and/or -in-kind services in addition to $144,300
annual payment for the Management Agreement from the City
Total
$; ZH65J �a4
,o
5-731, 785,438
*Includes habitat restoration and Preserve management based on FY 2016-2017 costs
*Exeludes the separ-a4e S 1 0,000/year- nen A'asting endawfaeat fer- life of the pel:fflit (see seetion 9.2. 1. 1)
*Excludes the $50,000 D Habitat Restoration Fund required funds
**See (see Section 8.2.1.1)
8.2.1.1 City's Fundin_p Commitments
The City began its funding commitments for lands that are to be included in the Preserve system in January
2006, which was when the City began implementation of the management and monitoring under the Plan.
Specifically, the City committed to provide PVPLC $100,000 per year for Preserve habitat
management and $15,000 per year for managing the City's Oceanfront Estates habitat area and to adjust
these payments for inflation. As noted in Table 8-1 above, due to the annual adjustments for inflation the
City's combined payment to the PVPLC amounted to $1440,3500 in fiscal year 2016-2017. The City will
also commit in and contributions including road maintenance, sign maintenance, public
safety, enforcement, waste removal, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on City -owned lands,
staff time (e.g., Planning, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works), and maintenance as shown in the
Budget Management Analysis in Appendix C. The City has funded these Plan obligations since 2006 and
will continue to allocate funds annually at the costs necessary to implement the tasks identified in Table 8-
1 of the Plan.
In addition to its annual funding commitments described above, the City will maintain a dedicated Habitat
Restoration Fund as part of the approved City budget, with at least $50,000 (adjusted annually for inflation
by the CITY using the Consumer Price Index (CPI -U)) to be used to fund its share of planned responses to
Change Circumstances pursuant to Section 6.10.2 of the Plan. The Habitat Restoration Fund was established
in 2006 and may be periodically augmented by Mitigation Fees paid by applicants of Covered Private
Projects identified in Section 5.3 of the Plan. Mitigation Fees will be used by the City to manage the
Preserve, including the nearly 500 acres the City has dedicated as mitigation for Covered
Projects/Activities. Monies in the City's Habitat Restoration Fund, above the $50,000 balance noted above,
may be used by the City for habitat conservation/restoration purposes including but not limited to the
following:
C-3
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
1. As payment to the PVPLC to meet the City's cash obligation for Preserve management; and/or
2. As a contribution toward the City's non -wasting endowment fund discussed below which is
necessary to assure maintenance of the Preserve once the NCCP/HCP Permit expires; and/or
3. As a contribution to the PVPLC to perform habitat conservation activities beyond the requirements
of this Plan; and
4. The City understands and acknowledges that its obligation to fully fund the Habitat Restoration
Fund and to fully fund each of its other obligations under the NCCP/HCP, including, its habitat
management, monitoring, and restoration requirements, which are independent of and do not
depend on the existence of periodic payments from private project applicants or from Third -Party
Participants.
To assure maintenance of the Preserve once the NCCP/HCP Permit expires, beginning in 2006, the City
shall provide annual payment to the PVPLC with a minimum of $10,000, adjusted annually using Consumer
Price Index (CPI-U)for lse e�.oa a separate non -wasting endowment fund. The PVPLC shall manage
the endowment to cover its costs for post -Permit conservation management thereby removing any financial
obligations related to conservation management by the City post -Permit Term. ] ,
minimidm f $10,000, meannually n �'
City's Consumer- Mdex. Currently, there is
approximately $126,946000 within the account that will be transferred to the PVPLC. A minimum
payment of $10,000 (as described above) will be provided to the PVPLCadded to this fund- by the City
every year, and continuing for the Permit Term. Principal, interest, dividends and/earnings will remain in
the fund until the Permit expires. '
.A
Fiscal Report on the status of the fund will be included in the Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies (see
Section 9.3). Assuming a internal Rate of Return of 5 „ year -,The PVPLC's investment strategy of f the
fund is anticipated to generate at least $863,000 (adjusted for CPI -U) -by the end of after- he 40 year -Permit
Term which will assure sufficient funding for the perpetual management of the Preserve, die endo ..ment
and will havea balanee of $963,000after- ms 40 ,oaf Do, iit Tetg: The investment objeetive
Endowment fttnds of the PVPLG is to ener-a4e a total r-etum e"al to the a-flnual distlibtAiea rate plus the
long tet=m rate of inflation in order- to maintain the ptffehasing power- of the Endowment. The PNIPLG afifil
o
,; of the pr-eeediag 3 yeafs' aver -age ending balanee of the Endowment0
diversified,of Endowment assets to be kwested in highef fisk, highef fe4wn assets stieh as equity fitads. The hwestme
global peftfelio of publiely traded seetffifies,
spans,and ET -Fs, and evalua4es pizuden4 asset alleeation a -ad asset r-ebalaneing at qua44er-ly meetings. In shei4
ffiedium time >
policy is expected to build the Endowment value, suppor-t distributions, and i . i . hasing .
The interest and dividends on the endowment, but no part of the principal, will be used by ,,.,,,e
tithe PVPL1-C-If . I:„-,.evide to the PVP r, for conservation easement management when the Permit Term
expires. Management of the conservation easement by the PVPLC will include monitoring the lands in
C-4
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
accordance with the conservation easements, providing monitoring reports and any needed follow up,
communication with the landowner (City), communication with City staff and utility companies as needed
with regard to conservation easement requirements, reviewing permitted rights and approvals for activities,
dealing with minor violation incidents, and coordinating the resolution. The estimated annual cost that the
PVPLC will fund from the endowment for such post -Permit activities is $22,030, adjusted annually by the
CPI -U as of February of each year beginning in 2018, based on the PVPLC's experience monitoring the
lands under conservation easement (Summary of Estimated Post -Permit Costs, Appendix Q. The PVPLC
will also provide basic land stewardship, including monitoring, sign and trail maintenance, and invasive
species control on City -owned lands post -Permit expiration. "sstHi inn a ..o.,,..., rate of C0' (bawd on an
avefage al rate of fettwa loss iatla&)a rate 20' `, Tthe provided Git y endowment will be enough to cover
these post -Permit costs. The City will perpetually provide in and contributions for road
maintenance, sign maintenance, public safety, enforcement, waste removal, landslide abatement district
assessment, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes, staff time (e.g., Planning, Parks and Recreation,
and Public Works), and maintenance for allowable activities in the Preserve apart from the long-term
conservation easement endowment post the -Permit Term. The City will also encourage and promote
additional habitat maintenance or restoration to be conducted.
Long-term management of the Preserve will require funding to provide services, and conduct invasive
species control, monitoring, and Adaptive Management. Within the Preserve, the City will continue to be
responsible for the maintenance and repair of City -owned public infrastructure such as sewer and storm
control, public safety enforcement services, road maintenance, trash disposal, fuel modification for fire
prevention purposes on lands owned by the City, and maintenance of signs, fences, and trails stipulated in
the agreement between the City and PVPLC. Implementation of these and other activities may require a
Federal and state permit, as necessary, after the Permits expire if take of Covered Species is anticipated.
8.2.1.2 PVPLC's Fundin_p Commitments
To fulfill the Preserve management obligations, the PVPLC will commit $250,01900 per year (to be
adjusted annually for inflation), consisting of in-kind services or cash to fund services required to meet
permit requirements. In addition, PVPLC will commit the equivalent of $75,579 per year in volunteer time
(approximately 2,800 volunteer hours) dedicated to the Preserve to complete its obligations for management
and maintenance activities in the Preserve as described in Section 9.0 of the Plan and as required under the
permit. The extent of PVPLC's volunteer support is discussed in Section 8.2.2 of the Plan and has been
factored into the Plan. In-kind services from the PVPLC will consist of staff time from its stewardship and
restoration technicians for the maintenance and restoration of the Preserve, staff time from conservation
staff to perform biological monitoring, and staff time to organize and lead volunteer work days that bring
the community onto the land to experience hands-on stewardship related tasks, such as weeding, planting,
etc. PVPLC in-kind services also provide the use of equipment and fuel modification for fire prevention
purposes on PVPLC-owned lands (Table 8-1).
PVPLC has a record of significant and increasing support from the Peninsula and the areas nearby. Revenue
from direct mail and other fundraising has risen steadily as the organization has grown. Figure 8-1 of the
C-5
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
Plan illustrates PVPLC's revenue from 2000-2012. In addition, PVPLC has long-term investments which
had a balance of $1,437,316 as of December 2013. With authorization from the Board of Directors, the
long-term investments may be used for Preserve Management or to respond to Changed Circumstances.
While these funds may be available for use on the NCCP/HCP, they have not been specifically designated
for use in this Plan and thus are not included in Table 8-1 as annual funding for plan implementation during
the Permit. When appropriate, PVPLC will solicit donations to augment the special fund and/or long-term
investments. The organization also has a planned giving program and expects to receive legacies from
several supporters; however, these sources are also not included in the annual funding for plan
implementation.
Post -Permit expiration, PVPLC, as the Preserve Habitat Manager, will be responsible for ensuring the
preservation of habitat, which will in part be achieved through the monitoring of the conservation easements
on the Preserve lands. PVPLC will also provide basic land stewardship, including monitoring, fencing, sign
and trail maintenance, and invasive species control on City -owned lands post Permit expiration. The interest
and dividends generated from the non -wasting endowment fund will have a balance of $863,000 after the
40 year -Permit Term. The annual cost for PVPLC's post -Permit activities is to be about $223,030
(Summary of Estimated Post -Permit Costs, Appendix Q. Through these conservation easements, the
PVPLC has committed to perpetual stewardship. This means that the PVPLC has an ongoing obligation to
regularly monitor the land under conservation easement, as well a basic invasive species control, document
the monitoring, maintain contact with the landowner (City), and enforce conservation easement terms, if
they are violated. The PVPLC maintains a policy with Terrafirma, a charitable risk pool owned by
participating land trusts that insures its members against the legal costs of defending conservation.
Other management activities such as fuel modification will be addressed by PVPLC independent of the
post -Permit Term endowment funding source. PVPLC will also be responsible for fuel modification for
fire prevention purposes on lands owned by the PVPLC. These management -related activities will be
provided in the form of in-kind services, or funded by the City's non -wasting endowment, as appropriate
for each item. PVPLC will continue to provide in-kind support for Preserve management and monitoring
in the form of volunteer time and will continue to seek outside sources of funding through grants and donor
support.
C-6
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
$ 6,000,000
$ 5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$ 2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
PVPLC Fundraising History
Fiscal Year 2000 - 2015
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 8-1. PVPLC Fundraising History (Fiscal Year 1998-2006)
8.2.2 PVPLC Land Management
The PVPLC was founded in 1988 by a group of concerned area residents to preserve open space on the
Peninsula. The organization is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, with the mission to "preserve land and
restore habitat on the Peninsula for the education and enjoyment of all." The PVPLC has been very
successful through the years, preserving open space by working with cities and property owners to locate
funds for purchasing land, to provide tax benefits for land donation, and to encourage preservation of
publicly owned land. The organization provides an educational program consisting of monthly nature walks
for adults and a third-grade program that brings students to natural open space near the schools. Habitat
restoration is an important priority, with work underway on many of the properties managed by the PVPLC.
In 2005, the PVPLC succeeded in obtaining the private funds necessary to allow the City to purchase and
preserve 463 acres of open space in Portuguese Bend.
The PVPLC currently has a 16 -person board of directors. Its members come from all the Peninsula cities,
and bring varied backgrounds and experiences to the oversight of the organization. Professions on the board
in 2008 were diverse: aerospace engineer, retired banker, real estate investor, architect, attorney,
community volunteer, chief financial officer, investment banker, retired marketing and sales executives,
accountant, and college professor. The organization sets up advisory boards for the properties it manages,
involving the neighbors and interested parties in its preservation and restoration work.
The PVPLC has a dedicated biological staff skilled in such areas as habitat restoration planning and
implementation, conservation ecology, botanical identification, and scientific research and documentation.
The PVPLC staff drafts habitat restoration plans, implements habitat restoration projects, and performs
monitoring. Restoration ecologists are also contracted to provide restoration plans, monitoring support, and
peer review if needed. In addition, PVPLC staff members have the appropriate permits for the Palos Verdes
blue butterfly and will submit applications for monitoring permits for the California gnatcatcher. PVPLC
C-7
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
also maintains a Science Advisory Panel consisting of science researchers from universities and
organizations having a diversity of expertise for the purpose of supporting its research activities (see Section
7.8).
In January 2006, the City entered into an interim contract with the PVPLC to manage and monitor all of
the conserved land in the City's NCCP/HCP Preserve. A formal long-term contract was entered into by the
City and PVPLC in November 2011. Consistent with the contract, PVPLC has written and submitted the
initial management and monitoring plan, undertaken an annual program of TERPP, CSS habitat restoration,
and Covered Species monitoring in advance of the Federal and state permits being issued by the Wildlife
Agencies. The monitoring and management plan began in 2006.
The PVPLC is an active participant in the stewardship of the properties that it manages. PVPLC has been
successful in obtaining many grants for habitat restoration, invasive -plant management, interpretive signage
and trail construction, and environmental education. The funding sources for PVPLC projects are varied
and include contributions from private foundations and corporations, as well as various grants from the
Wildlife Conservation Board, California Coastal Conservancy, Center for Invasive Plant Management,
USFWS, Weed Management Area, and State Parks. Some of these projects are described in the following
list of lands that are managed by the PVPLC:
Forrestal Nature Preserve
1. The Forrestal Nature Preserve totals 157.9 acres and has some of the best remaining native wildlife
habitat and hiking trails, this preserve is within City and a key component of the peninsula's natural
environment and a significant part of the proposed NCCP/HCP Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
2. A 2003 grant from the Wetlands Recovery Project (Coastal Conservancy) allowed the PVPLC to
restore a wetland on the property.
3. Regularly scheduled volunteer days and scout projects provide assistance with habitat restoration,
trail repair, and other tasks.
Lunada Canyon Preserve
1. This 20 -acre canyon within City was once prime land for development. A gift to the PVPLC in
1992 from the E.K. Zuckerman family created the PVPLC's first natural area.
2. A grant from the Wetlands Recovery Project Small Grants Program (Coastal Conservancy) enabled
the PVPLC to restore a riparian area within this canyon.
3. A grant from the USFWS Endangered Species Act Landowner Incentives Program enabled the
PVPLC to restore 3 acres of CSS.
4. A partnership with the Environmental Science classes at the local high school provides
approximately 150 students with the opportunity to plant and weed at various times during the year;
scout projects have also made major contributions to the Preserve.
Wiwi]
•
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
Linden H. Chandler Preserve
1. An island of habitat, this 28.5 -acre property is a critical part of the natural environment in Rolling
Hills Estates.
2. The Preserve is owned jointly by the City of Rolling Hills Estates and the PVPLC and managed by
the PVPLC.
3. Funds from the Wildlife Conservation Board and a USFWS Recovery Implementation Grant
allowed the restoration of habitat for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly on the site; two reintroduction
efforts have been made.
4. The PVPLC has performed wetlands mitigation work for the City on this Preserve.
5. The PVPLC is implementing 5 acres of habitat restoration in support of a Wildlife Extension
Agreement with USFWS.
Navy Defense Fuel Supply Depot
While the primary use of this site is as storage for U.S. Navy fuel reserves, it also is home to the rediscovered
and endangered PVB.
PVPLC has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Navy to conduct habitat restoration and
monitoring, and to propagate the food plant for the endangered PVB in support of the captive rearing
project. The PVPLC maintains a native plant nursery and seed bank at the Defense Fuel Supply Point
(DFSP) in San Pedro, California. The approximately 2 -acre nursery site contains a small greenhouse, shade
tables, automated irrigation, and office space with a dry seed storage room. The facility averages 30,000
container plants and an additional rotating supply of seedling germination flats. On average, 73 species are
grown as container plants and 83 species of seeds are collected and stored for direct seeding and
propagation. PVPLC staff maintains monthly inventory of the container plants, germination flats, and seed
storage.
White Point Nature Preserve
1. This scenic 102 -acre parcel in San Pedro is owned by the City of Los Angeles. The PVPLC has a
25 -year management agreement for the property, which is now being restored as a nature preserve.
2. The PVPLC secured and implemented a $1,000,000 from the Wildlife Conservation Board to
restore CSS and native grassland habitats. This project has demonstrated successes as gnatcatchers
have nested in the restored habitat.
3. The work at White Point has involved extensive community participation, including volunteer days,
a yearly fundraiser, and an active community committee.
4. The PVPLC assisted in securing and successfully implemented the Habitat Trails grant from the
State of California for the construction of trails, including a handicapped accessible loop.
C-9
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
5. The PVPLC assisted in securing and successfully implemented an Urban Recreational and Cultural
Facilities grant for public restrooms, interpretive signage, and a native plant demonstration garden.
6. The PVPLC obtained and implemented a grant awarded from the Coastal Conservancy to
rehabilitate a former military building into a nature/education center with public restrooms.
7. PVPLC secured corporate funding to design, fabricate, and install educational exhibits in this
building.
George F. Canyon Nature Center and Preserve
1. The 36 -acre George F. Canyon Nature Center is owned by the City of Rolling Hills Estates and
operated by the PVPLC. The trail passes through one of the most pristine and beautiful of the many
canyons on the peninsula. Visitors can walk or ride on horseback through willow -riparian and CSS
habitats, culminating in a view of the Los Angeles Basin.
2. The PVPLC implemented a habitat restoration grant awarded to the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
This grant for $258,500 is providing funding for approximately 16 acres of riparian, coastal sage,
and native grassland habitat/enhancement through a Riparian and Riverine Grant funded by the
state of California Parks and Recreation Department.
In addition to the diverse and extensive grants that have been awarded to the PVPLC for habitat restoration
and management as displayed above, PVPLC has demonstrated the ability to generate significant amounts
of volunteer support. Figure 8-2 demonstrates the PVPLC's history of volunteer services. Volunteer
stewardship hours are separated from other types of volunteer support such as office assistance, special
event assistance, and committee service hours. Volunteer stewardship hours may include site preparation,
planting, weeding, plant propagation, and other direct assistance in habitat restoration and maintenance.
The volunteer stewardship hours are primarily generated from work conducted during outdoor volunteer
work days. The hours dedicated to stewardship activities from 2006 to 2013 are all valued well above
$75,000. Based on Figure 8-2, PVPLC has demonstrated that the volunteer component of the PVPLC's
commitment is sustainable at a $75,000 (2,800 volunteer hours) annual level. PVPLC maintains records of
volunteer time which will be summarized in the Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies.
C-10
SECTION EIGHT
$ 600,000
Value of YoIunteerTme
$18.52/hr in 2001
$18.67/hrin2002
$500,000
$19.19/hr in 2003
$19.74/hr in 2004
$20.36/hr in 2005
$400,000
$21..14/hr in 2006
$21.96/hr in 2007
$22.62/hr in 2008
$23-42/hr i n 2009
$300,000
$24.18/hrin 2010
$24.75/hr in 2011
$26.01/hr in 2012
$26.34/hr in 2013
$200.000
$26.87/hrin2014
$27.59/hr in 2015
$100,000
Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
PVPLC Volunteer Time
2001-2015
■Stewardship
■ Total
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200-6 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 8-2. PVPLC Volunteer Support 2001-2013
C-11
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/NCP
C-12
Exhibit C-2: ANNUAL COSTS
During Permit Term
Post Permit Term*
Costs Related to Fullfilling Conservation Requirements
BIOTIC SURVEYS
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC City FY 16-17
Costs
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC Staff
biologists, project mgrs.
hours
200
$90
1
$18,000
$0
$18,000
$0
$0
$0
Plant Ecologist
Restoration Ecologist
hours
330
$90
3
$9,900
$0
$9,900
$0
$0
$0
Wildlife Biologist
outside expert
hours
220
$90
3
$6,600
$0
$6,600
$0
$0
$0
Entomologist
outside expert
hours
80
$75
3
$2,000
$0
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
Conservation Director
PVPLC staff
hours
120
$75
1
$9,000
$0
$9,000
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$45,500
$0
$45,500
$0
$0
$0
HABITAT RESTORATION
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Misc. City Restoration Activities
annual budget
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$0
$30,000
$30,000
$0
$30,000
$30,000
AA/Open Space Manager (15%)
permit monitoring/management
hr
n/a
150.15
n/a
$0
$43,7841
$43,784
$0
$43,784
$43,784
Recreation Specialist (10%)
permit monitoring/management
hr
n/a
108.67
n/a
$0
$21,126
$21,126
$0
$21,126
$21,126
Site Analysis
field survey & report
hours
16
$90
1
$1,440
$0
$1,440
$0
$0
$0
Restoration Plan
plan/report
hours
200
$90
3
$6,000
$0
$6,000
$0
$0
$0
Organic Debris Removal
5 acres clearing
acre
5
$1,200
1
$6,000
$0
$6,000
$0
$0
$0
Soil Amendments
misc
yard
5
$75
1
$375
$0
$375
$0
$0
$0
Straw
for erosion control
bale
50
$10
1
$500
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
Seed Collection
native seed
hours
200
$75
1
$15,000
$0
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
Seed Purchase
native seed
Ib
45
$50
1
$2,250
$0
$2,250
$0
$0
$0
Plant Procurement
native plants
4" pot
1,500
$5
1
$7,500
$0
$7,500
$0
$0
$0
Revegetation
flag plant locations
hours
24
$40
1
$960
$0
$960
$0
$0
$0
Revegetation
plant installation
hours
324
$35
1
$11,340
$0
$11,340
$0
$0
$0
Seed Installation
hydroseeding
acre
5
$6,000
1
$30,000
$0
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
Irrigation System
DriWater/Irrigation
acre
5
$12,000
1
$60,000
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
Irrigation water and meter
Cal Water
cubic foot
2,500
$4
1
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
Exotic Plant Control
hand removal, or backpack spray
hours
1,000
$35
1
$35,000
$0
$35,000
$0
$0
$0
Exotic Plant Control
herbicide
gallon
10
$100
1
$1,000
$0
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$187,365
$94,910
$282,275
$0
$94,910
$94,910
SITE CONSTRUCTION/MAINT
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Salvage Plant Materials
hours
40
$28
1
$1,120
$0
$1,120
$0
$0
$0
Salvage/stockpile Topsoil
hours
40
$28
1
$1,120
$0
$1,120
$0
$0
$0
Fence, Protective Plastic
high visibility
feet
2,000
$1
3
$833
$0
$833
$0
$0
$0
Fence - Installed
chain link for plant yard
feet
200
$50
30
$333
$0
$333
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$3,406
$0
$3,406
$0
$0
$0
HABITAT MAINTENANCE
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Erosion Control
slope stabilization
hours
20
$28
1
$560
$0
$560
$0
$0
$0
Straw
erosion control
bale
50
$10
1
$500
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
Exotic Plant Control
hand removal , weed whip or herbici
hours
1,760
$35
1
$61,600
$0
$61,600
$0
$0
$0
Exotic Plant Control
herbicide
gallon
20
$100
1
$2,000
$0
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
Other
misc. supplies
item
1
$2,500
1
$2,500
$0
$2,500
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$67,160
$0
$67,160
$0
$0
$0
FIELD EQUIPMENT
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
GPS, Rover & Base Unit
gps w. mapping capability
item
2
$1,000
5
$400
$0
$400
$0
$0
$0
Vehicle
pickup truck
item
0.5
$16,000
5
$1,600
$0
$1,600
$0
$0
$0
Vehicle
mileage
mile
12,000
$0.55
1
$6,600
$0
$6,600
$0
$0
$0
Vehicle Insurance
insurance
year
0.5
$3,500
1
$1,750
$0
$1,750
$0
$0
$0
Camera 35mm lens
Idigital I
item I
I
1 $350
5
$70
$0
$70
$0
$0
$0
C-13
Exhibit C-2: ANNUAL COSTS
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
During Permit Term
PVPLC
City
Post Permit Term*
PVPLC
City
Total
Public Safety'*
Chemical Sprayer
backpack sprayer
item
1
$200
3
$67
$0
$67
$0
$567,000
$0
personnel
$0
Other
misc. supplies
item
1
$2,047
1
$2,047
$0
$2,047
$0
personnel
$0
n/a
$0
Subtotal
$0
$105,628
$105,628
$0
$105,628
$12,534
$0
$12,534
$0
-85 hrs/wk
$0
n/a
$0
VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
$0 1
Total
$2,4001
Volunteer Coordinator
coordination, outdoor workdays
hours
300
$35
1
$10,500
$0
$10,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
Interpretive Literature
labor
hours
40
$45
$10,500
$0
$10,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
REPORTING
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Database Management
data imput
hours
80
$80
1
$6,400
$0
$6,400
$0
$0
$0
GIS/CAD Management
data management
hours
40
$90
1
$3,600
$0
$3,600
$0
$0
$0
Photodocumentation
field survey
hours
80
$65
1
$5,200
$0
$5,200
$0
$0
$0
Agency Report
annual report
hours
60
$90
1
$5,400
$0
$5,400
$0
$0
$0
Monitoring Reports
monitoring documentation
hours
120
$90
1
$10,800
$0
$10,800
$0
$0
$0
Report Production
labor
hours
20
$60
1
$1,200
$0
$1,200
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$32,600
$0
$32,600
$0
$0
$0
OFFICE MAINTENANCE
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Administrative
operations
hours
80
$90
1
$3,240
$0
$3,240
$0
$0
$0
Telephone Charges, Annual
phone charges
item
2
$600
1
$600
$0
$600
$0
$0
$0
Office Supplies, Year
stationery
item
1
$100
1
$100
$0
$100
$0
$0
$0
Office Supplies, Year
supplies
item
1
$200
1
$200
$0
$200
$0
$0
$0
Copier
copier
item
0.5
$500
8
$31
$0
$31
$0
$0
$0
Fax Machine
fax
item
0.5
$400
5
$40
$0
$40
$0
$0
$0
Deskjet Printer
printer
item
1
$500
6
$83
$0
$83
$0
$0
$0
Other
misc. supplies
item
I
1 $1,000
1
$1,000
$0
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$5,294
$0
$5,294
$0
$0
$0
OPERATIONS
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Audit
CPA audit
item
0.5
$11,000
1
$5,500
$0
$5,500
$0
$0
$0
Contracts
produce contracts
hours
50
$80
I
$4,000
$0
$4,000
$0
$0
$0
Conservation Easement Monitoring*
$0
$0
$0
$22,030
$0
$22,030
Other
misc. items
item
1
$1,000
1
$1,000
$0
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$10,500
$0
$10,500
$22,030
$0
$22,030
ENDOWMENT*
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Non -Wasting Endowment
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
City Payment to PVPLC
lannual rate
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
($144,300)1
$144,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
•TAL: COSTS RELATED
I
TO FULLFILLING CONSERVATIONREQUIREMENTS
1
1 ($144,300)
$144,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
COSTS RELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND LAND OWNERSHIP
PUBLIC SERVICES
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Public Safety'*
Enforcement/Patrol
contract
80hrs/wk
n/a
1
$0
$567,000
$567,000
$0
$567,000
$567,000
AA/Open Space Manager (50%)
personnel
hr
n/a
150.15
n/a
$0
$145,946
$145,946
$0
$145,946
$145,946
Recreation Specialist (50%)
personnel
hr
n/a
108.67
n/a
$0
$105,628
$105,628
$0
$105,628
$105,628
PT OSM Staff Positions
personnel
n/a
-85 hrs/wk
n/a
n/a
$0
$113,900
$113,900
$0
$113,900
$113,900
Reporting Line/Phone Service
24-7 call service
n/a
n/a
n/a
I n/a I
$0 1
$2,4001
$2,4001
$0
$2,400
$2,400
Docent Training
meetings
hours
40
$25
1
$1,000
$0
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
Interpretive Literature
labor
hours
40
$45
1
$1,800
$0
$1,800
$0
$0
$0
Interpretive Literature
copy
page
2,000
$0.20
1
$400
$0
$400
$0
$0
$0
C-14
Exhibit C-2: ANNUAL COSTS
During Permit Term
Post Permit Term*
Regulatory Literature
printing costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$0
$2,500
$2,500
$0
$2,500
$2,500
Community Outreach
meetings
hours
80
$40
1
$3,160
$0
$3,160
$0
$0
$0
Other
Misc. Operatings supplies
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,000
$31,000
$32,000
$0
$31,000
$31,000
Subtotal
$7,360
$968,374
$975,734
$0
$968,374
$968,374
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
Specifications
unit
number
cost/unit
interval
PVPLC
City
Total
PVPLC
City
Total
Maintenance Superintendent (5%)
personnel
n/a
n/a
166.94
hr
$0 1
$16,227
$16,227
$0
$16,227
$16,227
Maintenance Supervisor (5%)
personnel
n/a
n/a
125.32
hr
$0
$12,181
$12,181
$0
$12,181
$12,181
Maintenance Worker (5%)
personnel
n/a
n/a
83.69
hr
$0
$8,135
$8,135
$0
$8,135
$8,135
Vehicles
Pickup and Polaris'
item
2
n/a
n/a
$0
$2,197
$2,197
$0
$2,197
$2,197
Brush Management
fuel modification zones
annual budget
n/a
n/a
1
$5,000
$108,000
$113,000
$5,000
$108,000
$113,000
Bird Surveys
As needed
annual budget
n/a
n/a
1
$0
$30,0001
$30,000
$0
$30,000
$30,000
Sanitation Control
collection & disposal
item
1
$ -
1
$0
$16,000
$16,000
$0
$16,000
$16,000
Portable Restrooms
rental and cleaning
item
4
$2,500
1
$0
$15,000
$15,000
$0
$15,000
$15,000
Landslide Abatement Districts
maintenance
n/a
2
n/a
1
$0
$60,096
$60,096
$0
$60,096
$60,096
Road Maintenance
Burma Road
item
1
$25,000
1
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
Trail/Misc. Maintenance
maintenance
as needed
n/a
n/a
1
$0
$15,000
$15,000
$0
$15,000
$15,000
Trail
maintenance
hours
200
$28
I
1 $5,600
$0
$5,600
$0
$0
$0
Sign
access and regs
item
80
varies
1
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$10,000
Sign, Metal
metal
item
40
$50
10
$200
$0
$200
$0
$0
$0
Sign, Metal
trail markers
item
25
$20
1
$500
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
SignI
interpretive
item
4
$2,000
10
$800
$0
$8001
sol
$0
$0
Subtotal1
SUBTOTAL: COSTS RELATED
TO PUBLIC ACCESS
AND LAND OWNERSHIP
$12,100
$19,460
$317,835
$1,286,209
$329,935
$1,30S,669
$5,000
$5,000
$317,835
$1,286,209
$322,835
$1,291,209
*The City contributes $10,000 annually into a non -wasting endowment fund, which began in 2006 and will continue throughout the permit term. These funds are projected to yield $22,030 annually
in perpetuity, and will be used to fund 100% of PVPLC's conservation easement responsibilities post permit term.
Additionally, the City is required to maintain a habitat restoration fund as part of the City budget, with at least $50,000 adjusted annually for inflation to fund planned
responses to changed circumstances pursuant to Section 6.10.2 of the Plan.
The PVPLC regularly expends additional funds beyond those shown. Annual Costs are a representation of minimum projected expenditures.
City costs shown are from FY 16-17
C-15
Conservation Easement
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Attn: Director of Community Development
[Space Above For Recorder's Use Only]
APN:
Exempt from filing/recording fees per Govt. Code §27383
CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED
(Including Third -Party Beneficiaries)
�141S CONSERALATION EASEMENT SEMENT r EEE PEEP A GES AND SUPERSEDES Pr !T -S
INST-R-LIMENT No. IN T -14E OFFICIAL P�EGORDS OF LOS ANGELES
COUNT -Y-}
[EG11
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED ("Conservation Easement") is made this
day of , 20_, by THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND
CONSERVANCY, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("Conservancy" or
"Grantor"), in favor of the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a California municipal
corporation ("City" or "Grantee"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties," with
reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. Conservancy is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and more particularly
described in Exhibit 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
also known as Lunada Canyon (the "Property").
B. The Property possesses wildlife and habitat values of great importance to Grantor, Grantee,
the State of California, Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the people of the State of California and the people
of the United States, collectively the "Wildlife Agencies." The Property provides high
quality habitat for the California Gnatcatcher, the Coastal Cactus Wren, the El Segundo
Blue Butterfly and the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly and contains Coastal Sage Scrub
("CSS") - habitat. Individually and collectively these wildlife and habitat values comprise
the "Conservation Values" of the Property.
C. The Property is part of the Habitat Reserve required to be preserved and managed in
perpetuity by Federal Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit TE- and State
01203.0005/459895.1
D-1
of California permit (collectively "Permits") according to the Rancho
Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan dated
2018 ("NCCP/HCP") and the [NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement] ("IA")
dated , the terms of which are incorporated by reference in this
Conservation Easement. Grantor, Grantee, CDFW, and USFWS each has a copy of the
NCCP/HCP, the IA, and the Permits.
D. Grantee is a city and is therefore authorized to hold conservation easements pursuant to
Civil Code Section 815.3.
E. CDFW has jurisdiction, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1802, over the
conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat
necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species, and CDFW is
authorized to hold conservation easements for these purposes pursuant to Civil Code
Section 815.3, Fish and Game Code Section 1348, and other provisions of California law.
F. USFWS, an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, has jurisdiction
over the conservation, protection, restoration and management of fish, wildlife, native
plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of these species
within the United States pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section
1531, et seq., the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 661-666c, the
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. Section 742(f), et seq., and other provisions of
Federal law.
COVENANTS, TERMS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
and pursuant to California law, including Civil Code Section 815, et seq., Grantor hereby
voluntarily grants and conveys to Grantee a conservation easement in perpetuity over the Property.
1. Purposes. The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to ensure the Property
will be retained forever in its natural, restored or enhanced condition consistent with the habitat
protection requirements of the NCCP/HCP and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair
or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. Grantor intends that this Conservation
Easement will confine the use of the Property to activities that are consistent with such purposes,
including, without limitation, activities involving the preservation, restoration and enhancement of
native species and their habitats.
2. Grantee's Rights. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement,
Grantor hereby grants and conveys the following rights to Grantee and to CDFW and USFWS,
each as a third -party beneficiary of this Conservation Easement:
(a) To preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property;
(b) To enter the Property at any reasonable time in order to monitor compliance with
and otherwise enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, and for scientific research and
interpretive purposes by Grantee or its designees or Wildlife Agencies or its designees, provided
that neither Grantee nor Wildlife Agencies shall unreasonably interfere with Grantor's authorized
use and quiet enjoyment of the Property;
01203.0005/459895.1
D-2
(c) To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the
purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of
the Property that may be damaged by any act, failure to act, or any use or activity that is inconsistent
with the purposes of this Conservation Easement;
(d) To require that all mineral, air, and water rights as Grantee deems necessary to
preserve, protect and sustain the biological resources and Conservation Values of the Property shall
remain a part of and be put to beneficial use on the Property consistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement; and
3. All Inconsistent Rights Extinguished. shed. All present and future development rights
appurtenant to, allocated, implied, reserved or inherent in the Property; are hereby terminated and
extinguished, and may not be used on or transferred to any portion of the Property, nor any other
property adjacent or otherwise.
4. Prohibited Uses. Except (and only to the extent) the use or activity is a Reserved
Right under Section 6, any activity on or use of the Property not authorized in this Conservation
Easement is prohibited if that activity or use is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following uses and activities by
Grantor, Grantor's agents, and third- parties, are expressly prohibited:
(a) Unseasonable watering; use of fertilizers, pesticides, biocides, herbicides or other
agricultural chemicals; weed abatement activities; incompatible fire protection activities; and any
and all other activities and uses which may adversely affect the purposes of this Conservation
Easement.
(b) Use of off-road vehicles and use of any other motorized vehicles except on existing
roadways;
(c) Agricultural activity of any kind, except that grazing for vegetation management
is permitted if done in accordance with a Wildlife Agencies -approved grazing or management plan
for the Property;
(d) Recreational activities except such passive recreational activities as are consistent
with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and the NCCP/HCP (e.g., horse riding, hiking,
bicycling, wildlife viewing);
(e) Commercial, industrial, residential or institutional uses;
(f) Any legal or de facto division, subdivision or partitioning of the Property;
(g) Construction, reconstruction or placement of any building, billboard or sign, or any
other structure or improvement of any kind, except signs for access control or education that will
not impair or interfere with the Conservation Values and are consistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement;
(h) Depositing or accumulation of soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio -solids or any
other materials;
(i) Planting, introduction or dispersal of non-native or exotic plant or animal species;
01203.0005/459895.1
D-3
0) Filling, dumping, excavating, draining, dredging, mining, drilling, removing or
exploring for or extracting minerals, loam, soil, sand, gravel, rock or other material on or below the
surface of the Property;
(k) Altering the surface or general topography of the Property, including building of
new roads, paving or otherwise covering the Property with concrete, asphalt or any other
impervious material;
(1) Removing, destroying, or cutting of native trees, shrubs or other vegetation, except
as required by law for: (1) fire breaks, (2) maintenance of recreational trails or roads that are
otherwise permitted under this Conservation Easement, or (3) prevention or treatment of disease;
(m) Manipulating, impounding or altering any natural water course, body of water or
water circulation on the Property, and activities or uses detrimental to water quality, including but
not limited to degradation or pollution of any surface or sub -surface waters;
(n) Without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may withhold for any
reason, transferring, encumbering, selling, leasing or otherwise separating the mineral, air or water
rights for the Property; changing the place or purpose of use of the water rights; abandoning or
allowing abandonment of, by action or inaction, any water or water rights, ditch or ditch rights,
spring rights, reservoir or storage rights, wells, ground water rights, or other rights in and to the use
of water historically used on or otherwise appurtenant to the Property, including but not limited to:
(1) riparian water rights; (2) appropriative water rights; (3) rights to waters which are secured under
contract with any irrigation or water district, to the extent such waters are customarily applied to
the Property; and (4) any water from wells that are in existence or may be constructed in the future
on the Property.
5. Grantor's Duties. Grantor shall undertake all reasonable actions to prevent the
unlawful entry and trespass by persons whose activities may degrade or harm the Conservation
Values of the Property or that are otherwise inconsistent with this Conservation Easement. In
addition, Grantor shall undertake all necessary actions to perfect the rights of Grantee, CDFW and
USFWS under Section 2 of this Conservation Easement.
6. Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its personal representatives,
heirs, successors, and assigns, all rights accruing from its ownership of the Property, including the
right to engage in or to permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Property that are not
expressly prohibited or limited by, and are consistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement. Grantor specifically reserves the right to conduct the following activities and uses on
the Property:
(a) The Covered City Projects proposed to take place on the Property, as described in
Sections 5.1 and 5.2 (including its subsections) and Table 5-1 of the NCCP/HCP, and Other
Covered Projects/Activities on the Property described in Sections 5.1 and 5.4 (including its
subsections) of the NCCP/HCP are permitted by this Conservation Easement during the term of the
NCCP/HCP, so long as such activities and any restoration required in connection with the activities
is carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of the NCCP/HCP. No additional
Covered Projects/Activities will be permitted or undertaken on the Property which are not now
described in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 (including their subsections).
(b) Following the expiration of the NCCP/HCP, all of the Projects and Activities
Covered by the NCCP/HCP that are expected to occur beyond the life of the NCCP/HCP are listed
01203.0005/459895.1
D-4
in attached Exhibit 2. The Covered Projects and Activities listed in Exhibit 2 will be allowed so
long as such activities are carried out in accordance with the long-term management and monitoring
plan described in Section 8.2 of the NCCP/HCP, or if the Covered Projects and Activities will result
in take, in accordance with incidental take permits issued by the Wildlife Agencies. No additional
projects are permitted without the express consent of the Wildlife Agencies and the Conservancy,
such consent not to be unreasonably withheld where the proposed project is determined by the
Wildlife Agencies and the Conservancy to be both necessary for public safety and is designed
reasonably to avoid impacts upon habitat and species, and following compliance with all applicable
Federal and state laws, including the Federal and state endangered species acts and California
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
7. Adaptive Mana_eme. The NCCP/HCP allows for Adaptive Management of the
Property, recognizing that Adaptive Management is a key element of implementing effective
conservation programs. `Adaptive management' means to use the results of new information
gathered through the monitoring program of the plan and from other sources to adjust management
strategies and practices to assist in providing for the conservation of covered species." (Fish &
Game Code, § 2805, subd. (a).) Adaptive Management combines data from monitoring species and
natural systems with new information from management and targeted studies to continually assess
the effectiveness and adjust conservation actions. Adaptive Management may include re -
prioritizing monitoring efforts as well as corrective actions where (a) resources are threatened by
land uses in and adjacent to the Property, (b) current management activities are not adequate or
effective, or (c) enforcement needs are identified. Actions that are part of Adaptive Management
of the Property in accordance with the NCCP/HCP, including but not limited to monitoring and
corrective actions, are consistent with the purposes of, and expressly permitted by, this
Conservation Easement.
8. Grantee's Remedies. CDFW and USFWS, as third -party beneficiaries of this
Conservation Easement, shall each have the same rights as Grantee under this section to enforce
the terms of this Conservation Easement. If Grantee determines that a violation of the terms of this
Conservation Easement has occurred or is threatened, Grantee shall give written notice to Grantor
of such violation and demand in writing the cure of such violation. At the time of giving any such
notice, Grantee shall also give a copy of the notice to CDFW and to USFWS. If Grantor fails to
cure the violation within fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice and demand from Grantee,
or if the cure reasonably requires more than fifteen (15) days to complete and Grantor fails to begin
the cure within the fifteen (15) -day period or fails to continue diligently to complete the cure,
Grantee may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the
terms of this Conservation Easement for any or all of the following: to recover any damages to
which Grantee may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement or for any
injury to the Conservation Values of the Property; to enjoin the violation, ex parte as necessary, by
temporary or permanent injunction without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the
inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies; for other legal or equitable relief, including, but
not limited to, the restoration of the Property to the condition in which it existed prior to any such
violation or injury; or to otherwise enforce this Conservation Easement. Without limiting Grantor's
liability therefor, Grantee may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any
corrective action on the Property.
If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action
to prevent or mitigate damage to the Conservation Values of the Property, Grantee may pursue its
remedies under this Section 7 without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period
provided for cure to expire. Grantee's rights under this section apply equally to actual or threatened
violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that Grantee's remedies at
01203.0005/459895.1
D-5
law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee
shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory,
in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance
of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages
or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this
section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law
or in equity, including but not limited to, the remedies set forth in Civil Code Section 815, et seq.,
inclusive. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not
bar Grantee from taking such action at a later time.
If at any time in the future Grantor or any subsequent transferee uses or threatens to use
the Property for purposes inconsistent with this Conservation Easement then, notwithstanding Civil
Code Section 815.7, the California Attorney General, any person and any entity with a justiciable
interest in the preservation of this Conservation Easement each has standing as an interested party
in any proceeding affecting this Conservation Easement.
8.1. Fees and Costs; Damages. All costs incurred by Grantee, CDFW or
USFWS, where it is the prevailing party, in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement
against Grantor, including, but not limited to, costs of suit and attorneys' and experts' fees, and any
costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's negligence or breach of this Conservation Easement
shall be borne by Grantor. Pursuant to Civil Code section 815.7, subdivision (d), the court may
award to the prevailing party in any action authorized by that section, the costs of litigation,
including reasonable attorney's fees.
8.2. Discretion of Grantee and Third -Party Beneficiaries. Enforcement of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantee, CDFW or USFWS shall be at the discretion of
the enforcing party, and any forbearance by Grantee, CDFW or USFWS to exercise its rights under
this Conservation Easement in the event of any breach of any term of this Conservation Easement
shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of such term or of any subsequent breach of the
same or any other term of this Conservation Easement or of any of Grantee's rights (or any rights
of CDFW or USFWS as a third -party beneficiary) under this Conservation Easement. No delay or
omission by Grantee, CDFW or USFWS in the exercise of any right or remedy shall impair such
right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
8.3. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation
Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee, CDFW or USFWS to bring any action against
Grantor for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from any natural cause beyond
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire not caused by Grantor, flood, storm, and earth
movement, or any prudent action taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate,
or mitigate significant injury to persons or the Property resulting from such causes.
8.4. Rights of Enforcement. All rights and remedies conveyed to Grantee under
this Conservation Easement shall extend to and are enforceable by CDFW and USFWS. These
rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the NCCP/HCP and IA.
9. Fence Installation and Maintenance. Grantor may install and maintain fencing that
is approved in writing by Grantee, CDFW, and USFWS to protect the Conservation Values of the
Property, including but not limited to wildlife corridors.
10. Access. Public access to the Property for passive recreational purposes and to
promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources in accordance with Section 5.4.2 of
01203.0005/459895.1
A e
the NCCP/HCP and a Public Use Management Plan approved in writing by Grantee, CDFW, and
USFWS, is permitted.
11. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and
liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Property.
Grantor agrees that neither CDFW nor USFWS shall have any duty or responsibility for the
operation, upkeep or maintenance of the Property, the monitoring of hazardous conditions thereon,
or the protection of Grantor, the public or any third -parties from risks relating to conditions on the
Property. Grantor and Grantee each remains solely responsible for obtaining any applicable
governmental permits and approvals required of it for any activity or use permitted by this
Conservation Easement, including those from CDFW and USFWS each acting in its regulatory
capacity, and any activity or use shall be undertaken in accordance with all applicable Federal,
state, local and administrative agency statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and
requirements.
11.1. Taxes; No Liens. Grantor shall pay before delinquency all taxes,
assessments (general and special), fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed
against the Property by competent authority (collectively "Taxes"), including any taxes imposed
upon, or incurred as a result of, this Conservation Easement, and shall furnish Grantee, CDFW and
USFWS with satisfactory evidence of payment upon request. Grantor and Grantee each shall keep
the Property free from any liens, including those arising out of any obligations incurred for any
labor or materials furnished or alleged to have been furnished to or for it at or for use on the
Property.
11.2. Hold Harmless.
(a) Grantor shall hold harmless, protect and indemnify Grantee and its
directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and representatives and the heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (individually or collectively, "Grantee
Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages,
expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees), causes of
action, claims, demands, orders, liens or judgments ("Claim(s)"), arising from or in any way
connected with: (1) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property,
resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the
Property, regardless of cause, except that this indemnification shall be inapplicable to Grantee's
Indemnified Parties with respect to any Claim due solely to the negligence or willful misconduct
of Grantee or any of Grantee Indemnified Parties; and (2) the obligations specified in Sections 5,
11, and 11.1.
(b) Grantor shall hold harmless, protect and indemnify CDFW and USFWS
("Third -Party Beneficiaries") and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents,
contractors, and representatives and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of
each of them (individually or collectively, "Third -Party Beneficiary Indemnified Parties") from
and against any and all Claims arising from or in any way connected with: (1) injury to or the death
of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or
other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, and (ii) the
existence or administration of this Conservation Easement. Provided, however, that this
indemnification shall be inapplicable to a Third -Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party with respect
to any Claim due solely to the negligence or willful misconduct of that Third -Party Beneficiary
Indemnified Party/ies. If any action or proceeding is brought against any of the Third -Party
Beneficiary Indemnified Parties by reason of any Claim to which the indemnification in this Section
01203.0005/459895.1
D-7
11.2 (b) applies then, at the election of and upon written notice from the Third -Party Beneficiary
Indemnified Parry, Grantor shall defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably
acceptable to the applicable Third -Party Beneficiary Indemnified Parry or reimburse the Third -
Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party for all charges of the California Attorney General or the U.S.
Department of Justice in defending the action or proceeding.
11.3. Extinguishment. If circumstances arise in the future that render the
purposes of this Conservation Easement impossible to accomplish, this Conservation Easement can
only be terminated or extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceedings in a court of
competent jurisdiction. Grantor and Grantee shall notify CDFW and USFWS in writing at least
ninety (90) days prior to the initiation of proceedings to extinguish the Conservation Easement.
11.4. Condemnation. This Conservation Easement is a "conservation easement"
as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.055 (a) (1) and constitutes "property
appropriated to public use" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.055 (a) (3). CDFW
and USFWS is each a public entity that imposed conditions on approval or permitting of a project
that were satisfied by this Conservation Easement, as described in Code of Civil Procedure Section
1240.055 (a) (3). A person authorized to acquire property for public use by eminent domain shall
exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property only as provided in Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1240.055. The purposes of this Conservation Easement are presumed to be the
best and most necessary public use as defined at Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.680,
notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.690 and 1240.700.
12. Transfer of Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement may be assigned
or transferred by Grantee only to CDFW or another entity or organization approved in advance in
writing by Grantor, CDFW and USFWS that is authorized to acquire and hold conservation
easements pursuant to Civil Code Section 815.3 and Government Code Section 65967 (and any
successor or other provisions then applicable) or the laws of the United States. Grantee shall require
the transferee to record the assignment in the county where the Property is located.
13. Transfer of Property. Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this Conservation
Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself of any
interest in all or any portion of the Property, including, without limitation, a leasehold interest.
Grantor further agrees to give written notice to Grantee, CDFW and USFWS of the intent to transfer
any interest at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of such transfer. Grantee, CDFW or USFWS
shall have the right to prevent any transfer in which prospective subsequent claimants or transferees
are not given notice of the covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation
Easement. The failure of Grantor, Grantee, CDFW or USFWS to perform any act provided in this
section shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability in any
way.
14. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or other communication
that any party desires or is required to give to the other parties shall be in writing, with a copy to
CDFW and USFWS, and be served personally or sent by recognized overnight courier that
guarantees next -day delivery or by first class mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
To Grantor: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, Suite 207
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274
Attn: Executive Director
01203.0005/459895.1
D-8
To Grantee: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Attn: City Manager
Facsimile: (310) 377-9868
To CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, California 92123
Attn: Regional Manager
With a copy to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Office of the General Counsel
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814-2090
Attn: General Counsel
To USFWS: Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, California 92008
Telephone: (760) 431-9440
Fax: (760) 431-5901
Attn: Field Supervisor
or to such other address as Grantor, Grantee, CDFW or USFWS may designate by written notice
to the other parties. Notice shall be deemed effective upon delivery in the case of personal delivery
or delivery by overnight courier or, in the case of delivery by first class mail, three (3) business
days after deposit into the United States mail.
15. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended by Grantor and
Grantee only by mutual written agreement and subject to the prior written approval of CDFW and
USFWS. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement
and California law governing conservation easements and shall not affect its perpetual duration.
Any such amendment shall be recorded in the official records of Los Angeles County, State of
California, and Grantee shall promptly provide a conformed copy of the recorded amendment to
Grantor, CDFW, and USFWS.
16. Additional Provisions.
(a) Controlling. The interpretation and performance of this Conservation
Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, disregarding the conflicts of law
principles of such state.
(b) Liberal Construction. Despite any general rule of construction to the contrary, this
Conservation Easement shall be liberally construed to carry out the purposes of this Conservation
Easement and the policy and purpose of Civil Code Section 815, et seq. If any provision in this
instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any
interpretation that would render it invalid.
01203.0005/459895.1
D-9
(c) Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates on its face
any provision of this Conservation Easement, such action shall not affect the remainder of this
Conservation Easement. If a court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates the application of
any provision of this Conservation Easement to a person or circumstance, such action shall not
affect the application of the provision to any other persons or circumstances.
(d) Entire Agreement. This instrument, including the documents incorporated by
reference in it, sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation
Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating
to the Conservation Easement. No alteration or variation of this instrument shall be valid or binding
unless contained in an amendment in accordance with Section 15.
(e) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of
Grantor's title in any respect.
(f) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation
Easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective
personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns and shall constitute a servitude running in
perpetuity with the Property.
(g) Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this
Conservation Easement terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Conservation
Easement or Property, except that liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall
survive transfer.
(h) Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for
convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon its
construction or interpretation.
(i) No Hazardous Materials Liability. Grantor represents and warrants that it has no
knowledge or notice of any Hazardous Materials (defined below) or underground storage tanks
existing, generated, treated, stored, used, released, disposed of, deposited or abandoned in, on,
under, or from the Property, or transported to or from or affecting the Property.
Without limiting the obligations of Grantor under Section 11.2, Grantor hereby releases
and agrees to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Grantee Indemnified Parties (as
defined in Section 11.2) from and against any and all Claims (as defined in Section 11.2)
arising from or connected with any Hazardous Materials or underground storage tanks
present, alleged to be present, released in, from or about, or otherwise associated with the
Property at any time, except that this release and indemnification shall be inapplicable to
the Grantee Indemnified Parties with respect to any Hazardous Materials placed, disposed
or released by Grantee, its employees or agents. This release and indemnification includes,
without limitation, Claims for (i) injury to or death of any person or physical damage to
any property; and (ii) the violation or alleged violation of, or other failure to comply with,
any Environmental Laws (defined below).
Without limiting the obligations of Grantor under Section 11.2, Grantor hereby releases
and agrees to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Third -Party Beneficiary
Indemnified Parties (as defined in Section 11.2) from and against any and all Claims arising
from or connected with any Hazardous Materials or underground storage tanks present,
alleged to be present, released in, from or about, or otherwise associated with the Property
01203.0005/459895.1
D-10
at any time, except that this release and indemnification shall be inapplicable to a Third -
Party Beneficiary Indemnified Parry with respect to any Hazardous Materials placed,
disposed or released by that Third -Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party or any of its
employees. This release and indemnification includes, without limitation, Claims for (i)
injury to or death of any person or physical damage to any property; and (ii) the violation
or alleged violation of, or other failure to comply with, any Environmental Laws (defined
below). If any action or proceeding is brought against any of the Third -Party Beneficiary
Indemnified Parties by reason of any such Claim then, at the election of and upon written
notice from the Third -Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party, Grantor shall defend such
action or proceeding by counsel reasonably acceptable to the applicable Third -Party
Beneficiary Indemnified Party or reimburse the Third -Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party
for all charges of the California Attorney General or the U.S. Department of Justice in
defending the action or proceeding.
Despite any contrary provision of this Conservation Easement, the parties do not intend
this Conservation Easement to be, and this Conservation Easement shall not be, construed such that
it creates in or gives to CDFW or USFWS any of the following:
(1) The obligations or liability of an "owner" or "operator," as those terms are
defined and used in Environmental Laws (defined below), including, without limitation, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
(42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.; hereinafter, "CERCLA"); or
(2) The obligations or liabilities of a person described in 42 U.S.C. Section
9607(a)(3) or (4); or
(3) The obligations of a responsible person under any applicable
Environmental Laws; or
(4) The right or duty to investigate and remediate any Hazardous Materials
associated with the Property; or
(5) Any control over Grantor's or Grantee's ability to investigate, remove,
remediate or otherwise clean up any Hazardous Materials associated with the Property. The term
"Hazardous Materials" includes, without limitation, (a) material that is flammable, explosive or
radioactive; (b) petroleum products, including by-products and fractions thereof, and (c) hazardous
materials, hazardous wastes, hazardous or toxic substances, or related materials defined in
CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.;
hereinafter "RCRA"); the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 5101 et
seq.; hereinafter "HTA"); the Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health & Safety Code
Section 25100 et seq.; hereinafter "HCL"); the Carpenter -Presley -Tanner Hazardous Substance
Account Act (California Health & Safety Code Section 25300 et seq.; hereinafter "HSA"), and in
the regulations adopted and publications promulgated pursuant to them, or any other applicable
Environmental Laws now in effect or enacted after the date of this Conservation Easement.
The term "Environmental Laws" includes, without limitation, CERCLA, RCRA,
HTA, HCL, HSA, and any other Federal, state, local or administrative agency statute, ordinance,
rule, regulation, order or requirement relating to pollution, protection of human health or safety,
the environment or Hazardous Materials. Grantor represents, warrants and covenants to Grantee,
CDFW, and USFWS that activities upon and use of the Property by Grantor, its agents, employees,
invitees and contractors will comply with all Environmental Laws. Grantee represents, warrants
01203.0005/459895.1
D-11
and covenants to Grantor, CDFW, and USFWS that activities upon and use of the Property by
Grantee, its agents, employees, invitees and contractors will comply with all Environmental Laws.
0) Warr an . Grantor represents and warrants that there are no outstanding
mortgages, liens, encumbrances or other interests in the Property (including, without limitation,
water and mineral interests) that may conflict or are otherwise inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement and which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement by a
written, recorded Subordination Agreement approved by Grantee, CDFW and USFWS.
(k) Additional Easements. Grantor shall not grant any additional easements, rights of
way or other interests in the Property (other than a security interest that is subordinate to this
Conservation Easement), or grant, transfer, abandon or relinquish (each a "Transfer") any mineral,
air or water right, or any water associated with the Property, without first obtaining the written
consent of Grantee, CDFW and USFWS. Grantee, CDFW or USFWS may withhold such consent
if it determines that the proposed interest or Transfer is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement or will impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property.
This Section 16(k) shall not limit the provisions of Section 3(d) or 4(n), nor prohibit transfer of a
fee or leasehold interest in the Property that is subject to this Conservation Easement and complies
with Section 13. Grantor shall provide a certified copy of any recorded or unrecorded grant or
Transfer document to Grantee, CDFW and USFWS.
(1) Recording. Grantee shall record this Conservation Easement in the Official
Records of Los Angeles County, California, and may re-record it at any time as Grantee deems
necessary to preserve its rights in this Conservation Easement.
(m) Third -Party Beneficiaries. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that CDFW and
USFWS (each a "Third -Party Beneficiary" and together, the "Third -Party Beneficiaries") are
third party beneficiaries of this Conservation Easement with the right of access to the Property and
the right to enforce all obligations of Grantor and all other rights and remedies of Grantee under
this Conservation Easement.
(n) No Merger. The doctrine of merger is not intended, and shall not operate to
extinguish this Conservation Easement if the Conservation Easement and the Property become
vested in the same party. If, despite this intent, the doctrine of merger applies to extinguish the
Conservation Easement then, unless Grantor, Grantee, CDFW, and USFWS otherwise agree in
writing, a replacement conservation easement or restrictive covenant containing the same
protections embodied in this Conservation Easement shall promptly be recorded against the
Property by Grantee, or its successor in interest, in favor of a third party approved in writing CDFW
and FWS to ensure that the mitigation obligations required under the agency approvals and permits
identified in Recital C which include conservation of the Property in perpetuity through execution
and recordation of a conservation easement or equivalent legal mechanism, and the purposes of
Cal. Civil Code Section 815, are fulfilled. Until such replacement conservation easement or
equivalent legal mechanism is executed and recorded, Grantee or its successor in interest shall
continue to protect the Property in accordance with the terms of the original Conservation
Easement. Any and all terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement shall be deemed
covenants and restrictions upon the Easement Area, which shall run with the land according to
California law and otherwise exist in perpetuity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Conservation Easement as of the
day and year first set forth above.
01203.0005/459895.1
D-12
GRANTOR: PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY, a California non-
profit corporation
0
IM
Cassie Jones, President, Board of Directors
Amy Friend, Vice President, Board of Directors
GRANTEE: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation
ATTEST:
R -A
LOW
Susan Brooks, Mayor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
11A
David Aleshire, City Attorney
01203.0005/459895.1
D-13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2018, before me, , a
Notary Public in and for the State of California, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity,
and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the
person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for the State of California
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On , 2018, before me, , a
Notary Public in and for the State of California, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity,
and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the
person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for the State of California
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
01203.0005/459895.1
D-14
Katie Lozano
Subject: FW: 2018 Draft Natural Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:27 PM
To: CC
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft Natural Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council„
I strongly urge you postpone your Special Meeting about the NCCP. Despite what this notice says,
the latest draft is not yet available. I expect it to be a substantial document and the public should
have plenty of time to submit comments which can be addressed in the Staff Report.
By the way, the draft Land Use Map is not yet available for comments for the Planning Commission
review. The draft General Plan Update is available and it is a mess.
Staff has had years. Give the public our turn. ...S
In a message dated 3/15/2018 12:09:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, listsery@civicplus.com writes:
View this in your browser
At the March 29th City Council Meeting, the City Council will consider the 2018 Final Draft Natural
Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Restoration Plan. Please view the public notice linked below
for additional information and contact information.
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/11643
*************************************************
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserve category
you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored
email address. You can make changes to your subscription by visiting htti)://www.rr)vca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Breaking News on www.rpvca.gov. To
unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
E-1
Katie Lozano
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:00 PM
To: SUNSHINE; CC
Cc: Dan Landon; Ara Mihranian; Katie Lozano
Subject: RE: NOT. Re: Availability of the 2018 Fianl Draft NCCP/HCP
Hi SUNSHINE:
I just clicked this link and was able to open the document using both Internet Explorer and Chrome.
Kit Fox, AICP
Citi] of Rancho Palos Verdes
(510) 544--5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Dan Landon <danl@rpvca.gov>
Subject: NOT. Re: Availability of the 2018 Fianl Draft NCCP/HCP
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council,
Staff is "out sick". The link to the Final draft of the NCCP is still not populated. Try
it. http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/view/11615 or the listserve link. It was supposed to be
available last Friday and then Monday and now... But... I strongly suggest that you postpone your
Special Meeting to review the "Final Draft" to some date when the public has had the opportunity to
influence the Staff Report rather than loading you with "Late Correspondence". The Planning
Commission gets one last review of the draft General Plan and that assumes you will approve the
draft NCCP. Not that I am going to move away or shut up, RPV is no longer a wonderful place to
live. That is on the current Mayor and City Council. Charter City or General Law City, local control is
getting squeezed out.
Give yourselves the opportunity to state whether or not you support global control at our local level. I
don't represent anyone's position except my own. I just don't know what to say when you, as an
elected body, unanimously approve really damaging Staff recommendations.
There is a lovely term in the draft General Plan. Situational interpretation. Please don't give that
power to Staff. ...S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 3/20/2018 7:13:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, listservgcivicplus.com writes:
View this in your browser
E-2
Availability of the 2018 Final Draft NCCP/HCP
On Thursday, March 29, 2018, the City Council will conduct a special meeting at 6:00 p.m.at Hesse Park
Community Building located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, to consider, among other
things, the 2018 Final Draft Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Restoration Plan
(NCCP/HCP).
To view the 2018 Final Draft NCCP/HCP, including the Implementing Agreement and Appendices, click on
the link below:
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/l 1615
To view the public notice, click on the link below:
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/l 1643
The 2018 Final Draft NCCP/HCP posted on the City's website consists of a clean version and a redlined
version that identifies the changes made to the document reviewed by the City Council at its October 2,
2017 workshop.
Inquires and/or public comments should be directed to Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Katie
Lozano at 310-544-5267% or katiel(�rpvca.gov.
Thank you.
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listsery category
you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored
email address. You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve on
www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Uncnhscrihe
E-3