RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_04_01_03_Proposed_Amdmts_PV_Nature_PreserveCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUN IL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS, AICP,
DIRECTOR
APRIL 1, 2014
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PALOS VERDES
NATURE PRESERVE (SUPPORTS 2014 CITY COUNCIL
GOAL -TRAIL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT)
REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER<QJ j .
Project Manager: Ara Mihranian , AIC P , Deputy Community Development Directo ~
RECOMMENDATION
1. As requested by the PVPLC , enroll the recent City acqu ired 58-acre Malaga Canyon
open space property into the City 's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve ; and
2 . Remove the 40-acre Archery Range Property owned by the C ity 's Successor
Agency from the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve ; and
3. Modify the Preserve boundary with Gateway Park which results in the inclusion of 7
additional acres into the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve ; and
4 . Direct Staff to bring back an amended City/PVPLC Management Agreement as a
consent calendar item at the April 15 th City Counci l meeting and an amended Public
Use Master Plan (PUMP) document at a future C ity Council meeti ng that reflect
these Preserve changes .
BACKGROUND
On February 28 , 2014 , pursuant to previous C ity Council authorization , the C ity took
ownership of approximately 58 acres of open space in Malaga Canyon from two separate
private property owners . The full cost of this open space acquisit ion was funded by fede ral
and state grants and no City funds were expended toward the acqu isition .
3-1
PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESERVE
APRIL 1, 2014
PAGE 2
Now that Malaga Canyon is owned by the City , the PVPLC is requesting (see attached
letter) that the City Council enroll the property into the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
(PVNP) which is part of the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). By
doing so , the PVPLC will oversee the management of this property similar to other City-
owned properties in the Preserve that will lessen the City 's maintenance responsibilities as
discussed later in this report. Additionally , as two separate and unrelated proposals , the
City Council is being asked by Staff to remove the 40-acre Archery Range Property from
the Preserve and to reconfigure the Preserve boundary with Gateway Park .
If these proposed amendments to the NCCP Preserve are authorized by the City Council ,
Staff will return with an amended City/PVPLC Management Agreement on April 15 th and an
amended PUMP document at a future City Council meeting .
DISCUSSION
1. Enrolling Malaga Canyon into the City's NCCP Preserve
In addition to preserving 58 acres of open space in perpetuity , the Malaga Canyon
acquisition will facilitate implementation of several public trails identified in the City 's
Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), as well as provide the City access to maintain the existing
storm drain and sewer line. Although Malaga Canyon was not originally proposed to be
included in the City 's NCCP Preserve , during the acquisition process , the PVPLC Board of
Directors expressed an interest in the property being enrolled in the Preserve and a
conservation easement being granted in favor of the PVPLC . This is because the PVPLC
has been involved for a number of years to have federal funds allocated for land
conservation in this area. The PVPLC coordinated with the funding agencies and did the
initial outreach to the property owners assessing their willingness to sell. This was done
with the expectation that the land would be preserved in a similar manner to previous
acquisitions , with a conservation easement granted to the Conservancy .
On March 14 , 2014 , the PVPLC formally requested that the City Council enroll the property
into the City 's NCCP Preserve (see attachment). By doing so , the land comes under the
habitat management framework as described in the draft NCCP which is also summarized
in the current Management Agreement between the PVPLC and the City. If enrolled in the
Preserve , a conservation easement will need to be placed on the property in favor of the
PVPLC, similar to other Preserve properties . The language of the conservation easement
that will be placed on this property , as well as the other properties within the Preserve , has
been the subject of ongoing discussions between Staff, the Land Conservancy and the
Wildlife Agencies . The City 's goal is to ensure that the conservation easement will not
prevent the City or utility companies from repairing or maintaining the existing storm drain ,
sewer lines or other infrastructure that traverse the property . The City Council will need to
approve the final language of the conservation easement before it is recorded on the
various properties that are within the Preserve .
As stated in previous Staff Reports to the Council , there are City maintenance costs
associated with the ownership of the Malaga Canyon open space . Some of these costs to
3-2
PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESERVE
APRIL 1, 2014
PAGE3
the City would be offset by the PVPLC if the property is enrolled into the City 's NCCP
Preserve . These costs are described in the table below :
Maintenance Estimated Annual City PVPLC Task Cost
Fuel Modification $12 ,000 x
Entry Regulation
Signs (initial $750 x
Installation)
Trail Markers $980 x
Trash Collection No added cost if located x near street
Habitat Monitoring $5,300 x
Ranger No added cost x Enforcement
Total Cost $19 ,030 $12 ,750 $6 ,280
As shown, if enrolled in the Preserve , the City 's ongoing maintenance costs will primari ly
involve performing annual brush clearance on the property . The cost of the Preserve Rules
sign will be a one-time expenditure unless the signs are vandalized or removed . As for
trash collection , since the trash receptacles will be located at trailheads adjacent to City
streets , there will be no added cost as collection would be made a part of the
neighborhood's weekly collection. The same applies for ranger patrol time in Malaga
Canyon which is anticipated to be minimal compared to other parts of the Preserve due to
expected low level of use and will be included in its weekly patrol schedule .
In regards to trails, there are some portions of the Malaga Canyon property that include
historically used social trails that generally correspond to the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP ).
If the property is enrolled in the NCCP Preserve and these trails are included in an updated
Preserve Trails Plan (PTP), the PVPLC will be responsible for installing the trail markers at
the trail locations and performing the NCCP required habitat monitoring. In addition , trail
maintenance projects , based on future needs , may be undertaken by the PVPLC as
funding opportunities become available . Specifically , the Management Agreement states
that "trail maintenance " and "trail repair " on unimproved trails in the City Council approved
PTP is neither the City 's or the PVPLC 's obligation , but rather a permissive activity as
determined necessary by the PVPLC and as funding becomes available. It should be
noted that some new trail construction will be needed since a portion of one of the trails
identified in the CTP presently does not exist. Per the Management Agreement , the City is
responsible for new trail construction in the Preserve
If the Council agrees to enroll the Malaga Canyon property into the City 's Preserve , the
current Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC will need to be
amended to include the Malaga Canyon property . This would be a relatively simple task of
changing an attachment to the Agreement to include Malaga Canyon . Forth is reason , Staff
is recommending that the amended Agreement be placed on the Apri l 15 th City Council
agenda for approval as a Consent Calendar item.
3-3
PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESERVE
APRIL 1, 2014
PAGE4
In addition, the City Council adopted PUMP wi l l need to include this "Malaga Canyon
Reserve." Staff intends to prepare a draft PUMP Amendment for the new "Malaga Canyon
Reserve ," solicit public input and then present the proposed PUMP Amendment , including
an updated PTP , to the City Council for review and approval sometime this summer.
2. Removal of the Archery Range Property From the Preserve
The Abalone Cove Reserve is located between Palos Verdes Drive South and the
coastline and consists of a 63-acre portion of the Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and a 40-
acre parcel formally owned by the RDA and now owned by the Successor Agency to the
RDA. This parcel is referred to as the Archery Range Property. Although the Archery
Range Property has physical and other constraints that make habitat preservation
challenging and restoration almost impossible , the property , which has some fragmented
habitat (see attached vegetation map), was included in the City 's NCCP Preserve . It was
included because it is not developable and thus could facilitate wildlife movement to
adjoining Preserve properties . However, based on recent circumstances , which are
described below , Staff is now recommending that the 40-acre property be removed from
the Preserve . It should be noted that an NCCP Conservation easement has not been
recorded on said property and thus removal of the property from the Preserve is sole ly
within the purview of the City Council.
The main reason why Staff is now recommending removal of the Archery Range Property
from the Preserve is due to the ongoing landslide movement. The property is located in the
most active portion of the Portuguese Bend landslide . Recent data has shown that the
property is moving toward the ocean at varying rates of 2 to 20 feet per year . In addition to
destroying existing habitat and making any of the NCCP required hab itat restoration
fruitless , this landslide movement has caused two homes and PVDS to migrate onto the
property. While the City is in the process of trying to remove the homes and relocate a
portion of the roadway located near Gateway Park back to its proper right-of-way ,
continued landslide movement will cause other improvements and nearby homes to
eventually migrate onto the parcel over time . In addition , the City probably will need to
grade the area and repair or replace storm drains on the property from time to time in an
effort to mitigate landslide movement. Another reason for removal from the Preserve is that
the property is encumbered by an easement that gives the adjacent Portuguese Bend Club
the right to perform remedial grading on the parcel on as needed basis.
Staff has discussed this proposal with the State and Federal Wildlife Agenc ies that oversee
the City's NCCP and both agencies have opined that removal of the property from the
Preserve would not jeopardize the Agencies ' ability to approve the City 's final NCCP (see
attached email correspondence).
If the Council agrees with removing the Archery Range Property from the Preserve , the
current Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC will need to be
amended . This would be a relatively simple task of changing an attachment to the
Agreement to reflect the revised boundary . For this reason , Staff is recommending that the
amended Agreement be placed on the April 15th City Council agenda for approval as a
Consent Calendar item . Lastly , if the property is removed from the Preserve , the existing
3-4
PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESERVE
APRIL 1, 2014
PAGE 5
public trails would remain but be maintained by the City instead of the PVPLC .
Additionally , there are no plans to discontinue the use of the archery range pursuant to its
Conditional Use Permit.
In addition, the City Council-adopted PUMP will need to be amended to reflect this change
in the Preserve. Staff intends to make this draft PUMP Amendment , as part of the PUMP
amendment process described above for the inclusion of Malaga Canyon .
3. Reconfiguration of the Preserve Boundary with Gateway Park
Gateway Park , which was originally referred to as the Active Recreation Area (ARA), was
identified in the 2004 NCCP to be approximately 25 acres in size at the southern tip of the
Portuguese Bend Reserve. Thus , a 25-acre area was mapped by Staff in 2007 for
developing the "site concept plan" for purposes of the Coast Vision Plan. Subsequently ,
the 2008 Council adopted Coast Vision Plan identified the park area to be the future home
of an equestrian center with riding rings and public parking that would also serve as a
trailhead to the Preserve . None of the proposed improvements would consist of permanent
structures because of the active land movement in the area. The equestrian center
improvements were envisioned to be sponsored by the local equestrian community . To
date , no formal request to construct the improvements from the equestrian community has
been received by the City.
Last year, Staff was made aware of a proposed project by the Public Works Department
that would realign a segment of PVDS in the active Portuguese Bend landslide area . Th is
caused Staff to re-examine the mapping of the proposed Gateway Park area . As a result
of this, some of the previously mapped Gateway Park boundaries were modified so as not
to interfere with this important project. While doing this , Staff also sought to address the
question of area boundaries by matching the boundaries of Gateway Park with existing
boundaries (roads and trails) to the maximum extent possible . As a result , Staff proposes
reconfiguring Gateway Park to be approximately 17 acres in size with the approximately 7
acres removed going to the Preserve . Since Gateway Park is a product of the NCCP ,
these proposed changes have been reviewed and conceptually approved by the Wildlife
Agencies and PVPLC.
If the Council agrees with reconfiguration of the Preserve Area around Gateway Park , the
current Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC will need to be
amended to include the additional acreage into the Portuguese Bend Reserve property.
This would be a relatively simple task of changing an attachment to the Agreement to
reflect the revised boundary . For this reason , Staff is recommending that the amended
Agreement be placed on the April 15 1h City Council agenda for approval as a Consent
Calendar item .
In addition, the City Council-adopted PUMP will need to be amended to reflect this change
in the Preserve boundary with Gateway Park. Staff intends to make this draft PUMP
Amendment, as part of the PUMP amendment process described above for the inclusion of
Malaga Canyon .
3-5
PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESERVE
APRIL 1, 2014
PAGES
As for the Coast Vision Plan , if Gateway Park is reconfigured as recommended by Staff,
the Vision Plan will eventually have to be updated to reflect the change to the boundary
limits . Updating the conceptual design plan for this property identified in the Vision Plan
will involve public workshops where the type of improvements , including the proposed
equestrian center , may be cons idered .
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Notification
On March 17 , 2014 , Staff issued a list-serve message announcing that the City Counc il
would be considering tonight 's agenda item at its April 1, 2014 meeting . Additionally , upon
the transmittal of this report to the City Council , Staff will update the website and issue a
list-serve message announcing tonight 's meeting with a link to the Staff Report being
considered by the City Council.
Public Comments
At this time , the City has received one public correspondence from Ms . Cicoria (see
attachment) questioning the rationale for removing the Archery Range Property from the
Preserve , which is addressed by Staff in the discussion section of this report . If additional
public comments are received subsequent to the transmittal of this staff report , they will be
provided to the Council at the meeting as late correspondence.
FISCAL IMPACTS
As previously reported , the City 's maintenance costs for Malaga Canyon are estimated to
be $19 ,030. These costs would be reduced by $6 ,280 if the property is enrolled in the
Preserve . Staff anticipates a small fiscal impact from removing the Archery Range Property
from the Preserve since trail signage and maintenance on the property would become the
responsibility of the City . Staff estimates this cost to be $500 . Staff does not anticipate any
fiscal impact from the reconfiguration of the Preserve boundary with Gateway Park .
CONCLUSION
Based on the information provided herein , Staff recommends that the City Council enroll
the 58-acre Malaga Canyon property into the NCCP Preserve , remove the 40-acre Archery
Range Property from the Preserve and reconfigure the Preserve boundary line with
Gateway Park , thereby adding an additional 7 acres into the Preserve .
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendations , the City Council may cons ider the follow ing
alternatives to each independent recommendation :
1. Elect not to enroll Malaga Canyon into the City 's Preserve ;
3-6
PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESERVE
APRIL 1, 2014
PAGE 7
2 . Elect not to remove the Archery Range Property from the Preserve ;
3. Elect not to reconfigure the Preserve boundary line with Gateway Park ; or ,
4 . Identify additional concerns and direct Staff to gather more information and continue
the meeting to a date certain .
ATTACHMENTS
• March 14, 2014 PVPLC Letter
• Map of Malaga Canyon Property
• Map of Archery Range Property
• Email Correspondence Between Staff and Wildlife Agencies
• Map of Reconfigured Gateway Park
• Public Comments
3-7
March 14, 2014 PVPLC Letter
Proposed Amendments to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
3-8
PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABI TAT FOR THE EDUCATI ON AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL
March 14 , 2014
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
Re: Purchase of Ya Yi May and Angeles LLC properties
Dear Joel,
The Palos Verdes Peninsu la Land Conservancy has participated with you during the outreach to
the property owners of the Ya Yi May and Angeles LLC properties as supported the appraisal
process for these lands. We are thrilled that the City recently purchased these properties as
we support the conservation of these 58± acres.
Our Board of Directors has discussed these properties and desires to have them enrolled in
the pending Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and therefore become part of the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Enrollment in the NCCP would place these lands within the
current framework of land management as identified in the draft NCCP. The habitat
management would be provided by the PVPLC. Another outcome of enrolling these lands into
the NCCP is that a conservation easement wou ld be placed on the properties granted in favor
of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy.
Please let me know if there is any additional information that you require in order to have this
request considered. I may be reached at 310-541-7613 xJ 204.
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
? 16 SILVER SPUR ROAD It 207 ROLLING HUH ESTATES. CA 90274 -3826 T 310.541 .7613 F 310.541.7623 WWWPVPLC.ORG
3-9
Map of Malaga Canyon Property
Proposed Amendments to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
3-10
3-11
Map of Archery Range Property
Proposed Amendments to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
3-12
3-
1
3
Email Correspondence Between
Staff and Wildlife Agencies
Proposed Amendments to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
3-14
Ara Mihranian
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Tuesday, March 25 , 2014 12 :55 PM
Ara Mihranian To:
Subject: FW : Coastal Port Bend
Coastal_portuguese_Bend _Zoning _w ith_201 2 parcel .pdf; Attachments:
Coasta l_po rtu g uese _Bend _S pecies _ Vegetation_ w ith_2012 pa reel. pdf
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 5 :26 PM
To: Woulfe, MaryBeth ; Eric_Porter@fws .gov; Randy Rodriguez (Randy.Rodriguez@wildl ife .ca .gov )
Cc: Andrea Vona (avona@pvplc .org)
Subject: Coastal Port Bend
Hello
As we discussed, the City is proposing to not include the approximate 45-acre former RDA-owned Archery Range parcel
in the fina l Preserve des ign for the fo l lowing reasons:
1) Pursuant to the state law that dissolved RDA 's, all former RDA owned properties were required to be transferred
to a Successor Agency who was then required to prepare a Long Range Plan for the disposition and use of said
properties. The Long Range Plan must be approved by an Oversight Board and by the State Department of
Finance. According to the Successor Agency's Long Range Plan, the proposal for this property is to transfer
ownersh i p of the prope rty to the City for continued public use. While the Oversight Board has approved said
p lan, approval from the Department of Finance is still forthcoming. Placing a conservation easement on this
property as would be required of all Preserve properties would be problematic as such action would have to be
approved by the Oversight Board and State Department of Finance, entities which the City has no control of and
whose purpose is to preserve the value of said properties, something a conservation easement wou ld likely not
do.
2) The entire property is severely affected by an active landslide that would make any habitat restoration efforts
required by the NCCP impossible to successfully complete. The property is located in the most active port ion of
the Portuguese Bend landslide. Movement on the property has been measured at 2 feet to 20 feet per year.
3) Because of the landslide movement, two homes and the City's PVDS arterial highway have migrated onto the
property. While the City is currently involved in liti gation to remove the homes and the roadway can be moved
back to its proper right-of-way, continued landslide movement will cause other nearby homes and the roadway
to cont i nue to migrate onto the parcel over time.
4) The property is encumbered by an easement that predates the RDA's ownership that gives the adjacent
Portuguese Bend Cl ub the right to perform remedial grading on the parcel on as needed basis.
5) As shown on one of the attached aerials, about 38 acres of the approximate 40 acres that were slated to be in
t he Preserve, are zoned Open Space Hazard (OH) meaning that they would still be conserved as Neutral Lands.
6) As shown on one of the attached aerials, of the approximate 40 acres that were slated to be in the Preserve,
there are only approximately 6 acres of CSS, all of which would be still be conserved as Neutral Lands.
7) Despite not being in the Preserve, the City intends to re-designa te the land use of the property in the General
Plan as Open Space Conservation, the same classification as the actual NCCP Preserve properties.
Therefore, the City requests confirmation from the wildlife agencies that not including said property in the Preserve will
not comprom ise the NCCP findings that need to be made for final approval of the City's NCCP.
1 3-15
Thanks and have a happy ho l iday break.
Joel
2 3-16
3
-
1
7
Sensitive Species
• California Gnatcatcher
• South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex Pacifica)
Vegetation
-CSS - R hus Dominated
3
-
1
8
Ara Mihranian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI
Joel Rojas
Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11 :03 AM
Ara Mihranian
FW : Coastal Port Bend
From: Woulfe, MaryBeth [mailto:marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9 :50 AM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Eric_Porter@fws.gov; Randy Rodriguez (Randy .Rodriguez@wildlife .ca .gov); Andrea Vona (avona@pvplc .org);
Jonathan Snyder
Subject: Re: Coastal Port Bend
Hi Joel -
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your email of December 19 , 2013 , regarding the 45 -acre former
RDA-owned Archery Range parcel. We understand that the City is proposing to not include the parcel in the f i nal
Preserve design based on the reasons stated in the email below. Pursuant to the City 's requests , the Serv ice confirms
that even though the property is being removed from the City's proposed Preserve , the currently proposed Preserve
design remains consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's NCCP/HCP.
Please let me or Eric know if you have any questions.
Thanks , Mary Beth
On Thu, Dec 19 , 2013 at 5 :25 PM, Jo e l Roj as <Joe lR@ rpv .co m> wro t e:
Hello
As we discussed, the City is proposing to not include the approximate 45-acre former RDA-ovvned Archery
Range parcel in the final Preserve design for the follO\ving reasons:
1) Pursuant to the s tate law that dissolved RDA 's, all former RDA owned properties were required to be
transferred to a Successor Agency who was then required to prepare a Long Range Plan for the disposition and
use of sai d properties. The Long Range P lan must be approved by an Oversight Board and by the State
Department of Finance. Acco rdin g to the Successor Agency's Long Range Plan, the proposal for this property
is to transfer ovvnership of the property to the City for continued public use. While the Oversight Board has
approved said plan, approval from the Department of Finance is sti ll forthcoming. Placing a conservation
easement on this property as would be required of all Preserve properties would be problematic as such action
would have to be approved by the Oversight Board and State Depa1tment of Finance, entities which the City
has no control of and whose purpose is to preserve the value of said properties, something a conservation
easement wo uld likely not do.
2) The e ntire property is severe ly affected by an active landslide that would make any habitat restoration
efforts required by the NCCP impossi ble to su ccessfully complete . The property is located in the most active
1 3-19
portion of the Portuguese Bend landslide. Movement on the property has been measured at 2 feet to 20 feet per
year.
3) Because of the landsli de movement. two homes and the City 's PVDS arterial highway have migrated onto
the property . While the City is currently inv olved in litigation to remove the homes and the roadway can be
moved back to its proper right-of-way , continlled land s lid e movement will Calise other nearby homes and the
roadway to continue to migrate onto the parcel over time.
4) The property i s encumbered by an easem ent that predates t h e RDA ·s ownership that gives the adjacent
Portuguese Bend Cl ub the ri gh t to perform remedial grading on the parcel on as needed basis.
5) As shown on o ne of the attached aer ia ls, about 3 8 acres of the approximate 40 acres that were slated to be
in the Pre serve, are zo ned Open Space Hazard (OH) meaning that they would still be conserved as eutral
Lands.
6) As shmvn on one of the attached aerials, of the approximate 40 acres that were slated to be in the Preserve.
there are onl y approximate ly 6 acres of CSS, all of which would be stil l be conserved as Neutral Lands.
7) Despite not b ei ng in the Preserve. the C ity intends to re-designate the land use of the property in the
General Plan as Open Space Conservat ion . the same c lassification as the actual NCCP Preserve
properties.
Therefore, the City requ est s confirmation from the wild li fe agencies that not including said property in the
Preserve \Nill not co mpromi se the NCCP findings that need to be made for final approval of the City's NCCP.
Thanks and have a happy ho liday break .
Joel
Thanks , Mary Beth
Mary Beth Woulfe
U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service
Fi sh and Wildlife Biologist
Section 6 Coordinator
2 3-20
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, California 92008
760.431.9440, ext. 294
3 3-21
Ara Mihranian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI
Joel Rojas
Tuesda y, March 18, 2014 11 :03 AM
Ara Mihranian
FW: Coastal Port Bend
From: Rodriguez, Randy@Wildlife [mailto :Randy.Rodriguez@wildlife .ca .gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11 :40 AM
To: Woulfe, MaryBeth ; Joel Rojas
Cc: Eric_Porter@fws.gov; Andrea Vona (avona@pvplc .org); Jonathan Snyder; Mayer, David@Wildlife
Subject: RE : Coastal Port Bend
Hi Joel/ A ll :
T h e Department h as also r eviewed yo ur 12 /19 /13 e-mail on th e former RDA parcel. \Ve also confirm that even if the
property is removed from th e City's NCCP preser ve, the propose d preserve design would remain substantiall y consistent with
the goals/ o b jectives of the City's draft CCP /HCP that we expect to complete this year.
If yo u h ave any fu rth er qu estions, please let me or Dave know.
Thank yo u,
Randy
From: Woulfe, MaryBeth [mailto:marybeth woulfe @fws.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:50 AM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Eric Porter@fws.gov; Rodriguez, Randy @Wildlife; Andrea Vona (avona @pvplc.org); Jonathan Snyder
Subject: Re: Coastal Port Bend
Hi Joel -
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your email of December 19 , 2013 , regarding the 45-acre former
RDA-owned Archery Range parcel. We understand that the City is proposing to not include the parce l in the final
Preserve design based on the reasons stated in the email below. Pursuant to the City 's requests , the Service confirms
that even though the property is being removed from the City 's proposed Preserve , the currently proposed Preserve
design remains consistent with the goals and objectives of the City 's NCCP/HCP .
Please let me or Eric know if you have any questions .
Thanks , Mary Beth
On Thu , Dec 19 , 2013 at 5:25 PM, Joel R ojas <Joe lR{a),rp v.co m > wrote:
Hello
As we discussed. the City is proposing to not include the approximate 45 -acre former RDA-owned Archery
Range parcel in the final Preserve design for the following reasons :
1 3-22
1) Pursuant to the state law that dissolved RDA ·s. all former RDA owned prope1iies were required to be
transferred to a Successor Agency who was then required to prepare a Long Range Plan for the disposition and
use of said properties. The Long Range Plan must be approved by an Oversight Board and by the State
Department of Finance. According to the Successor Agency's Long Range Plm1 , the proposal fo r this property
is to transfer ownership of the property to the City for continued public use. While the Oversight Board has
approved said plan, approval from the Department of Finance is still forthcoming. Placing a conservation
easement on this property as would be required of all Preserve properties would be problematic as such action
wou ld have to be approved by the Oversight Board and State Departm.ent of Finance, entities which the City has
no contro l of and whose pmpose is to preserve the value of said properties , something a conservation easement
wou ld likely not do.
2) The entire property is severely affected by an active landslide that would make any habitat restoration
effort s required by the NCCP impossible to successfully complete. The property is located in the most active
portion of the Portuguese Bend landslide. Movement on the property has been measured at 2 feet to 20 feet per
year.
3) Because of the landslide movement. two homes and the City's PVDS arterial highway have migrated onto
the property. While the City is currently involved in litigation to remove the homes and the roadway can be
moved back to its proper right-of-way. continued landslide movement will cause other nearby home s and the
roadway to continue to migrate onto the parcel over time.
4) The property is encumbered by an ea se ment that predates the RDA ·s ownership that gives the adjacent
Portuguese Bend Club the right to perform remedial grading on the parcel on as needed basis.
5) As shown on one of the attached aerials, about 38 acres of the approximate 40 acres that \Vere slated to be
in the Preserve, are zo ned Open Space Hazard (OH) meaning that they would still be conserved as Ne utral
Lands.
6) As shown on one of the attached aerials, of the approximate 40 acres that were slated to be in the Pre serve,
there are only approximately 6 acres of CSS , all of which would be still be conserved as Neutral Lands.
7) Despite not being in the Preserve, the City intends to re-designate the land use of the property in the
General Plan as Open Space Conservation, the same classification as the actual NCCP Preserve
properties.
Therefore, the City requests confirmation from the wildlife agencies that not including said property in the
Preserve will not compromise the NCCP findings that need to be made for final approval of the City's NCCP .
Thanks and have a happy holiday break.
Joel
2 3-23
Thanks, Mary Beth
Mary Beth Woulfe
U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Biolo gist
Section 6 Coordinator
2 177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad , California 92008
760.4 3 1.9440 , ext. 294
3 3-24
Map of Reconfigured Gateway Park
Proposed Amendments to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
3-25
Gateway Park
Gateway Park Reconfiguration
3
-
2
6
Public Comments
Proposed Amendments to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
3-27
Ara Mihranian
From: cicoriae@aol.com
Sent:
To:
Thursday, March 20 , 2014 10:26 AM
Ara Mihranian
Subject: Fw d : parcel seaward of Gate w ay Park
Ara , thank you for your prompt reply. The problem with this :
If the property is removed from the NCCP , Staff proposes that it remain as open space and change the
land use designation to Open Space Conservation to ensure the property and trails remain open to the
public .
is that it can change on a whim . I was hoping to understand the rationale for remov ing the NCCP protection s before the
staff report comes out. I won't have more to say before then , so please convey my concerns to C ity Council by includin g
this email stream in the packet for April 1.
Thank you .
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpv.com>
To : cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
Sent: Wed , Mar 19, 2014 4 :30 pm
Subject: RE: parcel seaward of Gateway Park
Hi Eva ,
First off, I want to clarify that the City Council meeting is on April 1st not April 2nd. The list-serve message had the wrong
date in the subject line but the correct date in the body of the message. The correct date will be cited in next week 's list-
serve that announces the availability of the staff report.
You are correct , a sliver of inspiration point is part of what is referred to as the archery range property .
The Council has not made a decision on this proposed change and will be presented w ith the rationale for consideration
at its April 1 st meeting . In other words the property has not been removed . The Council may decide not to support Staff's
recommendat ion and keep the property enrolled in the NCCP preserve .
I am working on the Staff Report now. If the property is removed from the NCCP , Staff proposes that it remain as open
space and change the land use designation to Open Space Conservation to ensure the property and tra il s remain open to
the public.
More information will be in the April 1 st City Council Staff Report . If you have concerns you would lik e the Counc il to
review as part of the Staff Report , please send them to me by Tuesday next week.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
1 3-28
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fa x)
aram@rpv .com
www .palosverdes .com/rpv
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message co ntains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Ve rd es , which may be privileged , confidential and /or protected from
disclosure . The information is in tende d only for use of the individual or entity named . Unauthorized dissemination , distribution , or copy ing is strictly prohibited . If
yo u received this emai l in error, or are not an intended recipient , please notify the sender immediately . Thank you for your ass istance and cooperation .
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto :cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday , March 19 , 2014 2 :35 PM
To: Ara Mihranian
Subject: parcel seaward of Gateway Park
Hi Ara ,
I am concerned about this item in the recent listserv announcement for the April 2 City Counc il meeting :
" ... the Council will be asked to amend , at a later date , the Management Agreement and the PUMP Document to reflect
the removal of the Archery Club property from the Preserve ... "
I believe that the reference to the "Archery Club property" includes a long stretch of property on the ocean s ide of Pa lo s
Verdes Drive South that extends from the Portuguese Bend Club to Inspiration Po int. Can you confirm , please?
When was the "Archery Club property " removed from the Preserve? When was the publ ic notified of a public hearing
regarding its removal? Or has it not been removed and it w ill be discussed at the April 2 meeting?
When the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve was being formed , we were told that the goa l was to set aside contiguous
natural open space to the extent possible . The City committed to contribute certa in lands to the cause , including the
parcel you are calling the Archery C lub property . Why is the City now see ki ng to remove it from the protections of the
NCCP and what does the City plan to do with the parcel , in particular the section that actual ly includes the arc hery range
and abuts , and based on the map I have seen includes part of, Insp irat ion Point ?
Eva
2 3-29